Can Homosexuals Consent?

[lawtonfogle]

I have seen the common slippery slope of relating homosexuals with animals and children, and I have seen the rebuttal homosexuals can consent while the others can't. What I haven't see is why? (Please note due to ways CF rules are interpreted, any discussion of the non-consenting side should involved children as examples and not animals, such dicussion of the animals would be breaking a rule).

With no why present, with no set criteria needed to consent alongside showing that homosexuals meet this criteria, could not one just say that homosexuals can't consent. A very basic way of stating this would be anyone wanting to have sex with someone of the same sex isn't mentally fit to have sex. Of course, no citations are given, but if one wanted to make a version of this fit to be a true Poe (or if you actually used this as part of what you accept), they could show things such as brain differences, and create an arbitrary requirement to consent which homosexuals don't max using the known differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals.

And yes, this same argument applies in reverse, one could use it to say that heterosexuals can't consent.

So we say a heterosexual adult can consent, that a homosexual adult can consent, but that a child cannot. But why, what are the distinguishing factors? Age and being of the human race? While this would seem to take care of the issue, these were designed not from the ground up, but from where you wanted to end up. You assumed your end point, and created a criteria which would fit it. We could say because the law says so or because it is what is the social norm, yet most who say this don't agree with the cultures in which children can (or could, for historic settings) have sex because it was both legal and socially accepted. And even those who think that if the culture supports it, it is ok, unless they are a full cultural relavist, they couldn't use the current law or social acceptable practices as a reason for something being right or wrong.


So, what are the differences?

Once again, I would like to reinforce that dicussion of the animal portion of this thread is, as I have already said, not allowed on CF.

 

[Beanieboy]

As an adult, I understand the world much differently than I did as a child. I understand that sometimes, when you order really cool stuff in the back of Boy's Life magazine, like the XRaySpex, that you can't really see though clothes or bone. It's an illusion that makes it seem like that.

As an adult, it is simply a given. I'm no longer naive.

If an adult were to talk to me around 4 or 5, and asked me to take a bath, especially if it was a friend or relative of the family that I trusted, I wouldn't really understand what I was going if I was fondled, or if he asked me to touch him, because I didn't know what masturbation was. I first masturbated around 10, and still had no idea what it was.

However, as an adult, I know full well what it is: sex. It's not a game. And I'm not naive.

If one looks at children who are molested (even when it is a girl and a man), even though it is heterosexual, once the child begins to understand what the adult was doing, they often feel guilty, guilty that they enjoyed it, blame themselves, or feel very ashamed.

However, adult women know exactly what is happening to them: sex, and are better to make better decisions.

I'm unsure why this is even an issue. Were your child of 7 to somehow win the lottery, it would be illegal for me to try to trick him out of giving me all the money by convincing him that I needed it for a school in Africa. Even if I needed it for a real school in Africa, I couldn't make a deal with a child, without consent of the parents.

Children can also not vote. There is a reason.

For animals, can they "consent"? Well, it depends. I've heard that dolphins are as intelligent as people, and are sometimes said to try to force people to have sex when people are trying to "Swim with the Dolphins". However, a dog? It's about as smart as a 2 or 3 year old. Would a 2 or 3 year old like it if you performed oral sex on them? Probably, but they aren't exactly consenting, because they really don't understand what is going on.

It's very clear to me.

However, I worry about children and animals around anyone who wonders if they can't "consent" simply because they go along with it.

 

[Washington]

To be clear, when you refer to children and sex are you talking adult-child sex, child-child sex, or both?

 

[stekaya]

I think it's important to establish if the modern definition of consent is based on life experience or mental soundness.

Life experience could be posed as a question; has the person developed their problem solving and relationship skills enough to be able to fully grasp the consequences of sex? It is generally accepted that by 18 years old, a person HAS developed these skills enough to know what they're getting into. A 9 year old cannot give consent since they really don't understand the consequences of intercourse; how could you explain to a child the concept of being a 'harlot' or being 'molested'? That's why books that are designed to explain sexual abuse to children approach the subject indirectly; for example, a passage from the book might read that 'I felt very sad for a long time after Uncle Bobby touched me in my private parts'. The ideas of depression, regret, and shame aren't discussed because the child wouldn't be able to grasp them.

