Total Posts:70|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What makes sex with mentally disabled wrong?

Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2016 4:28:37 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Yes, the question might seem weird. I know personally very well why it is wrong, but I will show you how many religious people could be hypocritical sometimes.

So, the thing is that many religious people won't buy "homosexuality could be consensual" as an argument against accepting homosexuality. They would also sometimes claim that pedophilia and bestiality are both akin to homosexuality, and won't also ever buy the counterargument that "homosexuality could be consensual, bestiality and pedophilia couldn't". The reason they are against bestiality and pedophilia stems out of the Bible, at least with Christians, I don't know about the other religions.

So let us move onto something which also is forbidden, statutory rape against mentally disabled adults, where the rapist is an able person. How would Christians answer to why this would be wrong?

The non-religious reason to explain why this statutory rape against a disabled adult would be the same reason to explain why bestiality and pedophilia are wrong. Disabled/animals/children are not legally able to give consent to such an act, because they are of too low intelligence to understand such an act against their sexual faculties, which anyone would argue is the most holy faculties a person has. Just like any baby with a brain would figure out that these people neither are mentally capable of doing things like signing contracts and applying for bank loans. Just like you aren't able to trick a random senile 96-year old into writing a will where it is specified that you will inherit all his money? It would be nullified by lawyers because of his senility.

But how exactly would one of these religious people argue for statutory rape against mentally disabled people being wrong? It sure isn't specified in the Bible, so then there must be two options:

A. Throwing in the towel and come up with the obvious argument of the disabled person's incapability to legally consent.
B. Not seeing anything wrong with this statutory rape (which only very few people would do).
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2016 5:27:53 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/8/2016 4:28:37 PM, Jovian wrote:
Yes, the question might seem weird. I know personally very well why it is wrong, but I will show you how many religious people could be hypocritical sometimes.

So, the thing is that many religious people won't buy "homosexuality could be consensual" as an argument against accepting homosexuality. They would also sometimes claim that pedophilia and bestiality are both akin to homosexuality, and won't also ever buy the counterargument that "homosexuality could be consensual, bestiality and pedophilia couldn't". The reason they are against bestiality and pedophilia stems out of the Bible, at least with Christians, I don't know about the other religions.

So let us move onto something which also is forbidden, statutory rape against mentally disabled adults, where the rapist is an able person. How would Christians answer to why this would be wrong?

The non-religious reason to explain why this statutory rape against a disabled adult would be the same reason to explain why bestiality and pedophilia are wrong. Disabled/animals/children are not legally able to give consent to such an act, because they are of too low intelligence to understand such an act against their sexual faculties, which anyone would argue is the most holy faculties a person has. Just like any baby with a brain would figure out that these people neither are mentally capable of doing things like signing contracts and applying for bank loans. Just like you aren't able to trick a random senile 96-year old into writing a will where it is specified that you will inherit all his money? It would be nullified by lawyers because of his senility.

But how exactly would one of these religious people argue for statutory rape against mentally disabled people being wrong? It sure isn't specified in the Bible, so then there must be two options:

A. Throwing in the towel and come up with the obvious argument of the disabled person's incapability to legally consent.
B. Not seeing anything wrong with this statutory rape (which only very few people would do).

Someone wants to hump a nursing home resident..
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2016 5:45:02 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Do the "mentally disabled" not have human sex drives? Who has the right to deny them natural desires?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2016 5:48:37 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/8/2016 4:28:37 PM, Jovian wrote:
how exactly would one of these religious people argue for statutory rape against mentally disabled people being wrong?

Virtually nobody in the developed world lives by the morality set out in ancient religious canon. The canon of most world religions was written in a time without science, democracy, freedom of speech and association, freedom of religion, gender equality, racial and class equality, the rights of the child, an empirical understanding of medicine, psychology, sociology, and evidence, or intergenerational ethics.

So what happens is that adherents apply the morality of their religious canon selectively, taking a liberal interpretation when applied to themselves and their communities, and an intolerant interpretation when applied to people and groups they misunderstand, distrust or dislike.

Unfortunately, replacing poor reasoning about one misunderstood and marginalised group (e.g. homosexuals) with poor reasoning about another misunderstood and marginalised group (the mentally disabled) teaches ignorant hypocrites nothing about their own ignorant hypocrisy.

It's better to ask instead why (say) Christians apply canon law prejudicially to homosexual unions, but ignore it in their own marriages; why fellatio, cunnilingus or anal penetration between people of the same sex is immoral, but in a heterosexual married couple is unremarked.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2016 6:27:20 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/8/2016 4:28:37 PM, Jovian wrote:
Yes, the question might seem weird. I know personally very well why it is wrong, but I will show you how many religious people could be hypocritical sometimes.

So, the thing is that many religious people won't buy "homosexuality could be consensual" as an argument against accepting homosexuality. They would also sometimes claim that pedophilia and bestiality are both akin to homosexuality, and won't also ever buy the counterargument that "homosexuality could be consensual, bestiality and pedophilia couldn't". The reason they are against bestiality and pedophilia stems out of the Bible, at least with Christians, I don't know about the other religions.

So let us move onto something which also is forbidden, statutory rape against mentally disabled adults, where the rapist is an able person. How would Christians answer to why this would be wrong?

The non-religious reason to explain why this statutory rape against a disabled adult would be the same reason to explain why bestiality and pedophilia are wrong. Disabled/animals/children are not legally able to give consent to such an act, because they are of too low intelligence to understand such an act against their sexual faculties, which anyone would argue is the most holy faculties a person has. Just like any baby with a brain would figure out that these people neither are mentally capable of doing things like signing contracts and applying for bank loans. Just like you aren't able to trick a random senile 96-year old into writing a will where it is specified that you will inherit all his money? It would be nullified by lawyers because of his senility.

But how exactly would one of these religious people argue for statutory rape against mentally disabled people being wrong? It sure isn't specified in the Bible, so then there must be two options:

A. Throwing in the towel and come up with the obvious argument of the disabled person's incapability to legally consent.
B. Not seeing anything wrong with this statutory rape (which only very few people would do).

Because the mentally disabled can't give informed consent so its rape.
Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2016 7:35:38 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/8/2016 5:45:02 PM, desmac wrote:
Do the "mentally disabled" not have human sex drives? Who has the right to deny them natural desires?

They do have. Where have I said that they should be barred from having sex? Under the law, an able person having sex with a disabled is called "statutory rape", while a disabled person having sex with a disabled person is totally fine. A little like a 15 year old being able to have sex with people in their own age but not with adults.
Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2016 7:39:04 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/8/2016 6:27:20 PM, distraff wrote:
At 8/8/2016 4:28:37 PM, Jovian wrote:
Yes, the question might seem weird. I know personally very well why it is wrong, but I will show you how many religious people could be hypocritical sometimes.

So, the thing is that many religious people won't buy "homosexuality could be consensual" as an argument against accepting homosexuality. They would also sometimes claim that pedophilia and bestiality are both akin to homosexuality, and won't also ever buy the counterargument that "homosexuality could be consensual, bestiality and pedophilia couldn't". The reason they are against bestiality and pedophilia stems out of the Bible, at least with Christians, I don't know about the other religions.

So let us move onto something which also is forbidden, statutory rape against mentally disabled adults, where the rapist is an able person. How would Christians answer to why this would be wrong?

