S
stewstew03
Guest
I think everyone will stipulate that current laws prohibit incestuous marriages…
- Status
B
Bradski
Guest
Did you miss a bit out there? Current laws in the UK allow gay marriage.
If we’re going to discuss gay marriage it might be pertinent to look at where it is allowed, what changes to existing laws were made, whether it restricts religious freedoms and whether it has caused, is causing or is likely to cause any harm.
If we’re going to discuss gay marriage it might be pertinent to look at where it is allowed, what changes to existing laws were made, whether it restricts religious freedoms and whether it has caused, is causing or is likely to cause any harm.
F
frobert
Guest
There is no logic to refute, the line is in the differences between religions and religious beliefs.
The morality of SSM comes down to ones religious beliefs, teachings, logic of the elders, and your own reasoning and probably some other factors which do not come to mind at the moment. Most posters on CAF trust the CC. I trust and accept on faith and reason the teachings of the UCC, my pastor guidance, the logic of UCC elders and the church’s guidance with understanding the bible.
From my comments it should be evident that the UCC holds SSM to be a valid and moral marriage. I share that belief for that same reasons that Catholics share the beliefs of the CC’s view on SSM. Since this is a Catholic forum most posters on here would share the beliefs of the CC. I do not wish to change or create doubt with anyone else’s beliefs because it would be disrespectful to do so. If anyone wishes to learn more about the UCC perspective and how it evolved they are welcome to visit the UCC website.
Besides myself I know there are many people of good faith who believe SSM is moral. It would never cross our minds that there is any equivalence between SSM and incest except perhaps for superficial qualities of consensual adults but not that sexual activities in SSM are all about pleasure. I actually doubt that it would cross many Catholics minds because for the most part they do not seek out the teachings and it is something that is not talked about from the pulpit. I moved a year ago and because my home church is difficult to get to on a regular basis I attend the local CC. I regularly on Sundays and on many week days. Only one time did I hear a sermon that contained the words gays and lesbians and that was to say they are welcome in our church.
I understand how those that believe SSM is immoral can make the connection to incest, even thought I think it is a stretch because there are other more salient reasons why incest is immoral.
Many people believe SSM is moral on its own merits and incest is immoral on its own merits
I told you why I believe incest is immoral on its own merits. I will say briefly that it is dysfunctional and an abuse of family trust and authority. If anyone wants to know more about the dysfunction of incest and how it is abusive they will have to do it on there own. I suggest exploring concepts of abuse of transference and family dynamics of authority.
I know those who want to argue logic will be dissatisfied with my comments but I leave you to argue logic among yourselves
I want to thank all the posters, believe it or not you have actually strengthened my own convictions and faith.
S
stewstew03
Guest
I get what you’re saying. We’re having this discussion in light of existing laws. Cutting and pasting the text of the law does not advance the ball.
P
PRmerger
Guest
It’s only a matter of time.
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1315307/Ive-married-sister–having-second-baby-Siblings-defied-law-plan-start-new-life-abroad.html
Then what you are saying is that it is always immoral.
And similarly, gay marriage always is immoral because it always causes harm. Always. Each and every time.
In the same way that adultery causes harm to a relationship, even if no personal harm is ever done to one’s spouse (since she never finds out)…so, too, does gay marriage cause harm to society, even if no personal harm ever comes to me.
F
frobert
Guest
Wow, even I can find examples of incest marriages form much less sensational oriented news outlets than the Daily Mail.
Please explain how gay marriage is always immoral. If you say it is natural law then you will need to circumvent or finesse the fact that Thomistic natural law is not universally accepted by many Ethicists of good faith who reason differently than St Thomas.
See: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Adultery causes harm in SSM as well as opposite sex marriage. One can understand from a karmic perspective how adultery causes harm to society.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Here is a source which proposes that incest is actually genetically attractive to us:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691703/
In fact, there is an entity called Genetic Sexual Attraction which proposes that there is actually an evolutionary DRIVE, NOT RESISTANCE to seek to mate with someone who is closely related to us.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_sexual_attraction
P
PRmerger
Guest
Wow. It* was* only a matter of time. 1/2 an hour to be exact.
A brother and sister couple in Germany, Patrick Stübing and Susan Karolewski, fought their country’s anti-incest laws. They grew up separately, met in 2000 when he was 23 and she was 15. He moved in with his mother and sister and had four children from incest which began in January 2001, the month after their mother died. Their appeal was rejected in 2008, upholding Germany’s anti-incest laws.spiegel.de/international/germany/dangerous-love-german-high-court-takes-a-look-at-incest-a-540831.html
P
PRmerger
Guest
Actually, no one here has posited a single religious objection to SSM. It has only been argued against via logic, reason and philosophy. At least since you’ve joined the thread.
