Beards and Gay Marriage

[Charlemagne_III]

Still goading!!! Tell us, what your motive is? Is it personal? Looking for a gotcha moment?Something else? What differences does it make that my opinion is that incest and SSM are not morally equivalent? Why is my opinion so important to you?

You really have my curiosity on a treadmill.

The real issue is by what authority you can say that neither incest nor sodomy are psychological attractions resulting from a psychological disease. You say incest arises from abusive authority, but that would not be the case in a sibling relationship if the siblings were demanding the right to a marriage license. Why would it be for you to say that incestuous siblings are in an abusive relationship whereas sodomites are not? The common sense of mankind has always been (at least until the recent corrupt generation of psychologists) that both relationships arise from a defective psychological condition.

Your curiosity is on a treadmill because you don’t have a coherent explanation for why psychologists reversed themselves in order to validate same-sex attraction as no longer a mental disease. They lost the respect of a lot of people when they did that.

I believe psychologists have done a great deal in the last century to harm public morals, starting with Freud himself who declared theism to be a neurosis that the human race was destined to outgrow.

I won’t challenge your own credentials out of respect for your willingness to participate in this forum, but I cannot respect an organization of professionals who cannot present a coherent explanation for why same-sex attraction (culminating in sodomy) is as valid a sexuality as any other, and deserve the respect of a marriage license.

Keep treading!

 

[PRmerger]

Still goading!!! Tell us, what your motive is? Is it personal? Looking for a gotcha moment?Something else? What differences does it make that my opinion is that incest and SSM are not morally equivalent? Why is my opinion so important to you?

You really have my curiosity on a treadmill.

I am simply asking you to provide a coherent explanation for your opinion that gay sex is ok but adult consensual incestuous sex is not.

That you cannot provide one ought to give you pause and have you consider that you need to re-evaluate your position.

Either neither are good, or they both are good.

Which one is your position?

 

[frobert]

The real issue is by what authority you can say that neither incest nor sodomy are psychological attractions resulting from a psychological disease. You say incest arises from abusive authority, but that would not be the case in a sibling relationship if the siblings were demanding the right to a marriage license. Why would it be for you to say that incestuous siblings are in an abusive relationship whereas sodomites are not? The common sense of mankind has always been (at least until the recent corrupt generation of psychologists) that both relationships arise from a defective psychological condition.

First re-read what I wrote. Second I don’t have authority I have competence as a psychologist. Third think how one is lead into incest.

Your curiosity is on a treadmill because you don’t have a coherent explanation for why psychologists reversed themselves in order to validate same-sex attraction as no longer a mental disease. They lost the respect of a lot of people when they did that.
I believe psychologists have done a great deal in the last century to harm public morals, starting with Freud himself who declared theism to be a neurosis that the human race was destined to outgrow.

The CC reserves the right to update their teachings in light of new evidence, why do you want to take this right away from the APA. Read the literature on their thinking. I have a good friend and mentor who happens to be an adolescent psychiatrist and was part of the APA decision. BTW when I asked him about what went on during the debate he told me that both sides where out of control. Sort of reminds me of CAF

I won’t challenge your own credentials out of respect for your willingness to participate in this forum, but I cannot respect an organization of professionals who cannot present a coherent explanation for why same-sex attraction (culminating in sodomy) is as valid a sexuality as any other, and deserve the respect of a marriage license.
Keep treading!

Again you really need to delve into the historical accounts of the debate. Basically it is was the psychoanalytically-oriented psychiatrists who had a lot invested in their classical Freudian theory of development that were against change. Research back then was sparse except for Evelyn Hooker’s research in the 1950’s which did not confirm their beliefs. Declassification of homosexuality as a mental illness happened because it no longer made sense in light of new evidence.

Thanks!

 

[frobert]

I am simply asking you to provide a coherent explanation for your opinion that gay sex is ok but adult consensual incestuous sex is not.

That you cannot provide one ought to give you pause and have you consider that you need to re-evaluate your position.

Either neither are good, or they both are good.

Which one is your position?

“Either neither are good, or they both are good.” is your conclusion, not mine.

