Atheist evolutionists: How far will you allow yourselves of sexual perversities?

mark24 writes: The point being I said consent was required & peg provided an example where consent was impossible.

so if a male dog actively participates in a sexual act with a female human, the dog is not consenting?

It is not engaging in informed, legally recognisable, consent, no.

One could argue that a child could "consent" to sex if initiated, or did as they were told without protesting, that doesn't make it a form of consent we should recognise.

That works for me.

Peg writes: sure animals can consent they've made a whole porn industry out of it

So... your logic for consent follows:

Pron Industry + Item/Person/Animal = Consent

ROFL, so let's put it to the test, shall we?

Pron Industry + 9 year old virgin = Consent

I mean, I'm sure someone has made a pron industry of it... right?

Edited by Michamus, : Changed it to pron for the sheltered

Edited by Michamus, : No reason given.

so if a male dog actively participates in a sexual act with a female human, the dog is not consenting?

What Mr. Jack said. The ability to go along with an act, even to express desire to perform an act, does not imply the mental capacity to provide consent.

When I was a teenager, being male, I would have leapt at the chance to have sex with an adult female. My desire, the fact that I could even have initiated the act, my ability to day "let's do this," all have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not I would have been able to provide consent.

That's why we have laws about sex with kids, whether it's "consensual" or not - kids are not mentally and emotionally able to give informed consent - to say nothing of the authority that adults carry with respect to children

For yet another example, if I as a sober male have sex with a drunk-as-a-skunk female at a party, I can be charged with rape even if she initiated the act. She was inebriated to the point of being unable to give informed consent - if she has day-after regrets, I'm screwed.

Animals are the same way. They have no way of giving informed consent, even if the animal in question actually tries to initiate the act.

Michamus writes:

quote:

---

I mean, I'm sure someone has made a pron industry of it... right?

---

Rule 34: No matter what, no matter how bizarre or strange you think it is, somebody somewhere has porn of it.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

lol i obviously wasnt taking myself as seriously as you

Heh - maybe, but it's important to be clear about consent and 'not complaining' because the conversation so often turns to animals and children and clarifying that consent is different than...oh, too late.

It's a good question but a bit of a flame-thrower. It might be better to ask; "Does the sinful nature, which applies to us all, abound in us if we allow for sexual freedom."

From my point of view, it is hard because I am sinful, and everyone is, and I probably, like most people, don't see this like God does.

I think this present world and it's freedoms, provide a very, very strong proof that sin is prevailent, through the means of lust.

How far should a person lust? That would be a more cordial topic. I think we are a bit hypocritical if we apply this to atheists, as our position is that all have sin.

This is why people think we have "homophobia", if we pick out certain folk, but I should also mention that staright-sex fornication is not permissable under the New Testament and many christians will partake in this.

My conclusion is that sin can only be dealt with internally. No human solution will work, or none-Theist solution. until a rapist DESIRES righteousness, he will continue to obey his sinful nature.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

well, a man in japan recently had consensual sex with a bench at a bus stop

I know that bench, and it told me specifically that it did NOT consent.

mike the wiz writes: This is why people think we have "homophobia", if we pick out certain folk, but I should also mention that staright-sex fornication is not permissable under the New Testament and many christians will partake in this.

So your position is that all sex, even when a husband and wife make love, is sinful according to the NT and therefore immoral and wrong. Is it also your position that all sex is perversity? Does your sect promote this teaching?

Also over at the thread starting with Message 1 you were specifically called out by Dr Adequate to condemn rape under all circumstances. To the best of my knowledge you have so far refused to make this simple statement. Yet according to this message you condemn consensual heterosexual sex between a husband and wife as sinful.

So all sex is sin even among the married except under certain circumstances in the OT where your god sanctioned the rape of total strangers.

Thank you for making your position clear.

Edited by anglagard, : move the word out to make the phrase 'called out' as it would be more grammatically correct

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
— Salman Rushdie

This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

Mike,

WTF are you on about?

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

He said fornication not sex. Fornication does not include marital sex.

For yet another example, if I as a sober male have sex with a drunk-as-a-skunk female at a party, I can be charged with rape even if she initiated the act. She was inebriated to the point of being unable to give informed consent - if she has day-after regrets, I'm screwed.

Is this true in most countries? If so, it seems horrendously unjust to me. That she initiated the act whilst pissed does not absolve her of responsibility for the act, any more than she would be absolved of responsibility if she murdered someone, robbed a house or vandalised someone's property whilst drunk. She was under no compulsion to put herself in a state of diminished reason.

Thanks, that was honest of you to mark that out. You could have just jumped on the bandwagon, but instead chose the correct course.

I'm not sure how you got to all of those conclusions. I was suggesting that we all ask ourselves about lust, and what the New Testament says about it. If anything I was attacking Christians and therefore myself, as we believe that sin is prevailent in all mankind, not just atheists therefore it is not fair to single out atheists over other groups.

My only real point in this thread is that I believe no human formula, which might be considered a "Godless" formula, can change the crims or perversities in the world. It has to stem from the desire for the person to change from within.