Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-23-2019 8:30 AM
25 online now:
AZPaul3, JoeT, PaulK, RAZD, Theodoric (5 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,110 Year: 5,147/19,786 Month: 1,269/873 Week: 165/460 Day: 10/97 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
14Next
Author Topic:   Are sexual prohibitions mixing religion and the law?
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 206 (261936)
11-21-2005 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Lizard Breath
11-21-2005 11:28 AM


Re: Stranglehold
It effectivly illuminates what the Bible calls the "Sin Nature" of man as it explains the basic sex drive mechanics as the sole determiner to behavior.

Circular definition. If you define the natural tendancy of humans to be "sinful" - and make no mistake, there's nothing more natural than the human desire to both step out on your partner and to prevent your partner from doing the same - then obviously you're going to think science uncovers a "sin nature."

Evolution more than explains why partners cheat, and why their partners try to keep them from cheating. Religion is a social tool used to try to impose the latter, but, quite predictably, does nothing to prevent the former.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Lizard Breath, posted 11-21-2005 11:28 AM Lizard Breath has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Lizard Breath, posted 11-21-2005 1:12 PM crashfrog has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 278 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 62 of 206 (261946)
11-21-2005 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Silent H
11-21-2005 11:22 AM


Re: Science doesn't make moral judgements
quote:
The first thing I would ask you is what you are using to define consent? If you mean willing to go along with/desiring such contact then there is no real age where it is impossible to give consent.

So, you believe a newborn infant can consent to sexual contact with another person?

If so, how do you know?

quote:
If you mean full on penetrative intercourse then that'll have physical limits set by the individuals.

Is a newborn infant physically capable of being penetrated?

I'd like to restrict this discussion to full on penetrative intercourse, to make things clearer.

quote:
The second thing I might ask, to start another important track in this argument you'd be making, is what does nonconsent have to do with being a problem such that it needs to be controlled in some way? For example at which age would you say that it is impossible for a person to consent to eating jello, and if there is such a boundary, what would make it problematic to feed the person jello?

First of all, how is "eating jello" a comparable activity, wrt the potential consequences and risks, to engaging in full on penetrative intercourse?

quote:
Kids are better than adults in letting people know exactly what they want and don't want. Whether they can be beat down is something else entirely.

Well, then let me rephrase.

Is there any age below which you would consider it unreasonable for a person be expected to fully understand the risks and consequences of giving consent to having sexual intercourse with anyone?

Furhtermore, is there any age below which you would consider it unreasonable for a child to be able to defy or resist the cultural authority and power asigned adults over children, the use of coercive or pressuring methods, or the ability to detect dishonesty in an adult?

IOW, at what age would you consider it too much to ask for a child to have to deal with all of that?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Silent H, posted 11-21-2005 11:22 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Silent H, posted 11-21-2005 5:00 PM nator has responded

    
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 63 of 206 (261947)
11-21-2005 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by nator
11-21-2005 10:02 AM


Re: Science doesn't make moral judgements
quote:
Can I pretend that I'm different from the religious right if I honestly don't care if 13 year olds have sex with adults?

What about 12 year olds?


Ask randman. But if I'm interpreting his response correctly, then he would reply that even if I don't care whether 12 year old have sex with adults, there are other laws I would support based on my morality; so, to answer your question, no, I still could not pretend that I am different from the religious right.

This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 21-Nov-2005 06:40 PM


"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt
This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by nator, posted 11-21-2005 10:02 AM nator has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 278 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 64 of 206 (261948)
11-21-2005 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Silent H
11-21-2005 11:31 AM


quote:
There are plenty of lonely men who are willing to give consent, but there are plenty of lonely men who can be taken advantage of. The law has to draw a single line for everybody, some fall on one sideof the law, some on the other.

This is an equal position for sexual laws nixing gay sex. My guess is you would not agree with them.

The idea that repression of one group can be justified by the protection of some within that group who suffer something that has no connection to that first group is pretty ridiculous. You can't stop rape by making sex illegal.


There are plenty of 10 year old boys who want to be in the Army.

