Can justification of gay marriage lead to justification of incest?

[Charlemagne_II]

ASimon

Do you honestly mean to say that the only thing stopping pedophilia from running rampant in society is that we have laws forbidding it?

Yes.

Why do you think we have laws in the first place? To limit outlaw behavior.

 

[mark_a]

• There is no long time set standard definition for marriage.
  For example, today alone age of consent laws range from 16-18 in the US (and 9-18 internationally). Who knows what it’s been over history

What does age of consent between a man and woman have to do with gay marriage? Apples and oranges.

• There are currently 7 states which allow gay marriage. There are 24 states which allow you to marry your first cousin. Not a lot of outcry against first cousins going on.

So the reason gays should “marry” is that they can’t produce handicapped offspring? Neither can a man and a dead woman. Or a woman and her dog (don’t get me started on “consent” of animals, especially male animals). Using your logic, sterilized brother and sister be allowed to marry. Or brother and brother.

• To the person who used the “At this time” line repeatedly. What happens of Pope Benedict comes out tomorrow and declares women can be priests (or some other radical change in Church teaching)? He could do it.

No, he couldn’t. You need to educate yourself about the workings of the Church.

 

[Tenofovir]

In the most reductionist sense, there might be a logical argument to be made for accepting incestuous relationships, from out of a similar argument for homosexual relationships. You’d still have to ignore the biological implications of endorsing incestuous relationships (not nearly as dire in a case-by-case basis as is normally imagined, but certainly worth considering regardless).

Biological implications? You never heard of contraception, antenatal screening, abortion, surrogate motherhood, adoption and sperm donation? Come on. Biology is so 19th century.

The reason why I don’t lie awake worrying about this is because gay marriage hasn’t become a legitimate issue due to the argument for it being so logical (though it is). The reason it became legitimate is because literally millions of people (gay, bi, and straight alike) are putting their shoulders to the wheel and trying to get it made legal. There is no special interest group doing the same for incestuous couples, or if there is, one doubts that they’re getting many calls returned.

Marriage is between man and woman because in nature ONLY man and woman can make children. Yes there are infertile couples, but majority can. No man and man, man and dog, man and child and etc, can produce children, love them and raise them together. Blood is thicker than water. Marriage fixes the man to the child, while it is known who the mother of the child is. We get the same basic building block of human and life, the family. A male and a female adult giving their all for their blood related offspring.

Same with polygamy - while it may not be difficult to concoct a half-sensible rationale for keeping it illegal, in the end, it hardly matters whether one exists or not. There just isn’t going to be a culture shift that leads to so much polygamy that we’ll ever need to seriously question its legality.

This is incredibly incredulous and short sighted. Yes, we can predict cultural trends with certainty. – of course we can’t.

Finally in allowing gay marriage, you will, and this is sure, discriminate against those who oppose this. In other words, a guest house owner who does not want to rent a room to an older English gentleman and his 15 year old Thai boyfriend will be labelled a bigot, hater, etc - and will be sued until he either goes out of business or compromises on his conscience. There are no two ways about this here.

 

[Tenofovir]

ASimon

Do you honestly mean to say that the only thing stopping pedophilia from running rampant in society is that we have laws forbidding it?

Yes.

Why do you think we have laws in the first place? To limit outlaw behavior.

Sexual attraction to children is apparently quite common in society. Yes, there will be lots of child-adult sexual intimacy if age of consent laws are done away with (and society accepts this). The latter will take a bit of time, but it won’t stop the perverts from having their way even initially as child sex abuse is already very common, even when outlawed.

 

[Tenofovir]

It’s a big leap to go from gay marriage to me marring my dog or my lamp.

You’re straight right. Would you marry that muscled up guy in your gym? Would you do it if it was legal? Of course not. Hence your dismissal is irrelevant.

1. All marriage is between two consenting people. Your dog can’t consent. Your lamp can’t consent, your 13 year old can’t legally consent. That law alone separates gay marriage from pedophilia, bestiality, etc.

