Can justification of gay marriage lead to justification of incest?

[karebear92]

I thought Catholics are not allowed to get divorced.

It doesn’t change it, just as lowering the age of majority wouldn’t change it, both simply extend the availability of marriage.

First, I was speaking of legal divorce. Catholics can get a legal divorce just as easily anybody else. Catholics are also allowed to get a legal divorce, though it won’t be recognized as anything by the Church unless the Church declares that the marriage never was valid.

Unfortunately, sometimes legal divorce is entirely necessary (abuse, for example).

It does change it. First, it changes what already exists through natural law (a man and a women having a monogamous relationship for the purpose of unity and children). Second it changes the legal definition from a union of a man and a women who then become husband and wife to the union of two (or more?) people to become spouse and spouse (and spouse and spouse and spouse and spouse?).

Also, I would say the same thing if marriage were changed to allow children, animals, or objects to be married. You certainly wouldn’t say if the government permitted marriage to a lamp that it is simply extending marriage to give lamps the equality they deserve.

 

[John21652]

Jefferson’s horror show would mutilate far more people than Stalin and Hitler combined, insanity beyond madness beyond lunacy.

Then why not spend time fighting that instead of discussing the mutilation of millions of law abiding taxpayers who haven’t done anything wrong?

Where, oh where did you get this figure of millions mutilated and Jefferson’s “horror show” mutilating more people than Stalin or Hitler?

I’d say you are exaggerating wildly.

 

[inocente]

First, I was speaking of legal divorce. Catholics can get a legal divorce just as easily anybody else. Catholics are also allowed to get a legal divorce, though it won’t be recognized as anything by the Church unless the Church declares that the marriage never was valid.

Unfortunately, sometimes legal divorce is entirely necessary (abuse, for example).

Well hang on now bro, if the Church doesn’t recognize civil divorce but you accept that civil divorce has a purpose, then if the Church doesn’t recognize civil gay marriage you can accept it also has a purpose, and all our problems are solved.

It does change it. First, it changes what already exists through natural law (a man and a women having a monogamous relationship for the purpose of unity and children). Second it changes the legal definition from a union of a man and a women who then become husband and wife to the union of two (or more?) people to become spouse and spouse (and spouse and spouse and spouse and spouse?).

Civil marriage doesn’t depend on so-called natural law, and no religion is expected to change its definition of the sacrament of marriage. All that’s being asked for is equal rights for all taxpaying citizens within the existing institution, so slippery slope arguments about multiple spouses or anything else don’t apply.

 

[inocente]

Where, oh where did you get this figure of millions mutilated and Jefferson’s “horror show” mutilating more people than Stalin or Hitler?

I’d say you are exaggerating wildly.

According to post #97, Jefferson’s bill was that “Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro’ the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least.”

World population is 7 billion, conservative estimate of proportion of gays 2.5% (probably more like 4%), therefore number of gays is in the order of at least 175 million.

So no, whatever way you cut the numbers I’m not exaggerating even a little bit, especially as Jefferson included other stuff as well as gay sex, and would carry on the mutilation generation after generation in perpetuity.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

According to post #97, Jefferson’s bill was that "Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro’ the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least."

I ended post # 97 as follows:

“I don’t agree with the proposed remedy, but I do agree with Jefferson’s horror of sodomy. He is simply consistent with the world-wide time-honored disgust for the act.”

So what is your problem? We agree the remedy is severe. You just don’t think the crime against nature is horrible. I agree with Jefferson and all his generation and the vast majority of all generations of men throughout every civilization since the dawn of recorded history.

Plato and Aristotle found sodomy to be a shameful and unnatural act. The Old Testament censured it. Christ and Paul censured it in the New Testament. All people with common sense and self respect have censured it.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

There’s evidence that where it’s allowed, after trying and failing to place “difficult” children with straight couples, adoption agencies will home them with gay couples, who are given less choice.

I pity such a child. I’d rather be raised in an orphanage. I know some people who were raised in an orphanage and turned out rather well. Nor did they discover sodomy at an early age.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Biblepoe

Most people with AIDS are straight, but that doesn’t matter anyways because AIDS doesn’t compare to the health problem with incest since incest causes the passing of genetic disorders to children, who are definitely not consenting participants.

A son at twenty who would marry his mother at forty would not have much chance of passing on genetic disorders. Even if he impregnated his mother, she could have an abortion. The same people who would espouse incestuous marriage are unlikely to oppose the practice of abortion. So you see, the gene problem doesn’t even exist, except that such a marriage would result likely in the suicide of that particular genetic line with no children issued. The same applies to sodomite marriages. Deliberate genetic suicide of both partners.