Are consent laws regarding the legal age of conscription ridiculous?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Silent H, posted 11-21-2005 11:31 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Silent H, posted 11-21-2005 5:07 PM nator has responded

    
Lizard Breath
Member (Idle past 4804 days)
Posts: 376
Joined: 10-19-2003


Message 65 of 206 (261981)
11-21-2005 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by crashfrog
11-21-2005 11:39 AM


Re: Stranglehold
Religion is a social tool used to try to impose the latter, but, quite predictably, does nothing to prevent the former.

I agree with you. But I draw a distinction between Biblical teaching and religion. I think that the Commandment on Adultery and the exposition of it in Mathew are ment as instruction and as a protection mechanism. They reveal the condiction of man's motives.

Religions try to usurp the power and provocation of the Biblical teaching on the ordained use of sex with a legalistic formula that becomes a stranglehold and meaningless. It's like if someone tells you not to play in the street unless it has been sanctioned and properly blocked off for the purpose of a play area, vs trying to keep someone on the sidewalk by screaming at them with your hands around their throat. You would obviously try to break free of the stranglehold reguarldess of the message being verbally conveyed.

Circular definition. If you define the natural tendancy of humans to be "sinful"

It is natural for man to go against God's way. That is what became alive in man at the fall. Before the fall, the Bible says that man was innocent but not perfect. If he was perfect, he would not have the ability to cultivate a sin nature. But without the ability to cultivate the sin nature, the concept of choice in the garden would have been absurd. Science describes all this as the natural tendencies. Same phenomenon but with a different discription of origin. Interesting note, long before science described it as a natural result of evolution, the Bible recognized it, tagged it, described it and gave it's origin.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2005 11:39 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2005 1:19 PM Lizard Breath has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 206 (261986)
11-21-2005 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Lizard Breath
11-21-2005 1:12 PM


Re: Stranglehold
Interesting note, long before science described it as a natural result of evolution, the Bible recognized it, tagged it, described it and gave it's origin.

An origin that doesn't really explain anything. "People do bad things because they're bad." But people aren't bad. People are mostly good. I mean, look around you. At your friends and family and the people you love. Are those all bad people? Are they all evil in their hearts?

I can't believe that you would believe that; if you do truly believe that you must be a very lonely person.

But I draw a distinction between Biblical teaching and religion.

I don't see the distinction. All religions justify their precepts in the same way that you just did.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Lizard Breath, posted 11-21-2005 1:12 PM Lizard Breath has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Lizard Breath, posted 11-21-2005 1:52 PM crashfrog has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 67 of 206 (262002)
11-21-2005 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Lizard Breath
11-21-2005 11:28 AM


Re: Stranglehold
quote:
The precepts that are in the Bible are given by the Creator to allow sexual activity to be a liberating and satisfying activity between a husband and wife.

I guess that would be true, for those who are into that sort of thing.


"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt
This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Lizard Breath, posted 11-21-2005 11:28 AM Lizard Breath has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by berberry, posted 11-21-2005 1:54 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded
 Message 70 by Lizard Breath, posted 11-21-2005 1:57 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
Lizard Breath
Member (Idle past 4804 days)
Posts: 376
Joined: 10-19-2003


Message 68 of 206 (262003)
11-21-2005 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by crashfrog
11-21-2005 1:19 PM


Re: Stranglehold
An origin that doesn't really explain anything. "People do bad things because they're bad." But people aren't bad. People are mostly good. I mean, look around you. At your friends and family and the people you love. Are those all bad people? Are they all evil in their hearts?

What do you mean by a good person or a bad person. Would you draw a contrast between the two in your perception. I know how I want to answer the question but first I want to know how you catagorize a person in to which column.

I believe that people are mostly law abiding but who deffinitly need the laws. I love my friends and family despite their badness. God says that he loves man despite man's badness. How hard would it be for you to love a child who is 90% good? Not hard at all. But take an average child who is 90% bad and try to love them. You still do because love transends the behavioral tendencies.

So loneliness is not a condiction contingent on other people's behavior or even your own perception of other people's behavioral tendency. It doesn't mean that bad people cannot do good. It means that the sin nature of man is dominant and guides the behavior to be bad.