Why can’t a 13y/o consent? She can consent to an abortion can’t she? Why not to some marriage? Come on…
Legal consent can be changed tomorrow. A dog need not consent. You don’t need the dog’s consent to enslave it currently do you? Instead of running free and socialising with other dogs it has to stay in your backyard? Where did the dog sign for that?

1. Pedophilia and incest are also illegal because of the health concerns surrounding them (mental issues with kids and birth defect issues with incest)

There are psychologists and activists who say that there are no mental issues, if the relationship is done right. This is already starting. In the 80s TIME Magazine even did a cover story on this. Lately the German government issued a pamphlet stating that parental sexual stimulation of children had a positive effect. We’re also seeing a move to legalise or at least label pedophilia as normal, and to try not change pedophiles into people attracted to adults.

1. I can listen to the argument about polygamy being a next step, but it will never happen. Because the people who want to sleep around with 8 people are already doing so and aren’t going to get married.

People who sleep around with 8 people do not necessarily want to sleep around with the whole world. People do fall in love and they do want to stay in their little harem, no matter how short or long period of time that marriage may last.

A few other general comments to posts I’ve read here

• Marriage numbers (especially in Europe) are dropping dramatically. Where will we be in 15 years? Look at Europe.

Less hetersexual marriages but more “other” marriages. I don’t think this point is relevant.

That’s where the US is heading. And I can’t marry my sister in Europe, even though most of western Europe has either gay marriage or same sex unions.

Not yet.

• There is no long time set standard definition for marriage. For example, today alone age of consent laws range from 16-18 in the US (and 9-18 internationally). Who knows what it’s been over history

But always between male and female. Sometimes at a much younger age because life expectancy was much less.

• There are currently 7 states which allow gay marriage. There are 24 states which allow you to marry your first cousin. Not a lot of outcry against first cousins going on.

Societal acceptance. I however find the idea scary.

The law changing so marring your dog has as much of a chance to happen as the Pope declaring women can be priests.

Well gay marriage was not even on the table before. Marriage to dogs will happen too. Already some people consider their dogs more important than fellow human beings.

• When the right to vote changed, first women were added, then minorities were guaranteed it, but has it continued to snowball into 5 year olds voting?

Voting impacts everyone. If gay marriage impacted gay marriage proponents negatively, they’d be against it. Everyone knows a 5yr old voting would cause problems - for everyone, especially the 5 yr old.

You’re discriminating. Please get over your own preferences and consider those who do get sexually aroused by furniture, dogs, children, numerous partners and so on. They’re people too. I can’t conceive being attracted sexually to a man but I do imagine there are people who feel they are as attracted to men, as I am to women.

I just don’t see why you can’t see this.

 

[Whadyamean]

You’re discriminating. Please get over your own preferences and consider those who do get sexually aroused by furniture, dogs, children, numerous partners (leather, vinyl, people in fur, balloons, religiosity, a vast array of things I won’t mention here) and so on. They’re people too. I can’t conceive being attracted sexually to a man but I do imagine there are people who feel they are as attracted to men, as I am to women.

I just don’t see why you can’t see this.

Ditto. Ditto cubed.

 

[ASimon]

Biological implications? You never heard of contraception, antenatal screening, abortion, surrogate motherhood, adoption and sperm donation? Come on. Biology is so 19th century.

No idea what you’re on about here. I assume you just didn’t understand my point.

Marriage is between man and woman because in nature ONLY man and woman can make children. Yes there are infertile couples, but majority can. No man and man, man and dog, man and child and etc, can produce children, love them and raise them together. Blood is thicker than water. Marriage fixes the man to the child, while it is known who the mother of the child is. We get the same basic building block of human and life, the family. A male and a female adult giving their all for their blood related offspring.

Look, I’m all fine with Catholics defining marriage however they like. They want to insist that it can only be between a man and a woman, and then only if the man and woman intend to and are capable of having children, whatever.

What you don’t understand, and what you must understand, is that your right to dictate terms to anyone else ends at the churchhouse door. Society is not interested in your definitions, or your junk science studies presuming to conclude what a real family can be.