Mental soundness is where it gets to be slippery. The main reason for this is whether or not homosexuality should be thought of as a mental sickness; and if that is the case, whether or not it's a serious enough mental condition to mean they are unable to give consent. While I don't believe this to be true (as it does not impede socialization, problem solving or reasoning skills), the definition of what qualifies as a mental sickness is different from person to person. Some Christians might argue that it is a mental sickness, on the grounds that it impedes normal sexual or romantic function. But, again, this is based on what one's idea of 'normal' sexual function is, and whether or not breaking from this normality is 'wrong' or just 'different'.

If you have a number, x, and the square of it is 4, x can be equal to either -2 or 2. But if your equation is x-2=2, x must obviously equal 4. For the squared problem, most people would automatically answer 2, while a small minority would answer -2. Both answers are correct in this scenario; neither is wrong, just different from the other. But in the subtraction problem, there is only one right answer. If one claims that x is equal to something other than 4, they are wrong. Do you view sexuality in terms of the squared example, or the subtraction one? The basis for the argument of whether or not homosexuality is a mental sickness lies in that choice.

 

[Ddes]

You're able to give consent if you can and do understand what you're agreeing to do and the consequences thereof.

We generally assume, reasonably enough, that young children and adults in certain mental conditions are not able to understand.

So, are homosexuals unable to understand what they're agreeing to? I've seen no evidence to indicate that. (In particular, homosexuals are generally speaking capable of making intelligent and educated decisions in all other situations, so sexual preference would be insufficient to establish inability to understand.) So I'd have to say yes, homosexuals can consent.

 

[Beanieboy]

There is no pharm that helps homosexuality - that suddenly balances chemicals in the brain and makes you straight. However, there are pharms that help people who are delusional become more rational, people who are depressed to be less so, or even ok, people who are schizophrenic to be able to think linearly and slow their thoughts.

The reason that there is no pharm is because there is nothing to fix. It isn't a mental disorder, no more than left handedness is.

That heterosexuals obsess on homosexuality so much may actually be a disease (OCD), and can be controlled with medication.

Think about it: I'm gay, and I don't think about heterosexuality very much, don't think about heterosexual sex acts, don't start thread after thread about it, nor try to tell heterosexuals what they should or shouldn't do in their bedroom.

It just doesn't cross my mind all that much.

 

[WhatThe]

Firstly, as has already been stated, most children simply do not have an understanding of sexual matters - or romantic/emotional matters.
Secondly, if you are talking about child/adult relationships, (i.e. paedophilia) that is a different matter yet again. These relationships are based on the adult party controlling, manipulating, and forcing the child into sexual submission. You cannot compare this to an adult relationship, either hetero or homo, because it simply is not a relationship. It is a power play, it is abuse.
If you are talking about consenting relationships, then the line between child and adult is not always clear, because there are some "children" (teenages, more accurately) who are sexually and mentally mature, and some "adults" who are not. It all comes down the individual.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

There is no pharm that helps homosexuality - that suddenly balances chemicals in the brain and makes you straight. However, there are pharms that help people who are delusional become more rational, people who are depressed to be less so, or even ok, people who are schizophrenic to be able to think linearly and slow their thoughts.

The reason that there is no pharm is because there is nothing to fix. It isn't a mental disorder, no more than left handedness is.

That heterosexuals obsess on homosexuality so much may actually be a disease (OCD), and can be controlled with medication.

Think about it: I'm gay, and I don't think about heterosexuality very much, don't think about heterosexual sex acts, don't start thread after thread about it, nor try to tell heterosexuals what they should or shouldn't do in their bedroom.

It just doesn't cross my mind all that much.