If people were mostly good, things like prisons, criminal law, court rooms and lawyers would be rare. Locks, car alarms, home security systems, armies, personal firearms, servalience cameras and the like would have a very limited market share instead of being common place items in our society.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2005 1:19 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2005 2:20 PM Lizard Breath has not yet responded

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 206 (262004)
11-21-2005 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Chiroptera
11-21-2005 1:50 PM


Re: Stranglehold
Chiroptera writes Lizard Breath:

quote:
quote:
The precepts that are in the Bible are given by the Creator to allow sexual activity to be a liberating and satisfying activity between a husband and wife.

I guess that would be true, for those who are into that sort of thing.


Shame, isn't it? Especially when you consider that help is available to get people out of that lifestyle.


"We look forward to hearing your vision, so we can more better do our job. That's what I'm telling you."-George W. Bush, Gulfport, Miss.,
Sept. 20, 2005.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Chiroptera, posted 11-21-2005 1:50 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Omnivorous, posted 11-21-2005 2:48 PM berberry has not yet responded

  
Lizard Breath
Member (Idle past 4804 days)
Posts: 376
Joined: 10-19-2003


Message 70 of 206 (262006)
11-21-2005 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Chiroptera
11-21-2005 1:50 PM


Re: Stranglehold
I guess that would be true, for those who are into that sort of thing.

No, it's true period. If you are involved in an activity that is outside of the boundries of the Bible's precepts, then you might find it satisfying for a time and even experience the illusion of liberation.

But if Sin wasn't fun and satisfying, at least at the onset, who would do it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Chiroptera, posted 11-21-2005 1:50 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by nator, posted 11-21-2005 2:01 PM Lizard Breath has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 278 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 71 of 206 (262008)
11-21-2005 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Lizard Breath
11-21-2005 1:57 PM


Re: Stranglehold
If you are involved in an activity that is outside of the boundries of the Bible's precepts, then you might find it satisfying for a time and even experience the illusion of liberation.

But if Sin wasn't fun and satisfying, at least at the onset, who would do it?

quote:
If you are involved in an activity that is within the boundries of the Bible's precepts, then you might find it satisfying for a time and even experience the illusion that you are doing what you are supposed to do to get a reward after you die.

But if following a religion's rules wasn't comforting and rewarded by the religious and greater community, at least at the onset, who would do it?


This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-21-2005 02:03 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Lizard Breath, posted 11-21-2005 1:57 PM Lizard Breath has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 206 (262014)
11-21-2005 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Lizard Breath
11-21-2005 1:52 PM


Re: Stranglehold
What do you mean by a good person or a bad person.

They're your friends, so let's go with what you think those terms mean. Are your friends, family, and loved ones bad people? Your fellow soldiers, your brothers in arms? Bad people, every one?

If people were mostly good, things like prisons, criminal law, court rooms and lawyers would be rare.

Well, they are. The vast majority of people won't ever see the inside of a courtroom or jail except on TV or a guided tour. Less than 1% of Americans are incarcerated. And the purpose of lawyers goes, of course, well beyond criminal defense or prosecution.

Locks, car alarms, home security systems, armies, personal firearms, servalience cameras and the like would have a very limited market share instead of being common place items in our society.

In the town where I grew up, almost nobody locks their doors, car, house, or otherwise; it's not uncommon to come back from the store and find a good friend waiting in your living room enjoying one of your sodas, and you're glad to see him there. And I'm not that old.

Most people are good people. Very good people. So an origin of behavior that explains that our friends do bad things because they're actually bad people doesn't jive with observation.

"Sin nature"? I don't see it. But evolution not only explains why people do things you consider "sins", but also why you consider them sins in the first place. It's the better explanation, to my mind.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Lizard Breath, posted 11-21-2005 1:52 PM Lizard Breath has not yet responded

  
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 1076 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 73 of 206 (262024)
11-21-2005 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by berberry
11-21-2005 1:54 PM


Re: Stranglehold
Berberry writes:

Chiroptera writes Lizard Breath:

quote:
quote:
The precepts that are in the Bible are given by the Creator to allow sexual activity to be a liberating and satisfying activity between a husband and wife.

I guess that would be true, for those who are into that sort of thing.


Shame, isn't it? Especially when you consider that help is available to get people out of that lifestyle.