You and other posters have a problem with labeling incest as abuse. You appear vested in the erroneous idea that it is not abusive.

My conclusion is that incest is always abusive and not trivial. You don’t think so? Do you have any knowledge about incest either first hand or from formal education or from the professional literature? If not I supplied references, feel free to examine them.

My professional opinion is that incest is always abusive and not trivial.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Again you really need to delve into the historical accounts of the debate. Basically it is was the psychoanalytically-oriented psychiatrists who had a lot invested in their classical Freudian theory of development that were against change. Research back then was sparse except for Evelyn Hooker’s research in the 1950’s which did not confirm their beliefs. Declassification of homosexuality as a mental illness happened because it no longer made sense in light of new evidence.

As to all that, you might want to look into this:

cleansingfiredor.com/2010/08/the-american-psychiatric-association-and-homosexuality/

 

[frobert]

As to all that, you might want to look into this:

cleansingfiredor.com/2010/08/the-american-psychiatric-association-and-homosexuality/

WOW! that is a one heck of a scary site. I said in my post, that from first hand information both sides were out of control. That site reports on one of the favorite fall backs of the loosing side. Find something a slightly more balance account of what went on, one with a lot less scary background

Not quite off topic, earlier today I received an email from my the friend I mentioned in response to my invitation for him and his wife to join me for happy hour on Tuesday. If you have any specific questions that you would like answered about the APA event I will be happy to ask him. I am sure he will give me an honest answer. BTW his total education including MD degree was in Catholic schools.

 

[PRmerger]

“Either neither are good, or they both are good.” is your conclusion, not mine.

Then you should be able to easily refute the logic.

Both are sexual activities that are for pleasure. Both are with adults. Both are consenting.

So where is the line where one is moral but the other is immoral?

This should be easily answerable, frobert.

No obfuscation.

No reference to other sites.

Use your own words and refute the logic.

How is incest abusive between 2 consenting adults, BTW?

 

[stewstew03]

… I have competence as a psychologist.

You should know that it is a violation of the forum rules to assert credentials as a medical professional (unless those credentials can be verified by CA staff).

In any event, can you link to something you’ve published in this area?

(I’m not holding my breath…)

 

[Bradski]

Why would it be true that some form of sexual intimacy is required based upon your definition that marriage is a lifelong committed relationship? It seems a case of having your cake and eating it, too.

Stop thinking about sex for heaven’s sake. Intimacy doesn’t require any sex.

Let me ask you if you understand the kind of close relationship that a father and a son can have and that might exist between a couple of elderly sisters or any other permutation that you would like to consider. Now consider the relationship between two people who are very much in love and married.

Forgetting entirely about sex, do you not undersTand the difference in the relationships?

Up until about twenty years ago, nobody was looking for gay couplings to be added to a definition of marriage, either.

Nobody is looking for gay couplings to be added. Jst that they are not excluded. There’s a huge difference

Why shouldn’t two elderly sisters or brothers be entitled to the apparent tax benefits, visitation rights, survivorship entitlements, etc.

The law already dictates that close family members cannot be married. Nobody is looking to change that. Allowing gay couples to marry will not change that. The question is irrelevant.

By your logic (what harm is done?) the siblings who want to marry have as much a case as SSM advocates have. Why knock down their fence and keep the SSM one erect?

The law doesn’t allow close siblings to marry. No-one is looking to change that. If they did, it would be a separate subject with different arguments.

That definition includes fathers and sons living together. Brothers and sisters. Sisters and sisters. Brothers and bothers. You want the govt to recognize these relationships as marriages?

Again, I’m sure you realise the difference between the close relationships any of those couplings might feel versus the relationship between a married couple. Of either sex. And again, there are laws against those people getting married and no-one is looking to change that.

Most people want to change the law to allow gay people who have the same feelings for each other as heterosexual married couples do to get married. I’m not sure you are likely going to convince anyone at all that father and son, sister and sister etc would want a formal arrangement on that same basis.

You simply cannot say that cheating on your wife is wrong for all marriages? Only for you? Really?

