[a moment] to consent

 

***Content/Trigger Warning: sex, rape, etc.***

[moment 261]

There are so many arguments that people give to try to prove that heterosexuality is the only option. A popular one recently seems to be about the list of things that would then be ok should homosexuality be deemed ok. After all, we wouldn't say that sex with children is ok. Nor sex with animals. And somehow, then, sex with someone with the same body parts that you possess is wrong as well. But that's just not true.

First of all, the Bible is cited as the source of information. You should know that the translation of "man laying with man" is actually some version of "man laying with child." It's about sex with someone who is too young to consent. It also says things about not having sex with animals. Animals can't consent, either. 

It is all about consent. If we look into the nuances in the meanings of descriptors of sex in the bible, we discover that getting someone drunk and having sex with them isn't ok; that having sex with a minor is going against God; that having sex with an animal is a sin; that having sex with some who doesn't want to is wrong. The circumstances under which the sex is had is what is of concern, not the body parts of the people having sex. If someone is under age, incapacitated, unconscious, or doesn't have the capacity to understand what is going on, sex with that person is wrong. If they change their mind after the sex act has started - if consent is withdrawn - it would be wrong not to stop. But again, it doesn't matter what your anatomy looks like. 

Or to put it another way, having sex with a person (or animal) that can't consent is wrong - in biblical times and now. It doesn't matter what sexual organs you or the person you're having sex with has, what matters is that the sex act is consensual. Consensual sex good. Nonconsensual sex bad. It's that easy.