Can justification of gay marriage lead to justification of incest?

[crazzeto]

That would make it read “If a man or a woman lies with a man or a woman as one lies with a woman”, so forbidding a man to lie with a woman. Don’t think so. You’d have to go back to the original Hebrew. In any event, the verses say that the offenders must be put to death, so unless anyone is saying they should be put to death no one is obeying the verses.

I said it’s not mentioned in the Mosaic law, and as far as I know stories in Genesis are not part of Mosaic law.

The old law however, was fulfilled in the Christ, there for the old punishments do not apply. Your exiges is incorrect with regard to the application of gender. Neither man may lie on man, nor woman may lie on woman. Neither is acceptable before God under the pain of sin.

Now I can see your next argument comming, well if the law is fulfilled then the old testament definition of sin is too right? Wrong, the law is fulfilled, not sin.

 

[crazzeto]

I don’t really see how that’s different from what I said, except I’m not sure whether we have a gender after death. Matthew 22: 23-33 implies not, but I don’t know what Catholic theology says.

Gender is ingrained as part of our soul, it is utterly immutable. Nothing you can do can change it, it is the nature of what we are and it is reflected in both our spiritual and physical natures. God created them male and female, thus this is how we are created.

Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they shall neither marry nor be married, but shall be as the angels of God in heaven.
Mat 22:31 And concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read that which was spoken by God, saying to you:
Mat 22:32 I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.

There is no implication of the loss of gender, there is however a clear statement that purpose of marriage is fulfilled along with all else in the last resurrection. There is no marriage, nor giving in marrage because there is no longer any need to procreate. Since marriage is ordered towards procreation, it no longer serves a purpose. This brings us back to why gay marriage is not allowable.

 

[Barbkw]

Can justification of gay marriage lead to justification of incest?

Justification of gay marriage leads to gay people raising extremely high percentages of same sex attracted children who also accept the gay lifestyle.

Which indicates of course, that same sex attraction can be a learned acceptance.

 

[inocente]

My understating is that for Catholics, being gay is not a sin. Please give your opinion if you think I’m wrong.

You’ve had ample opportunity to find a Church document which says Jesus was speaking about gays, and haven’t done so.

"2357

Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.“142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

I have to leave for today, but just to say your quote (from the CCC?) doesn’t say that for Catholics being gay is a sin (it only says the act is a sin) nor does it say Jesus was speaking about gays, so I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make.

Giraffes don’t get married! Does “Consanguinity, affinity or spiritual relationship ring a bell?”

Nope.

 

[jschutzm]

Wouldn’t that be more of a case of “slippery slope” argument then ‘straw man’ – but anyways…

Yeah… duhh… anyone with a brain could see this coming. It may be decades off…but we see this trend getting stronger, not weaker, so it takes very little intuition to see that there will be a day when anything goes.

There is also that Nambla group, or whatever it is called, which advocates Hebophilia/Pedophilia.

So YES there are groups which are seeing this social experiment as possibly paving the way for their own twisted ideas.

Almost immediately after the Gay Marriage thing came up… there were people on the internet wanting to marry their pets. Because they “loved them” and that this was no different.

So the argument was not very “straw man” or “slippery slope” after all.

 

[tonyrey]

]I have to leave for today, but just to say your quote (from the CCC?) doesn’t say that for Catholics being gay is a sin (it only says the act is a sin) nor does it say Jesus was speaking about gays, so I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make.

No one has claimed that **being **a gay is a sin, only that homosexual acts are sinful.

 

[ASimon]

Wouldn’t that be more of a case of “slippery slope” argument then ‘straw man’ – but anyways…

Yeah… duhh… anyone with a brain could see this coming. It may be decades off…but we see this trend getting stronger, not weaker, so it takes very little intuition to see that there will be a day when anything goes.

There is also that Nambla group, or whatever it is called, which advocates Hebophilia/Pedophilia.

So YES there are groups which are seeing this social experiment as possibly paving the way for their own twisted ideas.

Almost immediately after the Gay Marriage thing came up… there were people on the internet wanting to marry their pets. Because they “loved them” and that this was no different.

So the argument was not very “straw man” or “slippery slope” after all.

In a country of over 300 million people, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that certain people will hold beliefs or behave in ways that run far afield of mainstream societal norms. It might depress me that there actually exists an advocacy group for pederasts, but it certainly doesn’t surprise me. And same for the people who want to marry their pets. Leona Helmsley essentially bequeathed $12 million to her Maltese when she died. The reason that jokes are told about Southerners having carnal relations with barnyard creatures is because these things have occasionally happened.