The non-religious reason to explain why this statutory rape against a disabled adult would be the same reason to explain why bestiality and pedophilia are wrong. Disabled/animals/children are not legally able to give consent to such an act, because they are of too low intelligence to understand such an act against their sexual faculties, which anyone would argue is the most holy faculties a person has. Just like any baby with a brain would figure out that these people neither are mentally capable of doing things like signing contracts and applying for bank loans. Just like you aren't able to trick a random senile 96-year old into writing a will where it is specified that you will inherit all his money? It would be nullified by lawyers because of his senility.

But how exactly would one of these religious people argue for statutory rape against mentally disabled people being wrong? It sure isn't specified in the Bible, so then there must be two options:

A. Throwing in the towel and come up with the obvious argument of the disabled person's incapability to legally consent.
B. Not seeing anything wrong with this statutory rape (which only very few people would do).

Because the mentally disabled can't give informed consent so its rape.

Correct. But if you read OP thoroughly, and if you also have had discussions with thiests who think homosexuality is akin to bestiality and pedophilia, you would understand that these theists aren't seeing anything wrong at all with pedophilia and bestiality per se, like atheists and also many religious talking about incapacity of consent, instead they think it's wrong only because God said so.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2016 7:40:28 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/8/2016 7:35:38 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 8/8/2016 5:45:02 PM, desmac wrote:
Do the "mentally disabled" not have human sex drives? Who has the right to deny them natural desires?

They do have. Where have I said that they should be barred from having sex? Under the law, an able person having sex with a disabled is called "statutory rape", while a disabled person having sex with a disabled person is totally fine. A little like a 15 year old being able to have sex with people in their own age but not with adults.

And if the disabled person loves, and wishes to have sex with the non-disabled person?
Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2016 7:44:44 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/8/2016 7:40:28 PM, desmac wrote:
At 8/8/2016 7:35:38 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 8/8/2016 5:45:02 PM, desmac wrote:
Do the "mentally disabled" not have human sex drives? Who has the right to deny them natural desires?

They do have. Where have I said that they should be barred from having sex? Under the law, an able person having sex with a disabled is called "statutory rape", while a disabled person having sex with a disabled person is totally fine. A little like a 15 year old being able to have sex with people in their own age but not with adults.

And if the disabled person loves, and wishes to have sex with the non-disabled person?

I guess that would be up to the court to decide how much said disabled person was able to consent. Love per se doesn't justify a sex couple by the way. A victim of their pedophiliac incestious parent for example would often be indoctrinated to it have the act normalized, and thus even love and defend their abusive parent.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2016 8:00:22 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/8/2016 7:44:44 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 8/8/2016 7:40:28 PM, desmac wrote:
At 8/8/2016 7:35:38 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 8/8/2016 5:45:02 PM, desmac wrote:
Do the "mentally disabled" not have human sex drives? Who has the right to deny them natural desires?

They do have. Where have I said that they should be barred from having sex? Under the law, an able person having sex with a disabled is called "statutory rape", while a disabled person having sex with a disabled person is totally fine. A little like a 15 year old being able to have sex with people in their own age but not with adults.

And if the disabled person loves, and wishes to have sex with the non-disabled person?

I guess that would be up to the court to decide how much said disabled person was able to consent. Love per se doesn't justify a sex couple by the way. A victim of their pedophiliac incestious parent for example would often be indoctrinated to it have the act normalized, and thus even love and defend their abusive parent.

Difficult isn't it. I'm relieved that I will never have to sit in judgement of such a case.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2016 9:53:33 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Desmac wants someone who's paralized.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2016 12:04:33 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/8/2016 7:39:04 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 8/8/2016 6:27:20 PM, distraff wrote:
At 8/8/2016 4:28:37 PM, Jovian wrote:
Yes, the question might seem weird. I know personally very well why it is wrong, but I will show you how many religious people could be hypocritical sometimes.

So, the thing is that many religious people won't buy "homosexuality could be consensual" as an argument against accepting homosexuality. They would also sometimes claim that pedophilia and bestiality are both akin to homosexuality, and won't also ever buy the counterargument that "homosexuality could be consensual, bestiality and pedophilia couldn't". The reason they are against bestiality and pedophilia stems out of the Bible, at least with Christians, I don't know about the other religions.

So let us move onto something which also is forbidden, statutory rape against mentally disabled adults, where the rapist is an able person. How would Christians answer to why this would be wrong?

The non-religious reason to explain why this statutory rape against a disabled adult would be the same reason to explain why bestiality and pedophilia are wrong. Disabled/animals/children are not legally able to give consent to such an act, because they are of too low intelligence to understand such an act against their sexual faculties, which anyone would argue is the most holy faculties a person has. Just like any baby with a brain would figure out that these people neither are mentally capable of doing things like signing contracts and applying for bank loans. Just like you aren't able to trick a random senile 96-year old into writing a will where it is specified that you will inherit all his money? It would be nullified by lawyers because of his senility.

But how exactly would one of these religious people argue for statutory rape against mentally disabled people being wrong? It sure isn't specified in the Bible, so then there must be two options:

A. Throwing in the towel and come up with the obvious argument of the disabled person's incapability to legally consent.
B. Not seeing anything wrong with this statutory rape (which only very few people would do).

Because the mentally disabled can't give informed consent so its rape.

Correct. But if you read OP thoroughly, and if you also have had discussions with thiests who think homosexuality is akin to bestiality and pedophilia, you would understand that these theists aren't seeing anything wrong at all with pedophilia and bestiality per se, like atheists and also many religious talking about incapacity of consent, instead they think it's wrong only because God said so.

I see, that is a very smart move.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2016 1:52:16 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/8/2016 4:28:37 PM, Jovian wrote:
Yes, the question might seem weird. I know personally very well why it is wrong, but I will show you how many religious people could be hypocritical sometimes.

So, the thing is that many religious people won't buy "homosexuality could be consensual" as an argument against accepting homosexuality. They would also sometimes claim that pedophilia and bestiality are both akin to homosexuality, and won't also ever buy the counterargument that "homosexuality could be consensual, bestiality and pedophilia couldn't". The reason they are against bestiality and pedophilia stems out of the Bible, at least with Christians, I don't know about the other religions.

So let us move onto something which also is forbidden, statutory rape against mentally disabled adults, where the rapist is an able person. How would Christians answer to why this would be wrong?

The non-religious reason to explain why this statutory rape against a disabled adult would be the same reason to explain why bestiality and pedophilia are wrong. Disabled/animals/children are not legally able to give consent to such an act, because they are of too low intelligence to understand such an act against their sexual faculties, which anyone would argue is the most holy faculties a person has. Just like any baby with a brain would figure out that these people neither are mentally capable of doing things like signing contracts and applying for bank loans. Just like you aren't able to trick a random senile 96-year old into writing a will where it is specified that you will inherit all his money? It would be nullified by lawyers because of his senility.

But how exactly would one of these religious people argue for statutory rape against mentally disabled people being wrong? It sure isn't specified in the Bible, so then there must be two options:

A. Throwing in the towel and come up with the obvious argument of the disabled person's incapability to legally consent.
B. Not seeing anything wrong with this statutory rape (which only very few people would do).

Legal Consent is defined by mankind.

Sin is defined by God.

You think you can legislate good and bad behavior. You are part of the problem

It could be wrong to have sex with a mentally ill person. And it may not be. Are so stuck in the mud that you think a mentally retarded person has no capability to consent. Why bother asking them what flavor ice cream they like? clearly they can choose that but not sex.