It’s wrong for all the marriages where harm would occur. I mean, how difficult is this for me to get across? You can work in as meany hypotheticals as you like but the answer will always remain: It is immoral if it causes harm.

 

[Peter_Plato]

“Either neither are good, or they both are good.” is your conclusion, not mine.

You and other posters have a problem with labeling incest as abuse. You appear vested in the erroneous idea that it is not abusive.

My conclusion is that incest is always abusive and not trivial. You don’t think so? Do you have any knowledge about incest either first hand or from formal education or from the professional literature? If not I supplied references, feel free to examine them.

My professional opinion is that incest is always abusive and not trivial.

So your professional opinion is that incest is wrong BECAUSE it is always abusive, but if cases came to public attention where no abuse was determined to exist, then incest would be morally licit? What makes it wrong is not that it is an intimate physical relationship between related individuals, but solely because it is determinably abusive?

Logically speaking, then, you would have to change your opinion of the moral standing of some incestuous relationships if they could be proven to not involve abuse, correct?

By the way, I think you misunderstand the motivations behind the comments of many of the posters on this forum. Remember that this is a philosophy thread on a philosophy forum. What individuals are interested in is the objective and defensible truth behind a position being espoused. It isn’t about your personal beliefs, it is about how you arrived at those personal beliefs and whether anyone else can be convinced by your reasoning to accept those beliefs as their own personal beliefs.

Think of it as peer review in stated in terms of logical premises and conclusions.

It isn’t a game, nor is it trivial. People on these forums are genuinely concerned with the truth of things and will defend their understanding and ask you to defend yours, but at the same time they will be genuinely convinced by impeccable logic and reasoning. That is why they are not asking for your credentials but for the foundational reasoning behind your beliefs.

It isn’t good enough to claim my church says this or that on the subject. Even for those Catholics on these forums, there is a need for clarity on Church teaching that is very important, but even more so is the rational basis upon which Church doctrine is founded. The Catholic Church doesn’t merely proclaim a doctrine or dogma, but spells it out and provides the context and basis upon which the teaching is grounded.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Why do I get this odd feeling that some kind of bait and switch analogous to a parlour card trick is being played here.

Keep your eyes on what I want you to look at so that I can fool you into thinking something happened that you will find astonishing and marvelous.

Don’t look here…

Stop thinking about sex for heaven’s sake. Intimacy doesn’t require any sex.

Rather, look here…

Now consider the relationship between two people who are very much in love and married.

Did you see the marvelous thing before your eyes?

Forgetting entirely about sex, do you not undersTand the difference in the relationships?

Nobody is looking for gay couplings to be added. Jst that they are not excluded. There’s a huge difference

Yes of course, but adding gay couples requires a complete redefinition of what a marriage is just so they won’t be excluded.

The problem is that the inclusion has to happen on the basis of that redefinition that, neither legally nor logically, will exclude close “close family members” from being married.

That is precisely why the redefinition is objectionable. It requires a definitively arbitrary application of the new rules so they apply to some and not others.

That, my friend, is revelatory of the inconsistency at play in revisionist thinking.

The law already dictates that close family members cannot be married. Nobody is looking to change that. Allowing gay couples to marry will not change that. The question is irrelevant.

Sure, but no one was “looking to change” the definition of marriage when gay rights advocates began calling for tolerance where gay behaviour was concerned.

Remember that “slippery slope” is a logical fallacy because one condition does not necessarily lead to another. However, we are not to infer from the logical fallacy that moral behaviour might not generally, or even almost always, be susceptible to slippery slope consequences. Merely because something is not logically necessary does not mean it won’t happen with predictable frequency.

The law doesn’t allow close siblings to marry. No-one is looking to change that. If they did, it would be a separate subject with different arguments.

Perhaps, but the same definition of “marriage” as you proposed will “change that” very quickly.

Sounds like the same empty assurance that pro-abortionists were using some 40 years ago. “Abortion will only be allowed by medical tribunal where the life of the mother is in jeopardy.”
“Safe abortions will protect vulnerable women from back alley abortion mills.”

Who would have thunk it that abortion up to full term based on any whim would worm its way into our fine upstanding culture? That women would come to understand that abortion (killing of a yet to be born human being) is an inalienable right?