Just like saying “You say that adultery is wrong because the Bible says it’s wrong” we Christians would argue: “No, adultery is wrong and we need not appeal to the Bible to argue why it’s wrong.”
That’s irrelevant. I know there are many people of good faith who believe that God hates homosexuals. They truly believe, after reading the Bible and listening to their consciences, that God hates homosexuals.
Are we to conclude, then, since there are people who believe this that they are correct?
Or can we say: you are wrong, your “good faith” notwithstanding.
F
frobert
Guest
I did not appeal to the Bible in my condemnation of adultery. We are in agreement on wrongness of adultery but have reached the same conclusion from different perspectives.
Exactly faith based belief is not necessarily true. Again we agree.People of good faith can honestly come to different conclusions. I would posit that those who believe God hates homosexuals have more issues than meet the eye. I would ask what motivates their hate? I can only speculate but it is certainly not God.
Now do you understand why I questioned the validity of your generalization re: SSM? I know you believe it which I do not question.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
The legislators that drafted current UK laws on marriage have placed themselves on a precariously teetering perch because what they are relying on is public opinion to solidify the law rather than grounding the law on a solidly formed ethical position.
"Society appears to endorse same sex marriage, but regards incest as taboo, therefore we’ll pander to society at large and not worry about the non-existent “incest lobby,” even though from a moral and legal perspective the revisionist definition of marriage grounding the new marriage law allows at least some forms of incest.
It is precisely this pandering to public opinion that allows them to write into the law that the Church of England can break the law at the same time as ordering the rest of British society to comply with it.
Either,
- The legislators clearly see that they have no solid moral standing for revising marriage laws which is why they are allowing the CofE to not comply, or
- The legislators believe they have achieved some high moral ground and the CofE is merely a pathetic vestige of some unenlightened age that can safely be ignored. Sort of like allowing your dotty old great aunt to say what she wants secure in the knowledge she won’t be taken seriously by anyone anyway.
You claim sex is not requisite to a marriage but some form of intimacy that the partners choose can, but, not necessarily will, must be. (Sounds self-contradictory to me, but let’s continue.) The form that intimacy will take is completely left up to the partners to decide for themselves. Okay, let’s go with that.
Now, take two middle-aged sisters or brothers, say both in their mid-forties who have decided to commit to each other under your rules of “marriage.” They have a loving and committed relationship and they want others - especially the legal establishment and tax department of the federal government - to accord their relationship with the respect and benefits which are due to full-fledged marriage partners.
This is not, as Frobert would claim, an “abusive” relationship since it is marked by respect, loyalty and remarkable filial love.
Since, as you say, the physical intimacy in a marriage ought to be left entirely up to the partners, then the two brothers or sisters should be left alone to decide the nature of their physical relationship. No one, especially not the civil authority charged with dispensing marriage licenses, ought to inquire into their intentions regarding sex or the lack thereof. Since, as you claim, sex is not a requirement for marriage, and the level of physical intimacy ought to be left entirely to the couple, this couple meets all your requirements for a “lifelong committed and loving relationship.” Only some arbitrary rule, with no warrant for inclusion, would justify their exclusion from being “married.”
I view this as a powerful reductio ad absurdum of your definition for marriage. It seems painfully clear that two brothers or sisters ought never to be considered “married” in anywhere the same sense that a biologically unrelated heterosexual couple is. Yet, your definition allows that possibility and only on arbitrary grounds - no one would want it - can anything like a reasoned objection to a pair of brothers or sisters marrying ever be formulated, based upon your revised definition of “marriage.”
That is the problem with your definition and the current marriage law in England: what is supposed to be a bullet-proof rational argument and legal definition of terms undergirding a law is riddled with gigantic holes wherein legislators must rely on the “good-will” of possible objectors, law breakers, and various and sundry amoral human agents to tread with care lest the law be shown up for what it is - an ineptly phrased pandering to irrational public opinion.
Pity you can’t see that, or at least won’t admit it, for fear of compromising your already grossly compromised view.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
There’s no really huge difference.
Twenty years ago nobody was demanding same-sex marriage either.
So what else is the huge difference?
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Scary web site? Is that your rebuttal? Not acceptable.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
I’d find most atheist web sites scary too, but I would not rebut what was said on them by referring to them as “scary.”
F
frobert
Guest
I was joshing about the scariness I even used a smiley which I seldom ever do.
My rebuttal is that the website uses the same fallback argument that it was the bully gay activists that made the psychiatrist do it. Sort of like the devil made me do it. Give the psychiatrists a some credit. I did write that both sides were out of control which meant that both sides used underhanded methods and a host of ad hominem attacks on each other. In the end level headed psychiatrist carried the day.