In this day and age anyone who wants to have sex with anything or anyone is allowed.

It's only a matter of time when bestiality, pedophilia, incest, ect.. become protected acts under Legal Consent.

Such a mentality is poisonous to even secular republics. It suggests that laws define moral behavior. That human freedoms and rights are enumerated and given by government.

Such ideology is contrary to Americas founding fathers and Natural Law. Where Governments power and freedom is defined and enumerated. Where the power of the government is restricted and slowly empowered by the people.

So No Jovian. What is defined as Legal Consent does not dictate why a christian would say something is wrong or right morally. It merely says what is Legally allowed or culpable.

Thanks for playing another "atheist says Christians think X, and X is illogical." classic strawman structure.

Why don't you just post topics on why YOU are an ATHEIST, and not what you think Christians are saying. because honestly you don't bother trying to understand the Bible or religious thought.

You bigot.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2016 2:11:27 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/8/2016 5:48:37 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/8/2016 4:28:37 PM, Jovian wrote:
how exactly would one of these religious people argue for statutory rape against mentally disabled people being wrong?

Virtually nobody in the developed world lives by the morality set out in ancient religious canon. The canon of most world religions was written in a time without science, democracy, freedom of speech and association, freedom of religion, gender equality, racial and class equality, the rights of the child, an empirical understanding of medicine, psychology, sociology, and evidence, or intergenerational ethics.

So what happens is that adherents apply the morality of their religious canon selectively, taking a liberal interpretation when applied to themselves and their communities, and an intolerant interpretation when applied to people and groups they misunderstand, distrust or dislike.

Unfortunately, replacing poor reasoning about one misunderstood and marginalised group (e.g. homosexuals) with poor reasoning about another misunderstood and marginalised group (the mentally disabled) teaches ignorant hypocrites nothing about their own ignorant hypocrisy.

It's better to ask instead why (say) Christians apply canon law prejudicially to homosexual unions, but ignore it in their own marriages; why fellatio, cunnilingus or anal penetration between people of the same sex is immoral, but in a heterosexual married couple is unremarked.

Because Canon isn't against anal or fellatio. (In the bible there is mention of sex while a woman is on her period, but an aversion to all blood is a Jewish motif)

the sin is a union of flesh not in the marriage bed, where marriage is between a man and woman.

There is no damning of anal sex ect.. when it is the union of flesh between a married man and woman.

the why for this could be anything from the religious distinction between flesh and spirit, that marriage is the "appropriate" release of fleshly desires. because it would amount to masturbation. because a man and wife are one flesh.

The hypocrisy is present in the bible. Marriage is always the one man and the one wife. And yet patriarchs committed polygamy. ((interesting to note the first wife is the only woman addressed as wife by God, Angel, or prophesy. the others being called hand maidens or what they're title previously was.))

And divorce was allowed by the Law of Moses but not represented in the scriptural definition of marriage "for life". Curiously it's interesting why death would make 1 into 2 again. interesting in that Only God can divide what he brings together. This linguistically suggests that the Law is not as powerful God. but can have the power to act on god's behalf. OR it could mean that Death is an action paid to God. blah blah ...

Legal Consent doesn't infer moral correctness.

Any one Christians, Muslim, Atheist could rule from a legal, ethical, or social engineering perspective that certain sexual unions be outlawed. And they all could come up with many justifications for such.

Thanks to the "Sexual Revolution", both parents work leaving kids raised by state or tv left alone, all forms of sex from incest to bestiality are seeking equal protections from prosecution upon the same premises homosexuality gained it's proud moments in the sun.

the question of consent is so interesting as it is. that a 16 year old having sex with a18 year old senior is rape? That a brother and sister near the same age?

Somehow the consent to sexual activity is a matter of popular consensus instead of the presence of sexual desires, anatomy, or anything of relevance.

Sin isn't Sin because it breaks the Law. Sin is Sin because it goes against God's will. For better or worst the attempt at codifying that will has had different results.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2016 2:14:06 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/8/2016 7:35:38 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 8/8/2016 5:45:02 PM, desmac wrote:
Do the "mentally disabled" not have human sex drives? Who has the right to deny them natural desires?

They do have. Where have I said that they should be barred from having sex? Under the law, an able person having sex with a disabled is called "statutory rape", while a disabled person having sex with a disabled person is totally fine. A little like a 15 year old being able to have sex with people in their own age but not with adults.

Why's that Okay? Why is it two 15 year olds having sex is okay but if the male or female be 18 it is not okay?

So when neither party can consent they both automatically consent? please tell me how you make sense of this?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2016 2:16:30 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/9/2016 12:04:33 AM, distraff wrote:
At 8/8/2016 7:39:04 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 8/8/2016 6:27:20 PM, distraff wrote:
At 8/8/2016 4:28:37 PM, Jovian wrote:
Yes, the question might seem weird. I know personally very well why it is wrong, but I will show you how many religious people could be hypocritical sometimes.

So, the thing is that many religious people won't buy "homosexuality could be consensual" as an argument against accepting homosexuality. They would also sometimes claim that pedophilia and bestiality are both akin to homosexuality, and won't also ever buy the counterargument that "homosexuality could be consensual, bestiality and pedophilia couldn't". The reason they are against bestiality and pedophilia stems out of the Bible, at least with Christians, I don't know about the other religions.

So let us move onto something which also is forbidden, statutory rape against mentally disabled adults, where the rapist is an able person. How would Christians answer to why this would be wrong?

The non-religious reason to explain why this statutory rape against a disabled adult would be the same reason to explain why bestiality and pedophilia are wrong. Disabled/animals/children are not legally able to give consent to such an act, because they are of too low intelligence to understand such an act against their sexual faculties, which anyone would argue is the most holy faculties a person has. Just like any baby with a brain would figure out that these people neither are mentally capable of doing things like signing contracts and applying for bank loans. Just like you aren't able to trick a random senile 96-year old into writing a will where it is specified that you will inherit all his money? It would be nullified by lawyers because of his senility.

But how exactly would one of these religious people argue for statutory rape against mentally disabled people being wrong? It sure isn't specified in the Bible, so then there must be two options:

A. Throwing in the towel and come up with the obvious argument of the disabled person's incapability to legally consent.
B. Not seeing anything wrong with this statutory rape (which only very few people would do).

Because the mentally disabled can't give informed consent so its rape.

Correct. But if you read OP thoroughly, and if you also have had discussions with thiests who think homosexuality is akin to bestiality and pedophilia, you would understand that these theists aren't seeing anything wrong at all with pedophilia and bestiality per se, like atheists and also many religious talking about incapacity of consent, instead they think it's wrong only because God said so.

I see, that is a very smart move.

god of legality.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2016 2:18:14 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/9/2016 2:16:30 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/9/2016 12:04:33 AM, distraff wrote:
At 8/8/2016 7:39:04 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 8/8/2016 6:27:20 PM, distraff wrote:
At 8/8/2016 4:28:37 PM, Jovian wrote:
Yes, the question might seem weird. I know personally very well why it is wrong, but I will show you how many religious people could be hypocritical sometimes.