This is incredibly incredulous and short sighted. Yes, we can predict cultural trends with certainty. – of course we can’t.

We can certainly handicap the odds when we’re talking about behavior that flies in the face of our evolutionary biology.

Finally in allowing gay marriage, you will, and this is sure, discriminate against those who oppose this. In other words, a guest house owner who does not want to rent a room to an older English gentleman and his 15 year old Thai boyfriend will be labelled a bigot, hater, etc - and will be sued until he either goes out of business or compromises on his conscience. There are no two ways about this here.

No where in the United States is the age of consent lower than 16 years old, so what you’re talking about it there statutory rape.

Other than that, you’re correct - there are no two ways about it, nor should there be. Discrimination doesn’t become legal just because to discriminate is more in keeping with your conscience.

 

[Sair]

With that said, I do not support either. Marriage – both secular and within the Church were created to serve a purpose. The purpose of marriage was not just for an outward expression of love as we want to make it today. We have opened Pandora’s box, and I have no doubt we will see the spiral continue….

Actually, the purpose of marriage originally had little or nothing to do with love, full stop - it was an exchange between families, and both families were invested in the fruits of the coupling. Until the last couple of hundred years or so, it was actually considered quite perverse to actually love one’s spouse - that kind of thing was reserved for extramarital lovers.

The fact of the matter is that marriage has evolved and changed to the point where it is capable of being a gender-neutral institution. This has not thus far changed the longstanding taboos against incest, paedophilia or bestiality - which are actually different issues - and is not likely to.

 

[Sair]

Sexual attraction to children is apparently quite common in society. Yes, there will be lots of child-adult sexual intimacy if age of consent laws are done away with (and society accepts this). The latter will take a bit of time, but it won’t stop the perverts from having their way even initially as child sex abuse is already very common, even when outlawed.

Well, it has certainly been demonstrated to be very common within the ranks of the Catholic church! Why do you think that allowing same-sex marriage, specifically, is going to open the floodgates to paedophilia when even religious ordination couldn’t close them?

 

[John21652]

Actually, the purpose of marriage originally had little or nothing to do with love, full stop - it was an exchange between families, and both families were invested in the fruits of the coupling. Until the last couple of hundred years or so, it was actually considered quite perverse to actually love one’s spouse - that kind of thing was reserved for extramarital lovers.

You mean like Romeo and Juliet? Or Abelard and Heloise? Or Tristan and Isolde? Or even back further, the love between the Byzantine Emperor Justinian and Theadora? Or back further still, to Antony and Cleopatra? And you, of all people, should know the story of Matthew Flinders and his wife, as written about by Ernestine Hill in My Love Must Wait. Methinks you’ve fallen for propaganda.

The fact of the matter is that marriage has evolved and changed to the point where it is capable of being a gender-neutral institution. This has not thus far changed the longstanding taboos against incest, paedophilia or bestiality - which are actually different issues - and is not likely to.

The notion of marriage has only “evolved” as an expedient in the minds of those with a vested interest in trying to normalise the abnormal. The same principles which have made same-sex "marriages’ taboo are the ones which still make incest, paedophilia and bestiality taboo. Only the morally blind, the intellectally dishonest and the philosophically challenged can’t/wont see it.

 

[tonyrey]

Sair;8724218 Until the last couple of hundred years or so:

How would you justify that statement?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Sair

**The fact of the matter is that marriage has evolved and changed to the point where it is capable of being a gender-neutral institution. This has not thus far changed the longstanding taboos against incest, paedophilia or bestiality - which are actually different issues - and is not likely to. **

That is just your opinion. Ever heard of the slippery slope? The insanity of same-sex marriage being tolerated indicates that at least some elements of our civilization have gone off their head.

Society has not evolved. It has devolved. In spite of the explosion of the college population over the last fifty years, there are now more Americans in prison than there are in college. Whether or not the universities have devolved, the prisons have certainly devolved.