 

[karebear92]

Well hang on now bro, if the Church doesn’t recognize civil divorce but you accept that civil divorce has a purpose, then if the Church doesn’t recognize civil gay marriage you can accept it also has a purpose, and all our problems are solved.

You are comparing apples and oranges here. Divorce allows someone to get child support while still freeing them from abuse, drugs, etc… I don’t promote that people should divorce on a whim. That should be more difficult too. Gay marriage has the exact opposite purpose: it is merely to recognize something and give legal rights. I am all for giving them legal rights. If they want health benefits, give them health benefits. If they want tax benefits, go for it. But it is not marriage.

Civil marriage doesn’t depend on so-called natural law, and no religion is expected to change its definition of the sacrament of marriage. All that’s being asked for is equal rights for all taxpaying citizens within the existing institution, so slippery slope arguments about multiple spouses or anything else don’t apply.

It does depend on natural law; just as many other things do (murder, stealing etc.) One cannot promote something that is contrary to natural law, and man cannot redefine something that is based on natural law. Just as one cannot say “whoa, whoa, whoa, nobody is saying that Catholics must change their concept of murder, but as a taxpayer we must recognize the rights of those who wish to kill or steal.” Marriage isn’t necessarily like murder, as rather than an action it is an institution but it is an institution that is defined by natural law, so in a way it is a natural institution. Marriage existed before Christ elevated it to a sacrament, as Adam and Eve were also married, so its status as a sacrament does not apply here.

Why don’t they apply? Why is polygamy illegal? Why are the man’s unrecognized wives, as taxpayers, not given the same rights as other taxpaying wives? I simply want to know why, in your eyes, gay marriage should be legal while polygamous marriage should be illegal?

Oh and I am a :curtsey:

 

[inocente]

So what is your problem? We agree the remedy is severe. You just don’t think the crime against nature is horrible. I agree with Jefferson and all his generation and the vast majority of all generations of men throughout every civilization since the dawn of recorded history.

It’s not a remedy, it’s perverted barbarism. These days he’d be tried at the Hague and be found guilty of crimes against humanity.

But opponents of gay marriage should by all means please go out of their way to advertize Jefferson’s bill as much as possible, as it will be a very effective way of getting virtually all Christians to support gay marriage.

I think you’ll also find that the weirdly named US “crime against nature” laws were ruled unconstitutional some time back.

Plato and Aristotle found sodomy to be a shameful and unnatural act. The Old Testament censured it. Christ and Paul censured it in the New Testament. All people with common sense and self respect have censured it.

Don’t remember seeing Jesus ever saying a word about it. Note that the sins of Sodom were pride, idolatry, lack of hospitality, greed and gluttony, so even if you have a hair trigger connecting the town with sodomy, Jesus didn’t.

I pity such a child. I’d rather be raised in an orphanage. I know some people who were raised in an orphanage and turned out rather well. Nor did they discover sodomy at an early age.

It’s not an infectious disease.

 

[inocente]

You are comparing apples and oranges here. Divorce allows someone to get child support while still freeing them from abuse, drugs, etc… I don’t promote that people should divorce on a whim. That should be more difficult too. Gay marriage has the exact opposite purpose: it is merely to recognize something and give legal rights. I am all for giving them legal rights. If they want health benefits, give them health benefits. If they want tax benefits, go for it. But it is not marriage.

I’ve found that many cohabiting couples don’t understand that the purpose of the marriage ceremony is for two people to stand before their family, friends and their God (if they have one) and declare to the whole world their love for each other, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; from this day forward until death parts them.

No reason why gays can’t do that.

It does depend on natural law; just as many other things do (murder, stealing etc.) One cannot promote something that is contrary to natural law, and man cannot redefine something that is based on natural law. Just as one cannot say “whoa, whoa, whoa, nobody is saying that Catholics must change their concept of murder, but as a taxpayer we must recognize the rights of those who wish to kill or steal.” Marriage isn’t necessarily like murder, as rather than an action it is an institution but it is an institution that is defined by natural law, so in a way it is a natural institution. Marriage existed before Christ elevated it to a sacrament, as Adam and Eve were also married, so its status as a sacrament does not apply here.

I know natural law has a place in Catholic hearts but to me and many others it’s just another system of ethics, nothing special. Your comparison with killing and stealing has a major defect – marriage is a legal institution, not a criminal act (although I have a friend whose wife would argue otherwise). No mention is made in scripture of Adam and Eve ever being married. Indeed in modern jargon, since Eve was cloned from Adam’s rib, their DNA may have been too close for marriage to be allowed.