“No one is looking to change that.”

Famous last words.

I remain extremely dubious concerning every moral assurance paraded before the spearhead that wants to change our culture by adopting every novel insanity that “modern” people conjure in their unfettered and morally bankrupt imaginations.

 

[Bradski]

Logically speaking, then, you would have to change your opinion of the moral standing of some incestuous relationships if they could be proven to not involve abuse, correct?

I’ve been doing some reading on this matter and there are some studies that indicate that there is an inbuilt evolutionary resistance to incest that is culturally reinforced. cep.ucsb.edu/papers/incest2003.pdf

It appears that co-habitation at a young age with members of either sex triggers a resistance to any sexual interest. The length of time increases this resistance and relatedness doesn’t appear to be a major factor. That is, a boy could grow up with two girls, one of whom is unrelated and the other a sister and the judgement in regard to possible sexual contact with either is the same.

This could result in what you might consider to be a natural aversion to incest without being able to articulate (apart from religious arguments) why it is wrong. It isn’t the fact that the potential sexual partner is related, it’s the fact that there has been a developing relationship where sexual feelings were naturally attenuated.

That’s not to say that the aversion can’t be overridden in some way and I’m sure we’ve all heard cases where it has been. That said, there is a further aversion to father/daughter incest or mother/son incest simply because of the nature of the relationship in the first instance and the thought that that relationship may have been used coercively.

With regard to siblings, that argument cannot easily be used. And if the siblings had grown up separately and can overcome any evolutionary no-go warnings that the possible kin-recognition system that we are thought to have may dictate, then we are left with (apart from religious arguments, problems re reproduction and the natural aversion we all appear to have), the question as to what the problem might be.

 

[Bradski]

Don’t look here…

Rather, look here…

The first being me saying that you should stop thinking about sex and the second me suggesting that married couples can be very much in love.

You are* still* thinking too much about sex. The second example didn’t include it and doesn’t require it to make the point. I could equally be making an argument that a couple who are incapable of making love but who are still ‘very much in love’ should be able to marry. Which, as far as Catholics go, they can’t.

Remember that “slippery slope” is a logical fallacy because one condition does not necessarily lead to another. However, we are not to infer from the logical fallacy that moral behaviour might not generally, or even almost always, be susceptible to slippery slope consequences. Merely because something is not logically necessary does not mean it won’t happen with predictable frequency.

If you think that allowing gay people to marry could eventually result in incestual marriages, then might there be a logical link between allowing inter-racial marriages and gay marriages? I’m sure there would have been the argument: ‘Let a black guy marry a white woman and people will be asking to marry their pets next’.

How utterly risible it would have sounded. That just allowing one type of marriage would automatically lead to all types of marriage. I’d like to think you would have argued against such a notion back then - if an argument was actually needed against such a nonsensical idea. But here you are proposing it…

 

[Peter_Plato]

?.. such a nonsensical idea. But here you are proposing it…

No I am not “proposing” it. I am saying your definition of what a “marriage” is not only allows it but positively endorses it.

Despite your attempt to divert attention away from your dysfunctional definition, you have not succeeded in presenting what you think a marriage is without endorsing all manner of relationships that would never have been considered to be marriages without revisionists mucking about trying to redefine what a marriage actually is.

The fact that only inadequate defintions can be proposed is telling in terms of the unique reality that is conjugal marriage. No other relationship is comparable or substitutable.

 

[Bradski]

Here’s an idea. Rather than all of us proposing this and suggesting that, why don’t we use a concrete example which appears to be working just fine. Here th erelevant section of the relevany UK bill allowing same sex marriages: publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2012-2013/0126/cbill_2012-20130126_en_2.htm#pt1-pb1-l1g1

(1)Marriage of same sex couples is lawful.

(2)The marriage of a same sex couple may only be solemnized in accordance
with—
(a)Part 3 of the Marriage Act 1949,
(b)Part 5 of the Marriage Act 1949,
(c)the Marriage (Registrar General’s Licence) Act 1970, or
(d)an Order in Council made under Part 1 or 3 of Schedule 6.

