www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Where are the Bishops?

Does "consensus" make morality null and void in all cases?

I know of some adultery cases that operated under the argument of consensus. What do we tell the spouses and children?

My wife just had a long talk with a coworker about this other woman's dilemma over her mad love for a married man (with children). The consensus argument came up too. What do you think my wife should have told her?

Joe Thur

I did not call them NAZIs, simply that this is a NAZI mentality.

People who have seen my posts here concerning this subject know that I in no way support homosexual behaviour, but legislating against it is not the way to go, IMHO.

Columcille

David,

Good point. Otherwise, Jesus was/is a Nazi, Paul was a Nazi ...

Joe

Posted by Columcille:

"I did not call them NAZIs, simply that this is a NAZI mentality."

So what's the difference? Can one be a "Christian" in name only without acting like one?

Columcille also stated:

"People who have seen my posts here concerning this subject know that I in no way support homosexual behaviour, but legislating against it is not the way to go, IMHO.

Columcille,

Your argument is akin to those who say that they are personally against abortion but would not want to interfere with a woman's right to an abortion. Why are those who DO support abortion and homosexuality are the first to use the Supreme Court to legislate FOR IT rather than let it up for popular vote? Hmmmmmmmm.

Your logic befuddles me.

Does morality and ethics inverse when we are in the privacy of our homes?

What do you think my wife should have told the other woman having a consensual affair with a married man with children?

I don't consider this akin to the pro-"choice" argument at all. In that case, the baby has not consented to be killed.

Of course your wife should discouraged the other women from doing such a thing. My whole argument is: should we use legislation as a means to outlaw certain behaviour we find morally unacceptable? My OPINON is, no.

I hope that was a "grown-up" enough answer

Columcille

"I don't consider this akin to the pro-"choice" argument at all. In that case, the baby has not consented to be killed."

Columcille,

But those making the argument don't consider a baby's consensus a factor since unborn babies are not humans. Wasn't the argument one of a consensus between a woman and her doctor? Forget the husband (or boyfriend) and forget the baby. Consensus first, life second. Such is Libertarian ethics.

Consensus as an argument is a first fall down the slippery slope of permissiveness.

Legislation is also on the books about doing other illegal activities in the privacy of one's home.

oops. I missed the post.

I'll ignore the first part of this which serves no purpose but to be divisive.

I am well familiar with the part of Scripture you speak of. I am in no way condoning homosexuality. But should government have a say in the matter is the question.

Columcille

Then I hate to say that your political views are not compatible with Christianity.

As you would support assisted suicide as both participants are consenting adults.

And saying that you did not call us NAZIs just that we have a NAZI mentality is just playing with words. I could say that I didn't call you a Jerk, just that you are acting like one.

Please explain to me how the two, having the mentality of a NAZI and being a NAZI are different.

I will also point out that you picked a group, NAZIs, that are particularlly nasty and ugly to compare those who disagree with you with.


David

"My whole argument is: should we use legislation as a means to outlaw certain behaviour we find morally unacceptable? My OPINON is, no."

Columcille,

Again, why are the Pro-Choice crowd and Homosexual advocates the first to use the Supreme Court to protect their behavior rather than popular vote?

Roe vs. Wade was a product of a LIE.

The debunking of homosexaulity as an abnormal behavior in the same year was a product of protests and threats.

Do lies and pressure tactics make for good Libertarian legislation?

DavidB-

Instead of answering my question, "what role, if any, does the government have in this", you decided to dwell on the fact that I used the word "NAZI" several posts ago. I apologize if you were offended; but if you want to continue thinking my intention was to call you a NAZI, go right ahead and stew about it.

You sure to love that "thumbs down" icon, don't you?

Columcille

I will concede your point about assisted suicide, a good point.

But isn't it just another instance of the slide in our morals as a nation?

Adultery used to be a ground for divorce in most American jurisdictions. In fact, it still is, technically, a ground for divorce in many states. However, over time increasingly family law courts eroded this so that a spouse's adulterous behaviour would not be "counted against them" or "considered as fault" in divorce cases. As a result, most marriages that end in fact due to adultery are not resolved that way in court, but are considered "no fault". The courts simply don't want to consider the adultery of one spouse to be a "fault" any longer -- perhaps because it is so common (some statistics say 60% of married men and 40% of married women will have a sexual infidelity at some point during marriage) that it can't be considered a fault any longer. I see this as part of a larger trend towards sexual libertinism in our society. We simply aren't stomaching very well as a society any limits on the sexual activity of people as long as it is mutually consensual -- that seems to be the catchword. There are even people out there -- therapists and such -- who will say that sometimes an extramarital affair is just what the Dr. ordered because it is a "liberating, life-changing experience". All of this self-serving nonsense is simply getting our society further away from the concept of sin and consequences and more in the corner of laissez-faire libertine morality.

Brendan

I believe I shall just agree to disagree with the two of you since I don't see this exchange being edifying to anyone involved.

I apologize for any offence I incurred.

However, I am a bit offended that my ethics and morality seemed to have been questioned in this exchange.

Columcille

What part of it wasn't edifying?

- - -

Joe stated earlier: "Nice of you to be so willingly to side with the Evil One for consenting purposes. Obviously, "temptation" and what we do "in the recesses of our houses" don't mean squat in your Christian lexicon."

Columcille answered: "I'll ignore the first part of this which serves no purpose but to be divisive."

Aaaah! My comments about siding with the Evil One is to be considered "divisive" but your comments about those who disagree with you as being Nazis isn't?

I think I made my point.

Libertarian ethics seems to be a one-way street, however lacking its Christian principles.

Brendan,

Good points you make.

If adultery was consensus and protected, then would the guilty spouse have to pay for the victimized spouse (and any children)? I mean, if what they were engaged in was a consensual affair, then nobody should have to pay for it.

The argument from consensus can help the taxpayers and clergy in closing down all those divorce courts and annullment hearings.

What do you think, Columcille?

This is what happens when one choses to name call. Your arguments, no matter how worthy, are colored by your decision to name call and there by lessen their impact.

I would say that the role of government in this is the protection of a moral society. If we allow immorality to run rampant in the homes of our citizens then how can we comment on this immorality when it starts to run rampant in public.

And there are considerations of how these "private" acts effect the public. As Brendan brings up the case of "no fault" divorce and adultery no longer being viewed as fault.

Sometimes I wish to use another hand gesture but it is not an option..... :p

I thank you for conceding my point on assisted suicide, so who does this affect your over all view on this topic?


David