Actually there are meds that can reduce libido, which in turn can help a person who has homosexual urges(or heterosexual urges in hypersexual people) stop thinking about it. Even some of the earliest saints, I think Origen of Alexandria, castratred himself in order so he could study and search for God without being hindered by sexual urges.

I do agree there are too many threads here on homosexuality. I personally don't think about it, but the proproganda that I see flooded on TV and the communitys audacity to try to change marriage for their own sake makes me vent about it sometimes. Personally if the gay community wasn't so involved with trying to rewrite marriage I think they wouldn't be in the limelight they are in now.

 

[brightmorningstar]

I suppose one can consent to anything if it is legal. Another reason why we shouldnt have made same sex partnerships legally recognised unions.

 

[b&wpac4]

Actually there are meds that can reduce libido, which in turn can help a person who has homosexual urges(or heterosexual urges in hypersexual people) stop thinking about it. Even some of the earliest saints, I think Origen of Alexandria, castratred himself in order so he could study and search for God without being hindered by sexual urges.

I do agree there are too many threads here on homosexuality. I personally don't think about it, but the proproganda that I see flooded on TV and the communitys audacity to try to change marriage for their own sake makes me vent about it sometimes. Personally if the gay community wasn't so involved with trying to rewrite marriage I think they wouldn't be in the limelight they are in now.

I don't think I'll be following in Origen of Alexandria's footsteps anytime soon.

 

[geekgirlkelli]

Ummm, yeah. The answer is simple. I really don't see why the words "consenting adults" are so hard for some to comprehend, unless of course, the minds of some are indeed driven by an obsession with homosexual sex.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Ummm, yeah. The answer is simple. I really don't see why the words "consenting adults" are so hard for some to comprehend, unless of course, the minds of some are indeed driven by an obsession with homosexual sex.

That little girl sleeping on the shoulder of the woman (I don't know if it is you ar whomever) in that photo, are you not very concerned with who "teaches" her about things?

It should be an obsession to protect children.

 

[WatersMoon110]

I suppose one can consent to anything if it is legal. Another reason why we shouldnt have made same sex partnerships legally recognised unions.

We shouldn't allow same sex marriage because adults might consent to it?

 

[cantata]

I think a much stronger case can be made that women can't consent to heterosexual sex or marriage than that no one can consent to same-sex sex.

 

[WatersMoon110]

I think a much stronger case can be made that women can't consent to heterosexual sex or marriage than that no one can consent to same-sex sex.

How so?

 

[cantata]

How so?

I would add that neither case is particularly strong.

But arguably, women have to battle against the legacy of centuries and centuries of sexual subordination, and it's hard work.

Of course I don't really believe that all women are incapable of consent to heterosexual sex, but it is certainly true that, at least in Britain and the US, straight women are under a lot more social and cultural pressure to enter into sexual relationships with men than anyone is to have sex with someone of their own sex. And given the gender role expectations which still prevail in much of North Atlantic culture, it remains the case that women are, generally speaking, on the weaker side of the bargain in terms of the ability to assert oneself in a sexual or potentially sexual situation.

 

[WatersMoon110]

I would add that neither case is particularly strong.

That is for sure.

 

[Braunwyn]

Actually there are meds that can reduce libido, which in turn can help a person who has homosexual urges(or heterosexual urges in hypersexual people) stop thinking about it. Even some of the earliest saints, I think Origen of Alexandria, castratred himself in order so he could study and search for God without being hindered by sexual urges.

This argument doesn't make sense for the two lesbian ladies in their 70's that have been together for decades. Obviously, nature took care of their libido but that doesn't change the fact of same sex love.

 

[angellica]

This argument doesn't make sense for the two lesbian ladies in their 70's that have been together for decades. Obviously, nature took care of their libido but that doesn't change the fact of same sex love.

They should have just been friends. What's so wrong with that? They weren't having sex anyway.

 

[b&wpac4]

They should have just been friends. What's so wrong with that? They weren't having sex anyway.

You should just be friends with your husband. What's so wrong with that?