(3)No Canon of the Church of England is contrary to section 3 of the Submission
of the Clergy Act 1533 (which provides that no Canons shall be contrary to the
Royal Prerogative or the customs, laws or statutes of this realm) by virtue of its
making provision about marriage being the union of one man with one
woman.

(4)Any duty of a member of the clergy to solemnize marriages (and any
corresponding right of persons to have their marriages solemnized by
members of the clergy) is not extended by this Act to marriages of same sex
couples.

Now let me know what you think might be wrong with that…

 

[frobert]

You should know that it is a violation of the forum rules to assert credentials as a medical professional (unless those credentials can be verified by CA staff).

In any event, can you link to something you’ve published in this area?

(I’m not holding my breath…)

Don’t then. For reasons that should be obvious I do not wish to make my identity known by links or otherwise. I was not aware of the rule and I apologize for inadvertently breaking it, Now that I know the rule I won’t refer to myself as a medical professional again.

 

[stewstew03]

Don’t then. For reasons that should be obvious I do not wish to make my identity known by links or otherwise. I was not aware of the rule and I apologize for inadvertently breaking it, Now that I know the rule I won’t refer to myself as a medical professional again.

Fair enough. Try relying on your ability to get a point across rather than your credentials.

 

[stewstew03]

Here’s an idea. Rather than all of us proposing this and suggesting that, why don’t we use a concrete example which appears to be working just fine. Here th erelevant section of the relevany UK bill allowing same sex marriages: publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2012-2013/0126/cbill_2012-20130126_en_2.htm#pt1-pb1-l1g1

(1)Marriage of same sex couples is lawful.

(2)The marriage of a same sex couple may only be solemnized in accordance
with—
(a)Part 3 of the Marriage Act 1949,
(b)Part 5 of the Marriage Act 1949,
(c)the Marriage (Registrar General’s Licence) Act 1970, or
(d)an Order in Council made under Part 1 or 3 of Schedule 6.

(3)No Canon of the Church of England is contrary to section 3 of the Submission
of the Clergy Act 1533 (which provides that no Canons shall be contrary to the
Royal Prerogative or the customs, laws or statutes of this realm) by virtue of its
making provision about marriage being the union of one man with one
woman.

(4)Any duty of a member of the clergy to solemnize marriages (and any
corresponding right of persons to have their marriages solemnized by
members of the clergy) is not extended by this Act to marriages of same sex
couples.

Now let me know what you think might be wrong with that…

Is your argument that this law cannot be changed?

 

[Bradski]

Is your argument that this law cannot be changed?

I’m not putting forward an argument.

Just pointing out that there seems to be a lot of time and effort in discussing what exactly might or might not be acceptable as regards marriage both from a morals point of view and a legal one and it might seem pertinent to look at what is already in existence and appears to be working just fine.

The UK bill allows gay marriages to take place, with the same restrictions on marrying your mum, dad, kid sister or cocker spaniel as before and with an additional safeguard for religious organisations in that they are not obliged to marry any gay couples.

Comment as you see fit.

 

[stewstew03]

The first being me saying that you should stop thinking about sex and the second me suggesting that married couples can be very much in love.

You are* still* thinking too much about sex. The second example didn’t include it and doesn’t require it to make the point. I could equally be making an argument that a couple who are incapable of making love but who are still ‘very much in love’ should be able to marry. Which, as far as Catholics go, they can’t.

If you think that allowing gay people to marry could eventually result in incestual marriages, then might there be a logical link between allowing inter-racial marriages and gay marriages? I’m sure there would have been the argument: ‘Let a black guy marry a white woman and people will be asking to marry their pets next’.

How utterly risible it would have sounded. That just allowing one type of marriage would automatically lead to all types of marriage. I’d like to think you would have argued against such a notion back then - if an argument was actually needed against such a nonsensical idea. But here you are proposing it…

Laws against interracial marriage were motivated by animus – i.e., efforts to maintain white supremacy. Therefore, there was no rational basis to maintain those bans. By contrast, there are perfectly legitimate reasons for a society to uphold the conjugal view of marriage.