Archbishop of San Francisco warns of coming war on marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter estesbob
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thorolfr said:
Do you know of lots of mothers who want to marry their sons and sisters who want to marry each other? Probably not, so it’s not much of an issue is it? But there are many thousands of same-sex couples who want to marry. 🤷
Click to expand...
Want would the number matter if they are in love?
 
estesbob said:
Mothers can’t marry sons,sisters can’t marry each other. if they are really,really in “love” shouldn’t we change the definition of marriage to encompass their sexual desires?
Click to expand...
That would be one of those slippery slope fears that haven’t materialized.
 
Sy_Noe said:
That would be one of those slippery slope fears that haven’t materialized.
Click to expand...
Nope. But full marriage equality is arguing for it right now. It’s really superstition or religion or something standing in the way. It’s all about sex. Really.

Ed
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
UN-Civilized cultures…remember?
Click to expand...
No, I recall very well that you claim that even modern day Native Americans are ‘uncivilised savages’, I just don’t agree that this justifies dismissing their religion or culture.
 
Havard said:
I was expanding upon your post - I didn’t disagree with anything you had actually said.
Click to expand...
So I did not understand your point, and still do not. You never really answered my “so what?” - what conclusion are you drawing from your etymological dissertation?
 
FollowChrist34 said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrTaffy View Post
Many many cultures, including many of those existing in the current USA before christians arrived, had definitions of marriage that included same sex cultures.
Click to expand...
Generally Christians took over and enforced the JudaeoChristian view of marriage. Many Native American tribes are back to recognising same sex couples, and anecdotally at least I am told some never stopped.

Are they not at least as much a part of America as christians?
Click to expand...
 
estesbob said:
Want would the number matter if they are in love?
Click to expand...
Without a significant sample it is hard to verify or refute the allegation that such relationships are inherently unhealthy either to those involved or to society at large.
estesbob said:
Why should they be denied the right to be married?
Click to expand...
In this case, the obvious answer is the very real and well recognised risk to any children born of genetic defects. There are further arguments that incestuous relationships are frequently abusive or otherwise psychologically unhealthy, but the genetic one is the main point and probably why we have an instinctive aversion to incest.
 
DrTaffy said:
.
In this case, the obvious answer is the very real and well recognised risk to any children born of genetic defects. There are further arguments that incestuous relationships are frequently abusive or otherwise psychologically unhealthy, but the genetic one is the main point and probably why we have an instinctive aversion to incest.
Click to expand...
This problem can be solved if the incestuous couple agree (perhaps by voluntary sterilization) not to have kids, or to have kids the way gay couples do, by adopting or enlisting the help of a third party. Should such a couple be denied the right to marry?

Nor is marriage necessary if the incestuous couple wants to “shack up” and have children without the benefit of marriage. Denying them the right to marry does not keep them from having sex.

Or what it the couple is just too old to have kids?
 
edwest2 said:
That is an argument from biology. The only way to get the next generation of human beings and to make sure they are raised by the two people responsible for bringing them into the world.

Ed
Click to expand...
I’m pretty sure the fact that homosexuals can marry now isn’t going to cut down on the numbers of heterosexuals reproducing. And you can’t make sure they are raised by the 2 people responsible for bringing them into this world. Plenty of people have not been.
 
DrTaffy said:
Without a significant sample it is hard to verify or refute the allegation that such relationships are inherently unhealthy either to those involved or to society at large.
Click to expand...
I thought the criteria was two people in “love” What right do we have to determine if a relationship is “healthy”?
In this case, the obvious answer is the very real and well recognised risk to any children born of genetic defects. There are further arguments that incestuous relationships are frequently abusive or otherwise psychologically unhealthy, but the genetic one is the main point and probably why we have an instinctive aversion to incest.
Click to expand...
So there should be no problem with denying a mother and daughter marrying as long as they are in " love"?
 
Sy_Noe said:
I’m pretty sure the fact that homosexuals can marry now isn’t going to cut down on the numbers of heterosexuals reproducing. And you can’t make sure they are raised by the 2 people responsible for bringing them into this world. Plenty of people have not been.
Click to expand...
I’m pretty sure that legally eviscerating marriage of any marital meaning will lead to a decrease in marriage as well as a decrease in procreation. An underpopulation crisis is already inevitable. Destroying marriage will only exacerbate it.
 
Sy_Noe said:
I’m pretty sure the fact that homosexuals can marry now isn’t going to cut down on the numbers of heterosexuals reproducing. And you can’t make sure they are raised by the 2 people responsible for bringing them into this world. Plenty of people have not been.
Click to expand...
No but the mental damage that these “couples” bring upon the children they harm (gov allowed adoption, or worse means) will damage society.
 
DrTaffy said:
Without a significant sample it is hard to verify or refute the allegation that such relationships are inherently unhealthy either to those involved or to society at large.