So, the thing is that many religious people won't buy "homosexuality could be consensual" as an argument against accepting homosexuality. They would also sometimes claim that pedophilia and bestiality are both akin to homosexuality, and won't also ever buy the counterargument that "homosexuality could be consensual, bestiality and pedophilia couldn't". The reason they are against bestiality and pedophilia stems out of the Bible, at least with Christians, I don't know about the other religions.

So let us move onto something which also is forbidden, statutory rape against mentally disabled adults, where the rapist is an able person. How would Christians answer to why this would be wrong?

The non-religious reason to explain why this statutory rape against a disabled adult would be the same reason to explain why bestiality and pedophilia are wrong. Disabled/animals/children are not legally able to give consent to such an act, because they are of too low intelligence to understand such an act against their sexual faculties, which anyone would argue is the most holy faculties a person has. Just like any baby with a brain would figure out that these people neither are mentally capable of doing things like signing contracts and applying for bank loans. Just like you aren't able to trick a random senile 96-year old into writing a will where it is specified that you will inherit all his money? It would be nullified by lawyers because of his senility.

But how exactly would one of these religious people argue for statutory rape against mentally disabled people being wrong? It sure isn't specified in the Bible, so then there must be two options:

A. Throwing in the towel and come up with the obvious argument of the disabled person's incapability to legally consent.
B. Not seeing anything wrong with this statutory rape (which only very few people would do).

Because the mentally disabled can't give informed consent so its rape.

Correct. But if you read OP thoroughly, and if you also have had discussions with thiests who think homosexuality is akin to bestiality and pedophilia, you would understand that these theists aren't seeing anything wrong at all with pedophilia and bestiality per se, like atheists and also many religious talking about incapacity of consent, instead they think it's wrong only because God said so.

I see, that is a very smart move.

god of legality.

I don't know what you are talking about.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2016 2:24:44 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/9/2016 2:18:14 AM, distraff wrote:
At 8/9/2016 2:16:30 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/9/2016 12:04:33 AM, distraff wrote:
At 8/8/2016 7:39:04 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 8/8/2016 6:27:20 PM, distraff wrote:
At 8/8/2016 4:28:37 PM, Jovian wrote:
Yes, the question might seem weird. I know personally very well why it is wrong, but I will show you how many religious people could be hypocritical sometimes.

So, the thing is that many religious people won't buy "homosexuality could be consensual" as an argument against accepting homosexuality. They would also sometimes claim that pedophilia and bestiality are both akin to homosexuality, and won't also ever buy the counterargument that "homosexuality could be consensual, bestiality and pedophilia couldn't". The reason they are against bestiality and pedophilia stems out of the Bible, at least with Christians, I don't know about the other religions.

So let us move onto something which also is forbidden, statutory rape against mentally disabled adults, where the rapist is an able person. How would Christians answer to why this would be wrong?

The non-religious reason to explain why this statutory rape against a disabled adult would be the same reason to explain why bestiality and pedophilia are wrong. Disabled/animals/children are not legally able to give consent to such an act, because they are of too low intelligence to understand such an act against their sexual faculties, which anyone would argue is the most holy faculties a person has. Just like any baby with a brain would figure out that these people neither are mentally capable of doing things like signing contracts and applying for bank loans. Just like you aren't able to trick a random senile 96-year old into writing a will where it is specified that you will inherit all his money? It would be nullified by lawyers because of his senility.

But how exactly would one of these religious people argue for statutory rape against mentally disabled people being wrong? It sure isn't specified in the Bible, so then there must be two options:

A. Throwing in the towel and come up with the obvious argument of the disabled person's incapability to legally consent.
B. Not seeing anything wrong with this statutory rape (which only very few people would do).

Because the mentally disabled can't give informed consent so its rape.

Correct. But if you read OP thoroughly, and if you also have had discussions with thiests who think homosexuality is akin to bestiality and pedophilia, you would understand that these theists aren't seeing anything wrong at all with pedophilia and bestiality per se, like atheists and also many religious talking about incapacity of consent, instead they think it's wrong only because God said so.

I see, that is a very smart move.

god of legality.

I don't know what you are talking about.

Consent is a legal term. It equates to the legal culpability of actors in an event. It has no bearing on whether the act is morally, ethically, wrong or right.

Whether it is a sin is a moral judgement from God.

God didn't make bestiality and homosexuality a Sin because it lacked legal Consent. Which I think both exhibit plenty of evidence that consent is mutual.

No, God made the acts a Sin because the desires of the Flesh are abnormal from their natural purpose. It is corruption. According to Christian bible.

So what is SOO awesome about Posts like this is they follow the structure of a strawman.

I'm an atheist but I will tell you Christians think X and X is illogical because it goes against the other Christian thought Y I think Christians also have. X =/= Y so Christians dumb yo.

Just shut the f--k up about what the other side thinks, and tell everyone here what you think.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2016 2:36:56 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/8/2016 4:28:37 PM, Jovian wrote:


But how exactly would one of these religious people argue for statutory rape against mentally disabled people being wrong? It sure isn't specified in the Bible, so then there must be two options:

The reason why it is called statutory rape is because it is considered that the mentally disabled do not have the faculties to consent.

For any Christians that believe the Bible, they automatically condone statutory rape, at least in some situations. In Numbers, Moses (God's representative) commanded his men to kill everyone in a neighboring tribe but keep the young virgin daughters for their own use.

Since girls long ago in that region of the world were married as soon as they are sexually mature, the Israelites were raping girls younger than 12. Today, we would consider this pedophilia/rape of a child. Obviously, modern society considers this behavior wrong.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2016 2:38:18 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/9/2016 2:24:44 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/9/2016 2:18:14 AM, distraff wrote:
At 8/9/2016 2:16:30 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/9/2016 12:04:33 AM, distraff wrote:
At 8/8/2016 7:39:04 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 8/8/2016 6:27:20 PM, distraff wrote:
At 8/8/2016 4:28:37 PM, Jovian wrote:
Yes, the question might seem weird. I know personally very well why it is wrong, but I will show you how many religious people could be hypocritical sometimes.

So, the thing is that many religious people won't buy "homosexuality could be consensual" as an argument against accepting homosexuality. They would also sometimes claim that pedophilia and bestiality are both akin to homosexuality, and won't also ever buy the counterargument that "homosexuality could be consensual, bestiality and pedophilia couldn't". The reason they are against bestiality and pedophilia stems out of the Bible, at least with Christians, I don't know about the other religions.

So let us move onto something which also is forbidden, statutory rape against mentally disabled adults, where the rapist is an able person. How would Christians answer to why this would be wrong?

The non-religious reason to explain why this statutory rape against a disabled adult would be the same reason to explain why bestiality and pedophilia are wrong. Disabled/animals/children are not legally able to give consent to such an act, because they are of too low intelligence to understand such an act against their sexual faculties, which anyone would argue is the most holy faculties a person has. Just like any baby with a brain would figure out that these people neither are mentally capable of doing things like signing contracts and applying for bank loans. Just like you aren't able to trick a random senile 96-year old into writing a will where it is specified that you will inherit all his money? It would be nullified by lawyers because of his senility.

But how exactly would one of these religious people argue for statutory rape against mentally disabled people being wrong? It sure isn't specified in the Bible, so then there must be two options:

A. Throwing in the towel and come up with the obvious argument of the disabled person's incapability to legally consent.
B. Not seeing anything wrong with this statutory rape (which only very few people would do).

Because the mentally disabled can't give informed consent so its rape.