What’s important to understand is that you could outlaw gay marriage tomorrow, and NAMBLA would still be here. Dead billionaires will still be leaving money to their pets, and living widows will still be trying to wed their cats. How these people attempt to justify and rationalize their behavior is ultimately irrelevant. An intelligent second-grader can testify to a list of compelling reasons why allowing to men to marry would not imply that a woman should be allowed to marry her Golden Retriever.

 

[qui_est_ce]

a gay is a sin, only that homosexual acts are sinful.

I know. I wonder why inocente keeps alluding to this.

 

[qui_est_ce]

In a country of over 300 million people, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that certain people will hold beliefs or behave in ways that run far afield of mainstream societal norms. It might depress me that there actually exists an advocacy group for pederasts, but it certainly doesn’t surprise me. And same for the people who want to marry their pets. Leona Helmsley essentially bequeathed $12 million to her Maltese when she died. The reason that jokes are told about Southerners having carnal relations with barnyard creatures is because these things have occasionally happened.

What’s important to understand is that you could outlaw gay marriage tomorrow, and NAMBLA would still be here. Dead billionaires will still be leaving money to their pets, and living widows will still be trying to wed their cats. How these people attempt to justify and rationalize their behavior is ultimately irrelevant.** An intelligent second-grader can testify to a list of compelling reasons why allowing to men to marry would not imply that a woman should be allowed to marry her Golden Retriever**.

I pretty much agreed with you until I read see above bolded*

 

[ASimon]

I pretty much agreed with you until I read see above bolded*

Fair enough. Luckily, if anyone ever tries to go to court for the right to marry their goldfish, they won’t be asking 2nd graders for their opinions. So it will all come out in the wash.

 

[karebear92]

All I am saying is that there is a far more important value that our society represents, that all are created equal before God.

Sorry, I don’t have much time to address this tonight (this morning), but this really stuck out to me. We are all equal in humanity but not in capacity. You simply cannot do things I can do as well as I can and I can’t do things you do well as well you can. The same is true with marriage, not everyone can be married to the one they are attracted to.

 

[inocente]

Amen

Thanks, I was feeling a bit lonesome.

 

[inocente]

The old law however, was fulfilled in the Christ, there for the old punishments do not apply. Your exiges is incorrect with regard to the application of gender. Neither man may lie on man, nor woman may lie on woman. Neither is acceptable before God under the pain of sin.

That’s a bit complicated - not only must I read the first sentence of Lev 20:13 your way, I must ignore the second sentence to conform to your covenant theology.

If we assume the Vatican did its homework in the document opposing gay union I’ve linked before, it already discarded many of the arguments tried on this thread, including Lev, presumably either because of these complications or because the “blood on their own heads” language is inflammatory and could easily backfire.

 

[inocente]

Gender is ingrained as part of our soul, it is utterly immutable. Nothing you can do can change it, it is the nature of what we are and it is reflected in both our spiritual and physical natures. God created them male and female, thus this is how we are created.

Perhaps you are right, I don’t know, but I’ve got lost about its relevance.

There is no implication of the loss of gender, there is however a clear statement that purpose of marriage is fulfilled along with all else in the last resurrection. There is no marriage, nor giving in marrage because there is no longer any need to procreate. Since marriage is ordered towards procreation, it no longer serves a purpose. This brings us back to why gay marriage is not allowable.

That’s more in tune with the Church’s document (my previous post), but is a religious view, and hasn’t worked in countries like Canada and Spain. Perhaps it should be more bold, and argue that the state shouldn’t be in the marriage business at all, that marriage is before God and not some bureaucrat.

 

[inocente]

Being gay isn’t a sin.
tonyrey;8771379:

Opinion or fact?
inocente;8774784:

My understating is that for Catholics, being gay is not a sin. Please give your opinion if you think I’m wrong.

"2357

Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.“142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

I have to leave for today, but just to say your quote (from the CCC?) doesn’t say that for Catholics being gay is a sin (it only says the act is a sin) nor does it say Jesus was speaking about gays, so I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make.
tonyrey;8782192:

No one has claimed that **being **

a gay is a sin, only that homosexual acts are sinful.

I’m glad we finally got there in the end, Señor Enigmático. :compcoff:

 

[crazzeto]

Perhaps you are right, I don’t know, but I’ve got lost about its relevance.

That’s more in tune with the Church’s document (my previous post), but is a religious view, and hasn’t worked in countries like Canada and Spain. Perhaps it should be more bold, and argue that the state shouldn’t be in the marriage business at all, that marriage is before God and not some bureaucrat.

Perhaps the flock simply need be reeducated about the matter, as is happening currently. I know I was once wayward, I would have even supported gay marriage. But this is before I fully understood what the so called sexual revolution was, and what it has done to us.