In this case, the obvious answer is the very real and well recognised risk to any children born of genetic defects. There are further arguments that incestuous relationships are frequently abusive or otherwise psychologically unhealthy, but the genetic one is the main point and probably why we have an instinctive aversion to incest.
Click to expand...
The genetic claim is a total canard. Animal breeders routinely use in breeding or line breeding to cement certain characteristics. You can look at a four generation pedigree and see only two or three unique individuals. Currently there are only five major sire lines in horse racing and with cattle, sheep and other livestock the inbreeding is even closer. A father siring children from his daughter, brothers and sisters having children together is certainly not going to result in an explosion of genetic defects. Further many of them are simple recessives so completely unrelated persons carrying the gene can have a child with a very serious genetic disease.

It’s a social taboo, not a genetic taboo.

Prohibition against incest long predated knowledge of genetics and in fact was ignored in certain societies where brothers and sisters routinely married and certainly a study of history indicates many family alliances formed through marriages of cousins or other close relatives. However you see the prohibition in many other societies, not because of defects but because a sexual element breeds jealousy and violence. Families only survived by maintaining strong ties and cooperation.

As to ‘instinctive’ aversion to incest…really? Where does that arise? I suggest it’s taught as often brothers and sisters experiment and “play doctor” which is of course universally discouraged. And the instinctive aversion to homosexual acts is simply superstition and hocus pocus?
 
McCall1981 said:
Here you go:

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2914138/Teenager-dating-father-two-years-reveals-pair-planning-married-children.html

Besides, the reason you dont see a demand for incestual marriage is because its effectively prevented because its a taboo. Fifty years ago you could have said “you don’t see homosexual people wanting to get married” and you’d have been right, because there wasn’t any social context for it. Now that there is socially acceptable context for homosexuality, you see a demand for marriage. I’d be willing to bet that if tomorrow all social taboos on incest were removed, you’d see the demand for that kind of marriage too.
Click to expand...
There is another case in this country of a daughter who has been “dating” her father and plans to marry him. Plural marriage is also making its way through the courts and as Islamic influences arise we will see more of these cases. As you said, what was cringeworthy and unheard of years ago is the subject of reality shows, celebrations and congratulatory calls from POTUS.

You can see the easy analogy with divorce, unwed motherhood and cohabitation. When I grew up these were an absolute scandal. Now all are not only commonplace but unfortunately supported by government programs that encourage people NOT to marry, else they would lose government benefits. Marriage and children born within marriage are an anomoly in many minority communities.

How are all those great social experiments working out?
 
LisaA said:
Plural marriage is also making its way through the courts and as Islamic influences arise we will see more of these cases. As you said, what was cringeworthy and unheard of years ago is the subject of reality shows, celebrations and congratulatory calls from POTUS.
Click to expand...
Personally, I don’t see what’s wrong with polygamy, at least not from a religious point of view. Not only does it exist in Islam, but it’s all over the Old Testament. Abraham, Jacob, Gideon, Elkanah (Samuel’s father), David and Solomon all had more than one wife. Solomon had 700 wives. There is no evidence from the Old Testament that God found anything wrong with polygamy.
 
Thorolfr said:
Personally, I don’t see what’s wrong with polygamy, at least not from a religious point of view. Not only does it exist in Islam, but it’s all over the Old Testament. Abraham, Jacob, Gideon, Elkanah (Samuel’s father), David and Solomon all had more than one wife. Solomon had 700 wives. There is no evidence from the Old Testament that God found anything wrong with polygamy.
Click to expand...
And I never made such assertion. In fact we have often pointed out that support for polygymy or plural marriage has a long history and in fact is practiced among certain religions even today. There has never been religious support for homosexual relationships however. If your point is that marriage has not always been one man and one woman, don’t forget it has always held a male/female component even if incesctuous, polygymous or other odd construct.

Same sex “marriage” is a fabricated right with no basis in theology or biology. While as you said one could make the religious case for polygymy (and it is currently being advanced through the courts) no such religious case can be made for same sex “marriage.” However in redefining marriage to include same sex partners it makes any objections to incestuous marriages or plural marriages completely subjective. It seems like the height of hypocrisy to hear advocates for SSM howling with indignation that their redefinition of marriage would lead to these other forms but it’s quite obvious that indeed it does.
 
DrTaffy said:
Generally Christians took over and enforced the JudaeoChristian view of marriage. Many Native American tribes are back to recognising same sex couples, and anecdotally at least I am told some never stopped.

Are they not at least as much a part of America as christians?
Click to expand...
Yes, Native Americans are part of our society. I agree that the Judeo-Christian European settlers did basically overtake them over a period of time. One culture conquered the other. They were incompatible - it was a tragedy. I don’t think the intention was “genocide” in any calculated way. Different people within the Christian/European culture handled it differently (look at Canada vs. US history on this).

But I guess my point is can you show me a culture that has embraced gay marriage and same sex unions that has succeeded, that has built a strong, healthy culture that can withstand the pressure and threats from opposing forces? Do we not see a trend here of succumbing to cultures that do not embrace same sex unions as an alternative to heterosexual unions? Most of the many accepting cultures to which you refer seem to have disappeared.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top