Correct. But if you read OP thoroughly, and if you also have had discussions with thiests who think homosexuality is akin to bestiality and pedophilia, you would understand that these theists aren't seeing anything wrong at all with pedophilia and bestiality per se, like atheists and also many religious talking about incapacity of consent, instead they think it's wrong only because God said so.

I see, that is a very smart move.

god of legality.

I don't know what you are talking about.

Consent is a legal term. It equates to the legal culpability of actors in an event. It has no bearing on whether the act is morally, ethically, wrong or right.

Whether it is a sin is a moral judgement from God.

God didn't make bestiality and homosexuality a Sin because it lacked legal Consent. Which I think both exhibit plenty of evidence that consent is mutual.

No, God made the acts a Sin because the desires of the Flesh are abnormal from their natural purpose. It is corruption. According to Christian bible.

So what is SOO awesome about Posts like this is they follow the structure of a strawman.

I'm an atheist but I will tell you Christians think X and X is illogical because it goes against the other Christian thought Y I think Christians also have. X =/= Y so Christians dumb yo.

Just shut the f--k up about what the other side thinks, and tell everyone here what you think.

.... ok so how is sex with the metally disabled a sin?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2016 2:48:21 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/9/2016 2:38:18 AM, distraff wrote:
At 8/9/2016 2:24:44 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/9/2016 2:18:14 AM, distraff wrote:
At 8/9/2016 2:16:30 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/9/2016 12:04:33 AM, distraff wrote:
At 8/8/2016 7:39:04 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 8/8/2016 6:27:20 PM, distraff wrote:
At 8/8/2016 4:28:37 PM, Jovian wrote:
Yes, the question might seem weird. I know personally very well why it is wrong, but I will show you how many religious people could be hypocritical sometimes.

So, the thing is that many religious people won't buy "homosexuality could be consensual" as an argument against accepting homosexuality. They would also sometimes claim that pedophilia and bestiality are both akin to homosexuality, and won't also ever buy the counterargument that "homosexuality could be consensual, bestiality and pedophilia couldn't". The reason they are against bestiality and pedophilia stems out of the Bible, at least with Christians, I don't know about the other religions.

So let us move onto something which also is forbidden, statutory rape against mentally disabled adults, where the rapist is an able person. How would Christians answer to why this would be wrong?

The non-religious reason to explain why this statutory rape against a disabled adult would be the same reason to explain why bestiality and pedophilia are wrong. Disabled/animals/children are not legally able to give consent to such an act, because they are of too low intelligence to understand such an act against their sexual faculties, which anyone would argue is the most holy faculties a person has. Just like any baby with a brain would figure out that these people neither are mentally capable of doing things like signing contracts and applying for bank loans. Just like you aren't able to trick a random senile 96-year old into writing a will where it is specified that you will inherit all his money? It would be nullified by lawyers because of his senility.

But how exactly would one of these religious people argue for statutory rape against mentally disabled people being wrong? It sure isn't specified in the Bible, so then there must be two options:

A. Throwing in the towel and come up with the obvious argument of the disabled person's incapability to legally consent.
B. Not seeing anything wrong with this statutory rape (which only very few people would do).

Because the mentally disabled can't give informed consent so its rape.

Correct. But if you read OP thoroughly, and if you also have had discussions with thiests who think homosexuality is akin to bestiality and pedophilia, you would understand that these theists aren't seeing anything wrong at all with pedophilia and bestiality per se, like atheists and also many religious talking about incapacity of consent, instead they think it's wrong only because God said so.

I see, that is a very smart move.

god of legality.

I don't know what you are talking about.

Consent is a legal term. It equates to the legal culpability of actors in an event. It has no bearing on whether the act is morally, ethically, wrong or right.

Whether it is a sin is a moral judgement from God.

God didn't make bestiality and homosexuality a Sin because it lacked legal Consent. Which I think both exhibit plenty of evidence that consent is mutual.

No, God made the acts a Sin because the desires of the Flesh are abnormal from their natural purpose. It is corruption. According to Christian bible.

So what is SOO awesome about Posts like this is they follow the structure of a strawman.

I'm an atheist but I will tell you Christians think X and X is illogical because it goes against the other Christian thought Y I think Christians also have. X =/= Y so Christians dumb yo.

Just shut the f--k up about what the other side thinks, and tell everyone here what you think.

.... ok so how is sex with the metally disabled a sin?

I didn't say it was.

But According to the bible and Christian faith to lie to a person is. To seduce a person is. To take advantage of a person for one's own gain is. sex out side of marriage is.

Oh you are one of those atheist that tell me what I said as a Christian and just disregard what i actually said.

So mentally ill can have sex. And it wouldn't be a sin if there wasn't a sin committed.

Can a mentally ill person have sex and it be legal? Well that's a different question. it depends on the local and national governments laws, as written by their law makers.

but hey thinks for completely not understanding the difference between moral and legal behavior. thanks for repeating to say what you want me to say, "sex with the mentally disabled a sin"... oh and thanks for continuing to say I say that because of an issue with consent.

Well when you want to understand religion, and Christians in specific, you will have to stop saying what you want them to say, and understand what Christians are actually saying.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2016 2:51:19 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/9/2016 1:52:16 AM, Mhykiel wrote:


It's only a matter of time when bestiality, pedophilia, incest, ect.. become protected acts under Legal Consent.

Come on....really? Do you know any politicians that have said they are friendly to those ideas?

I could just as easily claim that if Christian politicians get into power, they will try to require mandatory execution of anyone that works on Sundays.

Such a mentality is poisonous to even secular republics. It suggests that laws define moral behavior. That human freedoms and rights are enumerated and given by government.

What mentality are you referring to specifically? Letting gay people do what everyone else does?

Such ideology is contrary to Americas founding fathers and Natural Law. Where Governments power and freedom is defined and enumerated. Where the power of the government is restricted and slowly empowered by the people.

1. The founding fathers never said anything about homosexuality and many of them were not Christian. How would you know what they thought about it?

2. Many animal species regularly have sex with the same sex. Looks like the Natural Law is giving homosexuality a green light :)
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2016 2:53:01 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/9/2016 2:48:21 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/9/2016 2:38:18 AM, distraff wrote:
At 8/9/2016 2:24:44 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/9/2016 2:18:14 AM, distraff wrote:
At 8/9/2016 2:16:30 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/9/2016 12:04:33 AM, distraff wrote:
At 8/8/2016 7:39:04 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 8/8/2016 6:27:20 PM, distraff wrote:
At 8/8/2016 4:28:37 PM, Jovian wrote:
Yes, the question might seem weird. I know personally very well why it is wrong, but I will show you how many religious people could be hypocritical sometimes.

So, the thing is that many religious people won't buy "homosexuality could be consensual" as an argument against accepting homosexuality. They would also sometimes claim that pedophilia and bestiality are both akin to homosexuality, and won't also ever buy the counterargument that "homosexuality could be consensual, bestiality and pedophilia couldn't". The reason they are against bestiality and pedophilia stems out of the Bible, at least with Christians, I don't know about the other religions.

So let us move onto something which also is forbidden, statutory rape against mentally disabled adults, where the rapist is an able person. How would Christians answer to why this would be wrong?