Why don’t they apply? Why is polygamy illegal? Why are the man’s unrecognized wives, as taxpayers, not given the same rights as other taxpaying wives? I simply want to know why, in your eyes, gay marriage should be legal while polygamous marriage should be illegal?

For starters, I don’t believe anyone could say the vows to more than one person and still mean them, they couldn’t all love everyone else in the relationship equally, it would be totally different from marriage.

Oh and I am a :curtsey:

Ooops

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

Don’t remember seeing Jesus ever saying a word about it. Note that the sins of Sodom were pride, idolatry, lack of hospitality, greed and gluttony, so even if you have a hair trigger connecting the town with sodomy, Jesus didn’t.

Genesis 19 New American Bible

“The two angels reached Sodom in the evening, as Lot was sitting at the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he got up to greet them; and bowing down with his face to the ground, he said, ‘Please, my lords, come aside into your servant’s house for the night, and bathe your feet; you can get up early to continue your journey.’ But they replied, ‘No, we will pass the night in the town square.’ He urged them so strongly, however, that they turned aside to his place and entered his house. He prepared a banquet for them, baking unleavened bread, and they dined. Before they went to bed, the townsmen of Sodom, both young and old—all the people to the last man—surrounded the house. They called to Lot and said to him, ‘Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have sexual relations with them.’ Lot went out to meet them at the entrance. When he had shut the door behind him, he said, ‘I beg you, my brothers, do not do this wicked thing!’”

When Jesus was searching for a likeness of evil to compare with the refusal of people to hear the gospel, he chose the sodomites of Sodom and Gomorrah as the next-to-worst sinners to be dealt with on judgment day.

“Whoever will not receive you or listen to your words–go outside that house or town and shake the dust from your feet. I tell you the truth, the wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah will be better off than such a town on the judgment day.” Matthew 10:14

So yes, contrary to what many sodomites claim, Jesus did comment on the evil of sodomy.

Paul preaches that sodomy is a sin against the natural law in Romans 1:18-32:

“The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness. For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes. Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity."

But I guess inocente knows better than Jesus and Paul?

 

[Cathy]

And many children now grow up in a single parent family.

There’s evidence that where it’s allowed, after trying and failing to place “difficult” children with straight couples, adoption agencies will home them with gay couples, who are given less choice.

If those children are not to grow up in an institution, a loving gay home is a far better alternative, but because the children were “difficult” before being homed, they may remain emotionally more traumatized due to earlier events in their lives.

Existing statistics on the results of gay adoption may therefore be skewed, but if your point is that many straight adults no longer even try to form lifelong relationships, and either go through repeated cohabitations or divorces, and this harms their children, then extending marriage and adoption rights to gays won’t do any harm.

If interested, UNICEF used objective and subjective measures to produce this report on child well-being in rich countries. Note that the US and UK are bottom in the summary league table on page 2, neither can be relaxed with their status quo.

 

[Cathy]

And many children now grow up in a single parent family.

There’s evidence that where it’s allowed, after trying and failing to place “difficult” children with straight couples, adoption agencies will home them with gay couples, who are given less choice.

If those children are not to grow up in an institution, a loving gay home is a far better alternative, but because the children were “difficult” before being homed, they may remain emotionally more traumatized due to earlier events in their lives.

Existing statistics on the results of gay adoption may therefore be skewed, but if your point is that many straight adults no longer even try to form lifelong relationships, and either go through repeated cohabitations or divorces, and this harms their children, then extending marriage and adoption rights to gays won’t do any harm.

If interested, UNICEF used objective and subjective measures to produce this report on child well-being in rich countries. Note that the US and UK are bottom in the summary league table on page 2, neither can be relaxed with their status quo.

None of this changes the fact that it is a deprivation to deny a child his right to live with and be nurtured by both of his biological parents. This deprivation is necessary in extreme cases for the benefit of the child, just as it is sometimes necessary to cut off an arm or leg if it has gangrene. But it is always wrong to purposely deny a child his rights without a grave reason.

 

[Biblepoe]

I didn’t mean gay polygamy; I simply meant polygamy (polyandry etc.). For what reason do we not allow polygamous marriage?

I do not favor issuing polygamous marriage certificates at least for logistical reasons. But that’s beside the point since polygamy and incest are completely different issues than gay marriage. There is no reason whatsoever to think that permitting gays to marry will somehow open the door to polygamous marriages or incestuous marriages. Straight marriage doesn’t open the door to polygamous marriage or incestuous marriages, so why do you assume that gay marriage would?