I disagree with your “marriage bureaucrat” comment, honestly I find this an argument trying to pander to a sense of subsidiarity. This isn’t an issue of undue regulation, this is an issue of helping build a moral society. It has been said, the greatest threat to national secuirty is our economy. Well the greatest threat to our economy is immorality.

All these things are linked. If we want a truely free and just society, then it must be founded upon good moral principal. This means it must first and foremost be rooted in the natural law.

 

[Whadyamean]

But this is before I fully understood what the so called sexual revolution was, and what it has done to us.
(snip) This means it must first and foremost be rooted in the natural law.

That first part is a very bold statement, is it not? a practitioner of General Semantics might have qualified it with something like “fully understood…done to me, according to my understanding at this time.”

Kind of the same thing with "natural law. What is that??? We hear it all the time on here, but there doesn’t seem to be a viable or useful definition that makes sense beyond believing it exists. Is there some anthropomorphism here?

 

[crazzeto]

That first part is a very bold statement, is it not? a practitioner of General Semantics might have qualified it with something like “fully understood…done to me, according to my understanding at this time.”

Kind of the same thing with "natural law. What is that??? We hear it all the time on here, but there doesn’t seem to be a viable or useful definition that makes sense beyond believing it exists. Is there some anthropomorphism here?

Bold, perhaps but you act as if bold statements are some how a bad thing. Bold, truthful statements are a good thing, which do need to be made. We have seen a number of posters try to dance around the issues in various ways, and it amazes me how we keep getting caught up in the fundamental truth regarding marriage. It was designed for one man and one woman, for the purposes of bareing children. This was God’s design from the start.

That natural law is discovered through the observation of nature, and the nature of creation. I dare say that on any level, the same defination of marriage is upheld. I recommend you spend some time with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and perhaps a good book on the teachings of the Theology of the Body.

It is clear that your understanding of moral theology is not well developed, I do recommend studying more closely. The sexual revolution is not a good thing, it has not helped society. Even observation of the results bares this out

High rates of unwed pregnacy, STDs running rampant, woman being reduced to sexual objects (by them selves no less), among many other consequences. Are we truely better off having “sexually liberated” our selves? Again, I lived that life, and never have I felt more genuinely liberated as I do now.

 

[Whadyamean]

Bold, perhaps but you act as if bold statements are some how a bad thing.

Not at all. There have been wonderful and necessary bold actions. But in a conversation or argument, accuracy bears its own authority. Your boldness appears to me to ignore certain important epistemological factors in order tomake you appear “right.”

Bold, truthful statements are a good thing, which do need to be made.

Yes, so long as they are true by Universal standards.

We have seen a number of posters try to dance around the issues in various ways, and it amazes me how we keep getting caught up in the fundamental truth regarding marriage. It was designed for one man and one woman, for the purposes of bareing children. This was God’s design from the start.

Yes, that is necessarily your interpretation as being habituated to a particular paradigm. We haven’t heard from God about it yet save by the difficulties inherent in translation and interpretation of text which even if inspired as claimed, yet came through the pen of a thinker and their thoughts… If you have studied those, you get my gist. And as far as understanding someone’s actual information content, remember that only about a fifth of what is meant is conveyed in text alone. And in interpreting any form of information, save math, if there is the beginning of a breakdown at even a 10 point IQ spread. How close do you fancy yourself to Deific Intelligence?

That natural law is discovered through the observation of nature, and the nature of creation. I dare say that on any level, the same defination of marriage is upheld. I recommend you spend some time with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and perhaps a good book on the teachings of the Theology of the Body.

The alleged “natural law” might very well be an imposition on creation of a very limited understanding of human mentality, nature, and scripture itself.

It is clear that your understanding of moral theology is not well developed, I do recommend studying more closely. The sexual revolution is not a good thing, it has not helped society. Even observation of the results bares this out

Really? How do you know that God will not try every possible combination of events and experiences?

High rates of unwed pregnacy, STDs running rampant, woman being reduced to sexual objects (by them selves no less), among many other consequences. Are we truely better off having “sexually liberated” our selves? Again, I lived that life, and never have I felt more genuinely liberated as I do now.

That is wonderful for you, Crazzeto. I am happy for your liberation. I’m just asking if because you personally came to some conclusions, are you finished with yourself? And are you really that sure that you or someone else can speak so dogmatically about God’s intent?

 

[crazzeto]

Wadyamean,

God has spoken clearly though. Homosexuality has always been banned, from the earliest days of Torah Law, to the earliest of the Christian dispensation. Do you really think Christs own Apostles could be so wrong? Or St. Paul, whom God personally called, who was taken to the third levek of heaven (by tradition). You seem to forget your faith is an unbroken chain going back to Christ him self, it is no abandoned releic with only a mysterious book to remember it by.