The non-religious reason to explain why this statutory rape against a disabled adult would be the same reason to explain why bestiality and pedophilia are wrong. Disabled/animals/children are not legally able to give consent to such an act, because they are of too low intelligence to understand such an act against their sexual faculties, which anyone would argue is the most holy faculties a person has. Just like any baby with a brain would figure out that these people neither are mentally capable of doing things like signing contracts and applying for bank loans. Just like you aren't able to trick a random senile 96-year old into writing a will where it is specified that you will inherit all his money? It would be nullified by lawyers because of his senility.

But how exactly would one of these religious people argue for statutory rape against mentally disabled people being wrong? It sure isn't specified in the Bible, so then there must be two options:

A. Throwing in the towel and come up with the obvious argument of the disabled person's incapability to legally consent.
B. Not seeing anything wrong with this statutory rape (which only very few people would do).

Because the mentally disabled can't give informed consent so its rape.

Correct. But if you read OP thoroughly, and if you also have had discussions with thiests who think homosexuality is akin to bestiality and pedophilia, you would understand that these theists aren't seeing anything wrong at all with pedophilia and bestiality per se, like atheists and also many religious talking about incapacity of consent, instead they think it's wrong only because God said so.

I see, that is a very smart move.

god of legality.

I don't know what you are talking about.

Consent is a legal term. It equates to the legal culpability of actors in an event. It has no bearing on whether the act is morally, ethically, wrong or right.

Whether it is a sin is a moral judgement from God.

God didn't make bestiality and homosexuality a Sin because it lacked legal Consent. Which I think both exhibit plenty of evidence that consent is mutual.

No, God made the acts a Sin because the desires of the Flesh are abnormal from their natural purpose. It is corruption. According to Christian bible.

So what is SOO awesome about Posts like this is they follow the structure of a strawman.

I'm an atheist but I will tell you Christians think X and X is illogical because it goes against the other Christian thought Y I think Christians also have. X =/= Y so Christians dumb yo.

Just shut the f--k up about what the other side thinks, and tell everyone here what you think.

.... ok so how is sex with the metally disabled a sin?

I didn't say it was.

But According to the bible and Christian faith to lie to a person is. To seduce a person is. To take advantage of a person for one's own gain is. sex out side of marriage is.

Oh you are one of those atheist that tell me what I said as a Christian and just disregard what i actually said.

So mentally ill can have sex. And it wouldn't be a sin if there wasn't a sin committed.

Can a mentally ill person have sex and it be legal? Well that's a different question. it depends on the local and national governments laws, as written by their law makers.

but hey thinks for completely not understanding the difference between moral and legal behavior. thanks for repeating to say what you want me to say, "sex with the mentally disabled a sin"... oh and thanks for continuing to say I say that because of an issue with consent.

Well when you want to understand religion, and Christians in specific, you will have to stop saying what you want them to say, and understand what Christians are actually saying.

Ok, where does the bible ban sex outside of marriage? Lets establish this first.
HeavenlyPanda
Posts: 819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2016 3:03:50 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/8/2016 4:28:37 PM, Jovian wrote:
Yes, the question might seem weird. I know personally very well why it is wrong, but I will show you how many religious people could be hypocritical sometimes.

So, the thing is that many religious people won't buy "homosexuality could be consensual" as an argument against accepting homosexuality. They would also sometimes claim that pedophilia and bestiality are both akin to homosexuality, and won't also ever buy the counterargument that "homosexuality could be consensual, bestiality and pedophilia couldn't". The reason they are against bestiality and pedophilia stems out of the Bible, at least with Christians, I don't know about the other religions.

So let us move onto something which also is forbidden, statutory rape against mentally disabled adults, where the rapist is an able person. How would Christians answer to why this would be wrong?

The non-religious reason to explain why this statutory rape against a disabled adult would be the same reason to explain why bestiality and pedophilia are wrong. Disabled/animals/children are not legally able to give consent to such an act, because they are of too low intelligence to understand such an act against their sexual faculties, which anyone would argue is the most holy faculties a person has. Just like any baby with a brain would figure out that these people neither are mentally capable of doing things like signing contracts and applying for bank loans. Just like you aren't able to trick a random senile 96-year old into writing a will where it is specified that you will inherit all his money? It would be nullified by lawyers because of his senility.

But how exactly would one of these religious people argue for statutory rape against mentally disabled people being wrong? It sure isn't specified in the Bible, so then there must be two options:

A. Throwing in the towel and come up with the obvious argument of the disabled person's incapability to legally consent.
B. Not seeing anything wrong with this statutory rape (which only very few people would do).

Are you na"ve or are you just that plain stupid? Christians think homosexuality is wrong becuase two people are consenting to do something wrong. That's even worse than only one person consenting to do something wrong. What makes sex with the mentally disabled wrong is that its sick. Anybody can tell you that. Are you considering it Jovian?
HeavenlyPanda. The most heavenly of all heavenly creatures.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2016 3:12:03 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/9/2016 2:51:19 AM, matt8800 wrote:
At 8/9/2016 1:52:16 AM, Mhykiel wrote:


It's only a matter of time when bestiality, pedophilia, incest, ect.. become protected acts under Legal Consent.

Come on....really? Do you know any politicians that have said they are friendly to those ideas?

You don't think TV shows and media coverage are warming people up to the thought of such things? Prime example is the act of incest between adults is as acceptable as homosexuality.

And like i said the same arguments for consenting sex between two men is being used for the consensual sex between brother sister, and even father and adult daughter.


I could just as easily claim that if Christian politicians get into power, they will try to require mandatory execution of anyone that works on Sundays.

Working on the Sabbath was also levied against Jesus.


Such a mentality is poisonous to even secular republics. It suggests that laws define moral behavior. That human freedoms and rights are enumerated and given by government.

What mentality are you referring to specifically? Letting gay people do what everyone else does?

no thinking that the Laws dictate moral behavior. Thinking that the Law is absolute in discerning the behavior of people. Laws and Government should be kept to a minimum. Should strive to have no loop holes or bias. And the Law should be executed by good men morally bound to the betterment of society and the people. NOT the Law.


Such ideology is contrary to Americas founding fathers and Natural Law. Where Governments power and freedom is defined and enumerated. Where the power of the government is restricted and slowly empowered by the people.

1. The founding fathers never said anything about homosexuality and many of them were not Christian. How would you know what they thought about it?

I'm sorry I erroneously thought I could gain an understanding of the Founding Fathers intentions by having read their words and recalling the actions they took.

Here's a list of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. http://www.ushistory.org...

Maybe you can take some time to get to read their works. Starting with the Declaration of Independence itself.


2. Many animal species regularly have sex with the same sex. Looks like the Natural Law is giving homosexuality a green light :)

I doubt you have an understanding of such a codex. But the point is that in a Free society it is the power of government that is meticulously enumerated and spelled out. NOT the Rights and Freedoms of the people.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2016 3:24:11 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/9/2016 2:53:01 AM, distraff wrote:
At 8/9/2016 2:48:21 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/9/2016 2:38:18 AM, distraff wrote:
At 8/9/2016 2:24:44 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/9/2016 2:18:14 AM, distraff wrote:
At 8/9/2016 2:16:30 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/9/2016 12:04:33 AM, distraff wrote:
At 8/8/2016 7:39:04 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 8/8/2016 6:27:20 PM, distraff wrote:
At 8/8/2016 4:28:37 PM, Jovian wrote:
Yes, the question might seem weird. I know personally very well why it is wrong, but I will show you how many religious people could be hypocritical sometimes.