 

[Biblepoe]

Biblepoe;8741173:

Most people with AIDS are straight, but that doesn’t matter anyways because AIDS doesn’t compare to the health problem with incest since incest causes the passing of genetic disorders to children, who are definitely not consenting participants…

A son at twenty who would marry his mother at forty would not have much chance of passing on genetic disorders. Even if he impregnated his mother, she could have an abortion. The same people who would espouse incestuous marriage are unlikely to oppose the practice of abortion. So you see, the gene problem doesn’t even exist

Your assuming that incestuous relationship would be son-mother. This argument holds no water for son-daughter relationships or daughter-father relationships (men can be fertile for a while), which are probably more common than the relationship you are assuming.

 

[crazzeto]

I’ll take it a step further, if gay marriage were to become the law of the land then it must follow that we tear down all other social taboo’s. The fact of the matter is, all argumentation which applies to gay marriage equally applies to all other “taboo’s”. It must, there is no way to distingish. Further more, we can even say that eventually child moslestation must eventually be normalized, because the idea that sexaulity is limited to “consenting adults” is also arbatrary. In fact, it’s worth noting that the psychological community is currently working on normalizing this, just as they did with gay marriage.

Either we accept that certain things are disordered, or we throw out all the rules. Ultimiatly there will be no in between.

 

[Tenofovir]

I do not favor issuing polygamous marriage certificates at least for logistical reasons. But that’s beside the point since polygamy and incest are completely different issues than gay marriage. There is no reason whatsoever to think that permitting gays to marry will somehow open the door to polygamous marriages or incestuous marriages. Straight marriage doesn’t open the door to polygamous marriage or incestuous marriages, so why do you assume that gay marriage would?

Straight marriage is between ONE (1) man and ONE (1) woman. This is marriage. End of story. That’s been pretty solid, in modern times at least, in the West. Gay marriage, polygamous marriage, marriage with animals/children etc was not on the cards. (Although arranged marriages between children (and adults/children) did occur, the child lived with the parents till the age of maturity.) It was still one man and one woman at least at consummation.

Now we can rationalise and speculate and say - you know why not change that to ONE man and ONE man? If we do that, why not go further and look at the quantities, hey, let’s say one man and two women and marriage among 3 men. You see everything becomes arbitrary and relies on soft, sentimental cues. You like your dog, and your dog likes you, and you’re lonely and care not for human company - well marry your dog then, etc.

 

[theowarner]

I’ll take it a step further, if gay marriage were to become the law of the land then it must follow that we tear down all other social taboo’s. The fact of the matter is, all argumentation which applies to gay marriage equally applies to all other “taboo’s”. It must, there is no way to distingish. Further more, we can even say that eventually child moslestation must eventually be normalized, because the idea that sexaulity is limited to “consenting adults” is also arbatrary. In fact, it’s worth noting that the psychological community is currently working on normalizing this, just as they did with gay marriage.

Either we accept that certain things are disordered, or we throw out all the rules. Ultimiatly there will be no in between.

Well, there are some lines to be drawn… violence, for example, can be prohibited.

But, I suppose I moved to ask, if we throw out all the rules, what terrible thing are we accepting?

 

[Cathy]

There is no justification of “gay” so-called “marriage,” because marriage is not for the sake of adults. It is for the sake of the children who may result from the union of a man and a woman. Marriage is about protecting the rights of children. If we lightly take away the child’s right to know and be known by his married biological mother and father (which is being done in the US right now, out of selfishness of every stripe), we hurt children and soon destroy our civilization. Of course destroying civilization is the dearest goal of the Liar and his allies.

 

[theowarner]

There is no justification of “gay” so-called “marriage,” because marriage is not for the sake of adults. It is for the sake of the children who may result from the union of a man and a woman. Marriage is about protecting the rights of children. If we lightly take away the child’s right to know and be known by his married biological mother and father (which is being done in the US right now, out of selfishness of every stripe), we hurt children and soon destroy our civilization. Of course destroying civilization is the dearest goal of the Liar and his allies.

“The child’s right to know and be known by his married biological mother and father” – I think that this is a misuse of the word “right.” Surely, it’s a good thing in a general sense, but it’s hardly a right. And it’s hardly necessarily good. And being raised by persons other than one’s biological mother and father is hardly necessarily bad.

Frankly, I think the right that we should be concerned about is the right of children to be raised in a household that is committed to loving the child and nurturing the child.

What is your objection to that?