Now the article did verify my assertion that it was the psychodnymic therapists that were leading the fight for maintaining the status quo.
Step back a minute and think about the year 1973 when the convention took place in relationship to the strengths of the gay activist movement. The beginning of the movement is well document to have started with the NYC Stonewall riots on the last weekend of June 1969 a mere 4 years before the APA convention. Check the literature. During that 4 year period the movement was weak and scattered. Outside of NYC, San Francisco and a few Stonewall parades there was not much of a movement at all. Are we to believe that such a scattered movement would be able to put so much pressure as to bully so many psychiatrists. Psychiatrists were moving away from psychodynamic theories and therapies and many welcomed the new direction.
Today we hear the same hackneyed arguments that it is the gay activists who are bullying the courts. I am sure some are trying but isn’t more likely that the judges in the target courts more often than not do what they (the judges) believe is the right thing in paying attention to the legal arguments and not the bullying tactics?
Good discussion.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Have you not heard of the bullying tactics of political correctness?
It now exists everywhere, but seems to originate almost everywhere from the far left.
Don’t underestimate the power of political correctness. The only way to defeat it is to combat it, not lie down and let it roll over us.
Starting with Freud, I believe the psychology disciplines are notoriously leftist. I see no evidence that they are conservative. Do you?
apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx
It now exists everywhere, but seems to originate almost everywhere from the far left.
Don’t underestimate the power of political correctness. The only way to defeat it is to combat it, not lie down and let it roll over us.
Starting with Freud, I believe the psychology disciplines are notoriously leftist. I see no evidence that they are conservative. Do you?
apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx
F
frobert
Guest
1973 was in the pre-political correctness days
Are you saying judges give political correctness based rulings?
I am just as against political correctness as I am against the political parties. I think I have a political phobia.
I don’t believe that Christian religions are not rolling over. The CC alone gave over 6 million dollars to 4 states to fight SSM. I read recently that one Bishop gave $450000 to fight SSM. I have grown to dislike the society that condones interference through political correctness and big money donors.
The APA link was to an informational page on sexual orientation. Are you suggesting that the APA should not provide information out on gay and lesbian issues? I wish I had such information available when I was a teenage.
On that same page there are links to information on:
Disasters & Terrorism
Tips for managing your distress related to the wildfires
Stress Won’t Go Away? Maybe You Are Suffering from Chronic Stress
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
You don’t have a good memory. It was in the days when political correctness was just getting fired up.
You are free to believe the APA is not a purveyor of political correctness.
I am free to believe that on the topic of this thread it is the principal purveyor.
F
frobert
Guest
I didn’t say the APA is not for political correctness. I just said it was pre political correctness and the page you linked to did not at all appear to be PC but rather good solid information. In fact I remarked that I wish I had such information when I was a teenage. Perhaps it wouldn’t have taken me so long time to recoup my self-esteem or perhaps it would have not been so damaged by welling meaning people and not so well meaning people.
Here is a site that hates PC even more than I do
What Is Political Correctness?
Political Correctness (PC) is the communal tyranny that erupted in the 1980s. It was a spontaneous declaration that particular ideas, expressions and behaviour, which were then legal, should be forbidden by law, and people who transgressed should be punished.
I think they use Newsday as their source.
I can’t make out your meaning or what you are getting at:
“I am free to believe that on the topic of this thread it is the principal purveyor.”
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
This simply is not true. Political correctness actually began in the later 1950s and gathered steam throughout the following decades.
The ACLU in the early days was the principal purveyor of political correctness.
It became politically correct to attack religion on all fronts, and the Supreme Court was a willing partner in this. From the abolishing of the pornography laws, to the abolishing of prayer in the schools, to the promoting of abortion rights and the acceptance of homosexuality as nothing more than a personal lifestyle, these things and many others all happened before the 1980s.
The author you cite does not have a grasp of history and is merely mouthing the pious platitudes of the left who saw persecution of themselves everywhere without seeing how diabolical was their own persecution of Christian values.
Now we see coming at us very soon, if not already here, a massive movement among “married” homosexuals for the equal right to adopt children. This will of course be honored in the courts regardless of the effect this will have on the right of children to be born into and reared in a (for them) naturally heterosexual environment.
Have you not heard of the domino effect?
We live in a dirty society. It is getting dirtier day by day.
F
frobert
Guest
So true, unfortunate but true.
Can you find a reference dating PC before the 80s. Seems that it is a conservative issue and all the conservative sites that come up in the search use the same quote that I posted.
There are some sites that refer to PC of Marx from the 30s but I don’t think that PC has the same meaning that we give it today.
- Status