So, the thing is that many religious people won't buy "homosexuality could be consensual" as an argument against accepting homosexuality. They would also sometimes claim that pedophilia and bestiality are both akin to homosexuality, and won't also ever buy the counterargument that "homosexuality could be consensual, bestiality and pedophilia couldn't". The reason they are against bestiality and pedophilia stems out of the Bible, at least with Christians, I don't know about the other religions.

So let us move onto something which also is forbidden, statutory rape against mentally disabled adults, where the rapist is an able person. How would Christians answer to why this would be wrong?

The non-religious reason to explain why this statutory rape against a disabled adult would be the same reason to explain why bestiality and pedophilia are wrong. Disabled/animals/children are not legally able to give consent to such an act, because they are of too low intelligence to understand such an act against their sexual faculties, which anyone would argue is the most holy faculties a person has. Just like any baby with a brain would figure out that these people neither are mentally capable of doing things like signing contracts and applying for bank loans. Just like you aren't able to trick a random senile 96-year old into writing a will where it is specified that you will inherit all his money? It would be nullified by lawyers because of his senility.

But how exactly would one of these religious people argue for statutory rape against mentally disabled people being wrong? It sure isn't specified in the Bible, so then there must be two options:

A. Throwing in the towel and come up with the obvious argument of the disabled person's incapability to legally consent.
B. Not seeing anything wrong with this statutory rape (which only very few people would do).

Because the mentally disabled can't give informed consent so its rape.

Correct. But if you read OP thoroughly, and if you also have had discussions with thiests who think homosexuality is akin to bestiality and pedophilia, you would understand that these theists aren't seeing anything wrong at all with pedophilia and bestiality per se, like atheists and also many religious talking about incapacity of consent, instead they think it's wrong only because God said so.

I see, that is a very smart move.

god of legality.

I don't know what you are talking about.

Consent is a legal term. It equates to the legal culpability of actors in an event. It has no bearing on whether the act is morally, ethically, wrong or right.

Whether it is a sin is a moral judgement from God.

God didn't make bestiality and homosexuality a Sin because it lacked legal Consent. Which I think both exhibit plenty of evidence that consent is mutual.

No, God made the acts a Sin because the desires of the Flesh are abnormal from their natural purpose. It is corruption. According to Christian bible.

So what is SOO awesome about Posts like this is they follow the structure of a strawman.

I'm an atheist but I will tell you Christians think X and X is illogical because it goes against the other Christian thought Y I think Christians also have. X =/= Y so Christians dumb yo.

Just shut the f--k up about what the other side thinks, and tell everyone here what you think.

.... ok so how is sex with the metally disabled a sin?

I didn't say it was.

But According to the bible and Christian faith to lie to a person is. To seduce a person is. To take advantage of a person for one's own gain is. sex out side of marriage is.

Oh you are one of those atheist that tell me what I said as a Christian and just disregard what i actually said.

So mentally ill can have sex. And it wouldn't be a sin if there wasn't a sin committed.

Can a mentally ill person have sex and it be legal? Well that's a different question. it depends on the local and national governments laws, as written by their law makers.

but hey thinks for completely not understanding the difference between moral and legal behavior. thanks for repeating to say what you want me to say, "sex with the mentally disabled a sin"... oh and thanks for continuing to say I say that because of an issue with consent.

Well when you want to understand religion, and Christians in specific, you will have to stop saying what you want them to say, and understand what Christians are actually saying.

Ok, where does the bible ban sex outside of marriage? Lets establish this first.

1 Corinthians 7:2

"But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband."

What would be the sexual immoral desires that would be appeased appropriately by wife and husband? Is Paul suggesting to get married to quell peoples desire for butt sex and fellatio but not vaginal penetration?

Jesus said in Mathew 19:
3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

4 "Haven"t you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator "made them male and female,"[a] 5 and said, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh"[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."

7 "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

10 The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."

11 Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others"and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2016 3:44:46 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/9/2016 3:24:11 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/9/2016 2:53:01 AM, distraff wrote:
At 8/9/2016 2:48:21 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

I didn't say it was.

But According to the bible and Christian faith to lie to a person is. To seduce a person is. To take advantage of a person for one's own gain is. sex out side of marriage is.

Oh you are one of those atheist that tell me what I said as a Christian and just disregard what i actually said.

So mentally ill can have sex. And it wouldn't be a sin if there wasn't a sin committed.

Can a mentally ill person have sex and it be legal? Well that's a different question. it depends on the local and national governments laws, as written by their law makers.

but hey thinks for completely not understanding the difference between moral and legal behavior. thanks for repeating to say what you want me to say, "sex with the mentally disabled a sin"... oh and thanks for continuing to say I say that because of an issue with consent.

Well when you want to understand religion, and Christians in specific, you will have to stop saying what you want them to say, and understand what Christians are actually saying.

Ok, where does the bible ban sex outside of marriage? Lets establish this first.

1 Corinthians 7:2

"But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband."

What would be the sexual immoral desires that would be appeased appropriately by wife and husband? Is Paul suggesting to get married to quell peoples desire for butt sex and fellatio but not vaginal penetration?

No, you are assuming that sexual immorality is sex outside of marriage. It might mean something else like rape, or butt sex, or homosexuality, or other types of sexually extreme things.

Jesus said in Mathew 19:
3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

4 "Haven"t you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator "made them male and female,"[a] 5 and said, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh"[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."

Ok, marriage is important to the bible. That doesn't mean sex outside of marriage is banned.

7 "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

This is talking about divorce and remarriage not sex outside of marriage.

10 The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."

The only point made here is that the couple should have not married and seen their problems ahead of time.

11 Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others"and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."


This part is talking about eunuchs.

Is this seriously your case against premarital sex? We have a law of Moses that bans sea food and certain types of clothes but nothing about premarital sex?

Is there anything else here?
Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2016 8:20:58 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/9/2016 1:52:16 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/8/2016 4:28:37 PM, Jovian wrote:
Yes, the question might seem weird. I know personally very well why it is wrong, but I will show you how many religious people could be hypocritical sometimes.

So, the thing is that many religious people won't buy "homosexuality could be consensual" as an argument against accepting homosexuality. They would also sometimes claim that pedophilia and bestiality are both akin to homosexuality, and won't also ever buy the counterargument that "homosexuality could be consensual, bestiality and pedophilia couldn't". The reason they are against bestiality and pedophilia stems out of the Bible, at least with Christians, I don't know about the other religions.

So let us move onto something which also is forbidden, statutory rape against mentally disabled adults, where the rapist is an able person. How would Christians answer to why this would be wrong?

The non-religious reason to explain why this statutory rape against a disabled adult would be the same reason to explain why bestiality and pedophilia are wrong. Disabled/animals/children are not legally able to give consent to such an act, because they are of too low intelligence to understand such an act against their sexual faculties, which anyone would argue is the most holy faculties a person has. Just like any baby with a brain would figure out that these people neither are mentally capable of doing things like signing contracts and applying for bank loans. Just like you aren't able to trick a random senile 96-year old into writing a will where it is specified that you will inherit all his money? It would be nullified by lawyers because of his senility.

But how exactly would one of these religious people argue for statutory rape against mentally disabled people being wrong? It sure isn't specified in the Bible, so then there must be two options:

A. Throwing in the towel and come up with the obvious argument of the disabled person's incapability to legally consent.
B. Not seeing anything wrong with this statutory rape (which only very few people would do).