I hear they are doing wonderful work at the Bonobo Center for Sensuocognitive Assonance. Personally, I feel that first achieving a comfort level on one's own with a modest metrosexual stance facilitates an expansive realization of our Bonobo Cosmosexual Potential (BCP).

:rolleyes:

But that's just one big ape's opinion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by berberry, posted 11-21-2005 1:54 PM berberry has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 74 of 206 (262064)
11-21-2005 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by crashfrog
11-21-2005 11:36 AM


Re: Science doesn't make moral judgements
the second are the precepts we draw on the basis of their objective, testable merit to society.

You can define or assess morals differently from ethics. However both, as long as they generate a conclusion of value to something, are not objective and include wholly subjective criteria. The concept of merit is inherently a subjective term.

Here is an example. The ancient aztecs believed there was great merit in the amount of crying a child did before a sacrifice. We could objectively measure this and so judge its merits, but that would not be judged a merit across societies.

I see consent as an ethical issue because the issue itself is ameinable to objective study. Objectively, there are some people who cannot understand the risks of what they agree to do; thus, their consent is meaningless. And persons who place them in those risks knowing that they cannot understand them are culpable, just as they would be if they exposed someone to a risk directly against their will.

Here we have entered the realm of defining what consent is. Unfortunately the concept that those who cannot understand risk cannot assent is not objective. That is a subjective definition. Essentially what you have done here is make consent=risk assessment capability.

Why could a person not validly say that consent is merely giving positive assent to an activity? You say without risk knowledge it is meaningless, but is that objective? The other person could reasonably say that it does have meaning. It tells that person whether the person wants to do something given what they know, even if it is merely their own will.

The second step you take is even more subjective. One cannot objectively equate a person who involves another (who is unable to assess a risk) in an activity, with a person who forces a person to take a risk against there will. They are quite patently not equal situations, though one can subjectively feel they are the same "level" of risk imposition.

In addition to equating two separate issues, it also imposes a responsibility or culpability which does not objectively exist. There are other cultures which do not believe one is responsible for the actions of others at all, and it is up to the individual to learn for themself through experience. Are they objectively incorrect?

But let's ignore that issue and assume for sake of argument that what you have said is logically possible and indeed objective.

A child or mentally challenged person (MCP) would not be able to assess the risks involved with eating jello, crossing the street, or swimming. Would you define them as being unable to consent to such activities, and those who would involve them in such activity as equal to forcing them to do such things against their will?

As it is age and experience hardly makes anyone fully or equally knowledgeable about risks involved with all activities. Does this make a more knowledgeable person responsible for the decisions of all less knowledgable people they may interact with?

It might also ask what risks is a person who has no stds, and does not go outside of physical limits of a child, put a prepubescent in? Or in the case of someone sterilized and has no stds, put anyone in?

surely you believe that coercion exists?

Yes. But my definition of coercion means that a person has not consented, unless it is the consent to the lesser alternative between two harms forced upon them.

Or that an extremely young or developmentally retarded person could consent to a risk they simply can't understand?

Consent to an activity is not equal to consent to all risks possible. When does anyone of any age know all risks involved with any activity? It was earlier thought that masturbators and homosexuals were essentially MCPs with regard to sexual activity. They were not capable of understanding the risks they were exposing themselves and others to. Is this the case? No? How would you go about assessing this?

Assuming age equals competence for such people is not valid.

Certainly it destroyed the link between consent and age, but the idea of consent in general? I don't see how you think it did that. Do you honestly believe that a two-year-old, for instance, could meaningfully appreciate the risks of operating a power tool? Or a firearm? I mean, isn't that why we lock up our guns? Because our young children aren't able to understand the risks of their use?

Don't you see that you are slowly moving the goalposts by changing definitions, and indeed are missing an important underlying point?

The study looked at harm as related to consent. That is does harm correlate with concepts of consent? The ongoing practice was to link consent to age, with the assumption that they are all unwilling under a certain age and so will face harm. Ergo it looked at harm as related to age. Since you equate forcing someone to risk harm with those choosing to undergo unknown harm, based merely on age, the study's results still holds some validity.

