I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
Consensual: existing or made by mutual consent
That a given relationship or activity is consensual says nothing at all about whether it is right or wrong, only about whether the parties involved are engaged in it voluntarily.
People very frequently engage in wrong behavior consensually. For instance, if you and I agree to hold up the liquor store, our doing so is consensual between the two of us. It is not generally, of course, consensual on the part of the liquor store owner.
All I asked, originally, is what actions should be taken to enforce our moral opinions of homosexuality against those who voluntarily (perhaps you prefer that term) engage in it. Above the legal age of consent, of course.
Consensual: existing or made by mutual consent
Trust me, I know what it means, my concern is that you are trying to validate and normalize a very serious mental condition by focusing on whether a person wants to be doing it. It is no different than trying to excuse cocaine addiction because the addict wants to use cocaine.
All I asked, originally, is what actions should be taken to enforce our moral opinions of homosexuality against those who voluntarily (perhaps you prefer that term) engage in it.
Very simple, homosexuality should be treated as a psychiatric disorder (as it was until the early 1970s), the AMA and APA should go on record with this and the DSM should be revised to reflect it. Schools should warn about homosexuality the same way they warn children about drugs and alcohol.
Every action other than those performed by the autonomic nervous system is voluntary, for one thing. A person may not be able to control thoughts or desires (although with practice, one can at the very least not entertain them, and get a grip, and so on*) but every human who is not psychotic or nearly so, can certainly control actions such as sex, eating, walking, speech, etc.
For another, the only reason we’re all having this discussion is because of governmental promotion - primarily non-legislative - of the homsoexual agenda on everyone else. So we’re so far beyond the point of neutrality, in the public and legal sphere, that the question is moot. Basically, for most or at least many people, even acting on their beliefs and understanding that homosexual acts are wrong, destructive, unhealthy, immoral and unnatural is tantamount to civil disobedience.
The real question is - where to do people go from here? I mean people who don’t want to support the homo-agenda.
*And an interesting point is that when desires and thoughts are acted upon, they gain strength in the mind; and when ignored or told “no, we’re going to do that today”, they become less troublesome or insistent. The mind is controllable, at least to a goodly extent. We are not meant to be, as humans, slaves to every desire that pops up. That makes us very different from animals. If this were not true, no one could ever control any desire, such as the desire to smoke. For instance, I used to smoke both cigarettes and marijuana - and stopped, with very little trouble, although I realize the difficulty varies a lot. Now, you couldn’t pay me to smoke anything. The “uncontrollable” desire is now gone.)