Legal Consent is defined by mankind.

Oh, Mhykiel! You are actually one of those religious people I mention in OP, since you place homosexuality in the same dominion as bestiality.

Sin is defined by God.

But, religious people interpret "sin" differently around the world. The Christians in my country think homosexuality isn't a sin for example. There have been sooooo many interpretations on what would be sin or not. So don't pretend for any second that there is only one interpretation. Sin seems to be as arbitrary as you think human law is, isn't it?

You think you can legislate good and bad behavior. You are part of the problem

I most certainly think I can. You don't need a holy book in order to understand that some things are destructive for people. Do you for example need a holy book in order to understand that rape renders someone deeply violated with PTSD during the rest of her life and perhaps also the rest of her closest lives? Etc.

It could be wrong to have sex with a mentally ill person. And it may not be.

Ooooooooooooookaaaaaaaaaaay. So I was actually right when I said that disbelief in legal consent could make you people say it would be correct...

Are so stuck in the mud that you think a mentally retarded person has no capability to consent.

They could seemingly consent. But that is also what children, animals and disabled could do to things like:

* Applying for bank loans
* Signing contracts
* Writing wills
* Lending money

So are you saying it would be moral to fool a disabled person to make you inherit his money? Or it would be moral to make a child sign a contract saying "I hereby commit myself to clean the park every day of the year for the rest of my life"? According to you, both of these things would be totally fine, despite said person's disability to understand

Why bother asking them what flavor ice cream they like? clearly they can choose that but not sex.

Giving a disabled person ice cream doesn't violate any holy faculty he has. Having sex with them would. Children who have been molested as young do often live the rest of their lives suicidal, when they look back at what happened. As does his family.

In this day and age anyone who wants to have sex with anything or anyone is allowed.

The only thing that has changed from your beloved status quo is adult peoples' right to have sex with a consenting adult of the same chromosome pair, aka homosexuality. Nothing else. Or are you saying pedophilia is accepted as well now? Anyone in 2016 is totally OK in having their children molested on their way to school?

It's only a matter of time when bestiality, pedophilia, incest, ect.. become protected acts under Legal Consent.

No it isn't. Read this very carefully: Animals and children could not consent to something intimate as sex in the same way they could not consent to applying for bank loans or signing contracts.. Or are you OK with your children being fooled to sign contracts too?

Such a mentality is poisonous to even secular republics.

Haha, "RINOs"?

It suggests that laws define moral behavior. That human freedoms and rights are enumerated and given by government.

The thing is that your book was written during a time which you wouldn't see as "moral" at all. If you would be beamed into the old Israel, you wouldn't like it at all. THERE you would see pedophilia for example, since any ancient culture believed a girl became an adult on her menarch.

Such ideology is contrary to Americas founding fathers and Natural Law. Where Governments power and freedom is defined and enumerated. Where the power of the government is restricted and slowly empowered by the people.

So No Jovian. What is defined as Legal Consent does not dictate why a christian would say something is wrong or right morally. It merely says what is Legally allowed or culpable.

Thanks for playing another "atheist says Christians think X, and X is illogical." classic strawman structure.

Why don't you just post topics on why YOU are an ATHEIST, and not what you think Christians are saying. because honestly you don't bother trying to understand the Bible or religious thought.

You bigot.

You never answered my question. Is this wrong or not? Don't come up with any non-answering answer like "Only God knows". Of all 2 billion Christians in the world, someone professed of them must have encountered this question. If no one has, then I must truly be a revolutionary unicum in the world of Christian skepticism.
Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2016 8:30:39 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/9/2016 2:14:06 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/8/2016 7:35:38 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 8/8/2016 5:45:02 PM, desmac wrote:
Do the "mentally disabled" not have human sex drives? Who has the right to deny them natural desires?

They do have. Where have I said that they should be barred from having sex? Under the law, an able person having sex with a disabled is called "statutory rape", while a disabled person having sex with a disabled person is totally fine. A little like a 15 year old being able to have sex with people in their own age but not with adults.

Why's that Okay? Why is it two 15 year olds having sex is okay but if the male or female be 18 it is not okay?

It is a legal protection against being taken advantage of. Although I was a little wrong. In countries where the age of consent is 15, but the age of adulthood is 18, if such a couple were to engage in sexual acts, there would be an investigation of how mature the 15 year old was. So it could work, and it could not work.

So when neither party can consent they both automatically consent? please tell me how you make sense of this?

Short answer: They are able to understand about sex, but they are still in an age where they could be taken advantage of. Thus Or are you saying a 45 year old man would not in any way be able to fool a 15 year old girl?

Where goes the limit for your proposed age of consent? In your beloved biblical ancient Israel, the girls were seen as adults when they were 10 sometimes. Just sayin...
Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2016 8:39:36 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/9/2016 3:03:50 AM, HeavenlyPanda wrote:
At 8/8/2016 4:28:37 PM, Jovian wrote:
Yes, the question might seem weird. I know personally very well why it is wrong, but I will show you how many religious people could be hypocritical sometimes.

So, the thing is that many religious people won't buy "homosexuality could be consensual" as an argument against accepting homosexuality. They would also sometimes claim that pedophilia and bestiality are both akin to homosexuality, and won't also ever buy the counterargument that "homosexuality could be consensual, bestiality and pedophilia couldn't". The reason they are against bestiality and pedophilia stems out of the Bible, at least with Christians, I don't know about the other religions.

So let us move onto something which also is forbidden, statutory rape against mentally disabled adults, where the rapist is an able person. How would Christians answer to why this would be wrong?

The non-religious reason to explain why this statutory rape against a disabled adult would be the same reason to explain why bestiality and pedophilia are wrong. Disabled/animals/children are not legally able to give consent to such an act, because they are of too low intelligence to understand such an act against their sexual faculties, which anyone would argue is the most holy faculties a person has. Just like any baby with a brain would figure out that these people neither are mentally capable of doing things like signing contracts and applying for bank loans. Just like you aren't able to trick a random senile 96-year old into writing a will where it is specified that you will inherit all his money? It would be nullified by lawyers because of his senility.

But how exactly would one of these religious people argue for statutory rape against mentally disabled people being wrong? It sure isn't specified in the Bible, so then there must be two options:

A. Throwing in the towel and come up with the obvious argument of the disabled person's incapability to legally consent.
B. Not seeing anything wrong with this statutory rape (which only very few people would do).

Are you na"ve or are you just that plain stupid? Christians think homosexuality is wrong becuase two people are consenting to do something wrong.

So you interfere in what two people do in their own bedroom just because you see it as wrong? Why is it wrong?

It's so perverse of you to interfere in what other people do with their own genitals, which isn't hurting anyone else. No one is doing that on you, so don't do it on anyone else.

You would also see wrong in violence too right? So why don't you speak out against consensual violence? Like martial arts or just friends who say "punch me as hard as you can on my arm"? Or stunt performance?

That's even worse than only one person consenting to do something wrong. What makes sex with the mentally disabled wrong is that its sick. Anybody can tell you that.

Where does your Bible say this?

Are you considering it Jovian?

No, because I am fully aware of why it is wrong, I showed you why in OP. You fundamental Christians however have no reason to show why it is wrong, since you don't believe in legal consent.

Oh by the way, you have yet to answer this question http://www.debate.org...