It is correct that they were not measuring differing ability to assess risk, but that does not validate your concept that consent is properly linked to risk assessment, nor undercut the importance that one cannot automatically link harm with age.

That has some impact even if one believes that less knowledge of risk leads to actual greater risk.

By the way, if I have not mentioned yet, there are cultures that allow children to play with what we would call dangerous tools. Are they unethical to you? They say they are quite ethical and argue that their method builds self-reliance and responsibility. Is this not possible?


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2005 11:36 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2005 8:42 PM Silent H has responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 75 of 206 (262074)
11-21-2005 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by nator
11-21-2005 11:52 AM


Re: Science doesn't make moral judgements
So, you believe a newborn infant can consent to sexual contact with another person?

Yes.

If so, how do you know?

How would you not know? When babies don't like anything they cry like hell.

Is a newborn infant physically capable of being penetrated?

I don't know. I would say not for most things. I guess it depends on what you want to put in it, and where you want to stick it. If you mean a full grown man's cock, then no.

First of all, how is "eating jello" a comparable activity, wrt the potential consequences and risks, to engaging in full on penetrative intercourse?

I'm sorry but there are risks with everything. Two do not have to be equal in degree in order to be said it pose risk and that a person might not understand what that risk is.

If you criteria for consent is knowing all risk then a child cannot consent to eating jello.

What risks can eating jello pose? Besides introducing sugar addiction, bad diets, and bad teeth, one can choke to death on jello, or even get sick depending on how it was made.

Is there any age below which you would consider it unreasonable for a person be expected to fully understand the risks and consequences of giving consent to having sexual intercourse with anyone?

Well that is hard since I don't consider it reasonable to expect that adults fully understand the risks involved with anything.

But since you want to limit this to full sexual penetration, anyone can tell when they are being penetrated beyond their capability, unless they are incapable of feeling pain.

I am unsure what age would be the practical age for identifying possible sexual diseases. My guess would be minimum 8-9 years? With instruction of course. That'd be like instructing them in any other protective skill.

And before you jump all over me for this, I am actually shooting higher than actual programs in existence. There are sexual safety programs instructing kids as young as five and six. I remember watching some actress blubbering as she explained how they needed to be instructed in such things in that country.

I am still not into equating risk assessment with consent.

is there any age below which you would consider it unreasonable for a child to be able to defy or resist the cultural authority and power asigned adults over children, the use of coercive or pressuring methods, or the ability to detect dishonesty in an adult?

I don't think this is what you wanted to ask. My obvious answer would be that it sis reasonable for a child to defy and resist anyone of any age doing something they don't want to do.

I think you meant that they'd have that ability. That they can let it be known, there is no age they cannot let their will be known. That they can try to defy, any. That they can ultimately succeed, depends on the child and family, but probably won't have total success until 12-13.

Detect dishonesty? Who can do that at any age? I've been getting screwed by liars my whole life.

at what age would you consider it too much to ask for a child to have to deal with all of that?

Ohhhhh booohoooo, let me go running from the room in tears for the poor kids! Oh wait, no this is reality and appeals to emotion are just fallacies.

Let me ask you a question: at what age is it too much to ask a child to have to deal with being told they must go to church? To finish all that has been put on the plate? To do anything they do not want to do, because some adult wants them to do it?

And indeed why is telling kids they cannot engage in sexual activity if they are wanting to, somehow less of an imposition than anything you have posed. In psych there are a lot more problem people coming from sexually repressive environments than from sexually permissive environments.

See that's the problem with your world view. You argue as if potential risk as actual risk as real risk as something that all kids will face and so we need to protect them. And that there is no consequence from repression in the name of protection.

Instead of noting that the stats in the real world do not support such a view of risk and in fact there are negative consequences from stepping on people's sexual desires at young ages.

Do you honestly believe that kids cannot be abused to not have sex?

You keep wanting to get graphic and push limits that are not pertinent to a discussion on whether consent is possible, or if harm comes from sexual activity.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by nator, posted 11-21-2005 11:52 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 7:19 PM Silent H has responded
 Message 92 by nator, posted 11-22-2005 3:38 PM Silent H has responded

    
Prev1234
5
67
...
14Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019