Replies

Because animals cannot give consent and there are laws protecting animals from abuse.

The whole issue of "consenting adults" is always played as a "trump card" to cut off discussion. But consider:

If someone wants to get their jollies from a melon or a cucumber, no one wonders if the vegetable is capable of "giving consent." Consent isn't an issue. Even if the vegetable dies from the procedure.
When I take my cat to the vet, I don't concern myself about whether or not the cat can "give consent." I doubt that the cat would consent to getting his shots. Nobody seems to have a problem with that.
The cat has been confined to our house for nearly a year, even though he has shown clear indications of wanting to go outside. The issue of "consent" never arises. Why is that different?
If a dog starts to "mount" someone's leg, and they don't stop the dog, but both enjoy the experience (yes, I have heard of people like this), would this be "abuse"? Does "consent" matter here? What if the contact is more "intimate" but the experience is still mutually enjoyable?
A person can stipulate in their will that their body is to be used for scientific research. Inasmuch as consent is an issue, the will constitutes consent. I believe that parents can give consent in this fashion for the body of their child. What if parents determined to sell the body of their child to a pedo-necrophile? Is anyone getting hurt here? Is any "force or fraud" involved? Is anyone being abused?

Granted, the last couple of examples are...utterly revolting. But from a utilitarian viewpoint you have no particular reason to make laws against any of these. If you were going to outlaw dealings with animals based on "lack of consent" and "abuse" you would probably, like PETA, start with nonconsensual confinement, treatment of food animals, ownership, etc. and sexual contact that the animal does not enjoy. But why should we single out only the last of those? And why should we care what a pervert would do with a corpse he had acquired legitimately?

I would suggest that there are acts--such as some of these--that are generally detrimental to society as a whole. And that it is good if there are laws to punish some of them. And finally, that "consenting adults" should not be considered to be a magic bullet for killing all morality arguments.

"If someone wants to get their jollies from a melon or a cucumber, no one wonders if the vegetable is capable of "giving consent." Consent isn't an issue. Even if the vegetable dies from the procedure."

Forgive my insensitivity, but I don't really give a flying F%$@ if produce dies because some whacko wants to hump it. Heck I don't even care if someone needs to go the produce aisle to get there jollies. Where as it may be wierd I don't see it as posing a health risk to anyone except for the individual participating in it.

"When I take my cat to the vet, I don't concern myself about whether or not the cat can "give consent." I doubt that the cat would consent to getting his shots. Nobody seems to have a problem with that."

Actually most normal people would find the fact that you care enough to take your cat to the vet as very caring. I'm sure most kids don't want to take cough syrup when their sick but loving parents will make sure their kids do the right thing.

What that has to do with two consenting adults who participate in "deviant" private behaviour that may or may not be harmful to THEMSELVES is beyond me.

So why is it that a freedom loving society ought to regulate the actions of willing participants in private acts that do not infringe upon the rights of others?

"A person can stipulate in their will that their body is to be used for scientific research. Inasmuch as consent is an issue, the will constitutes consent. I believe that parents can give consent in this fashion for the body of their child. What if parents determined to sell the body of their child to a pedo-necrophile? Is anyone getting hurt here? Is any "force or fraud" involved? Is anyone being abused?"

If a dog did this to someone I knew and they started enjoying it. I'd tell them to go get a room or to go get help. But then again I find it rather silly to assume that a dog acting on instincts and hormones to actually be willing to give conscious consent on the same level that humans do. Do you think that homosexuals don't act like humans or are in human and are incapable of courting one another and interacting and giving sexual consent in the same manner as hetero sexual couples. Or do you honestly believe that homosexuals run around humping each others legs to incite mating??? Awwwhhh hell I know a bunch of straight kids that act that way during spring break.

This is a rather absurd scenario. I must wonder is a dead person actually capable of giving consent? Is a childs consent legally binding? No!

Parents giving consent to sell a dead corpse to private individuals for their own sexual gratification?!?!?

How on earth you managed to extrapolate such a scenario from two active, living, adult members of society who may wish to enagae in sex with each other is beyond me?!?!

Can we try a more reasonable discussion???

"I would suggest that there are acts--such as some of these--that are generally detrimental to society as a whole. And that it is good if there are laws to punish some of them. And finally, that "consenting adults" should not be considered to be a magic bullet for killing all morality arguments."

Excellent point with excellent (if bizarre) examples to back it up. However, I think your points fall on deaf ears to those who don't believe, "The earth is the Lord's, and fullness thereof!" (which includes human beings).

Without an assumption of God and His right of ownership, morality of all kinds (private morality first) breaks down. Everything becomes the "who says!?" argument. (who are you to say killing such-and-such kind of people is wrong!?)

I heard a very good economic argument on this too---why socialists/communists/collectivists invariably strongly tend to be atheists/agnostics. If there is no God overseeing the world--then wealth seems to occur RANDOMLY, therefore its redistribution seems logical and necessary--at least if you're "kind" (objectivists excepted). With the great majority of Europe being agnostic or atheist, its no wonder they are socialists...