The same argument used to legalize pot (that society has evolved) will lead to more children getting a hold of it. The same argument used to legalize pornography (that society has evolved) will lead to more children getting hold of it. The same argument used to legalize a lower drinking age (that society has evolved) means that more drunkenness among the young will follow. The same argument used to legalize gay adoption of children (that society has evolved) means that more homosexuals will be cultivated among the young, not to mention more pedophilia.

And I know all this how? Common sense.

 

[inocente]

The same argument used to legalize pot (that society has evolved) will lead to more children getting a hold of it. The same argument used to legalize pornography (that society has evolved) will lead to more children getting hold of it. The same argument used to legalize a lower drinking age (that society has evolved) means that more drunkenness among the young will follow. The same argument used to legalize gay adoption of children (that society has evolved) means that more homosexuals will be cultivated among the young, not to mention more pedophilia.

*A Navy tradition caught up with the repeal of the U.S. military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” rule on Wednesday when two women sailors became the first to share the coveted “first kiss” on the dock after one of them returned from 80 days at sea.

Petty Officer 2nd Class Marissa Gaeta of Placerville, Calif., descended from the USS Oak Hill amphibious landing ship and shared a quick kiss with her partner, Petty Officer 3rd Class Citlalic Snell of Los Angeles. The crowd screamed and waved flags around them. - msnbc.msn.com/id/45753034/ns/us_news-life/t/women-share-st-kiss-us-navy-ships-return/#.TvMnUVbntj0*

As well as just kissing, those who fight for their country can have a civil union in nations such as the UK and Spain. And if they are Quakers, they can be married by their church.

Society evolves.

 

[Whadyamean]

Sair

**The fact of the matter is that marriage has evolved and changed to the point where it is capable of being a gender-neutral institution. This has not thus far changed the longstanding taboos against incest, paedophilia or bestiality - which are actually different issues - and is not likely to. **

right on.

That is just your opinion. Ever heard of the slippery slope? The insanity of same-sex marriage being tolerated indicates that at least some elements of our civilization have gone off their head.

And here is what appears as you stating your opinion as if it was God’s truth! LOL!

The same argument used to legalize pot (that society has evolved) will lead to more children getting a hold of it. The same argument used to legalize pornography (that society has evolved) will lead to more children getting hold of it. The same argument used to legalize a lower drinking age (that society has evolved) means that more drunkenness among the young will follow. The same argument used to legalize gay adoption of children (that society has evolved) means that more homosexuals will be cultivated among the young, not to mention more pedophilia.

Politeness forces me to refrain from naming out loud what this line of “thinking” is, Pot and alcohol were together demonized in order to subsidize the oil industry. Go read some history, young man! The problem was, that while the Feds could in the pas actually come and force you to grow hemp, after oil came no the scene it was obvious that something had to be done about the farmer’s ability to make cheap fuel on their own land from weeds and leftovers. Horrors!

Society has not evolved. It has devolved. Come to your senses and face the truth God gave you the common sense to know and embrace.

Yes, as Gandhi stated when asked about Western civilization, “It would be a good idea!” Nevertheless, women are no longer slaves, can vote, and almost have job equity. We no longer have overt slavery, though the underground market still seems to be thriving. And you might well remember that “the ‘truth’ God gave you” is interpreted multitudinous ways even within our Church, not to mention the thousands, nearly forty, i think, of other Christian sects, and then not to mention Judaism, Islam, etc. Who here needs to “come to their senses?”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Whad

**And you might well remember that “the ‘truth’ God gave you” is interpreted multitudinous ways even within our Church, not to mention the thousands, nearly forty, i think, of other Christian sects, and then not to mention Judaism, Islam, etc. Who here needs to “come to their senses?” **

You!

The truth is one, not forty versions of one. It is a scandal that Catholics think interpretation is equal to truth.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente
**
As well as just kissing, those who fight for their country can have a civil union in nations such as the UK and Spain. And if they are Quakers, they can be married by their church.**

Yes, abortion is also legal. Does that make it right?

Euthanasia was legal in Nazi Germany. Did that make it right?

Insanity comes in many forms, but society has no obligation to make any of them legal; and a society that does will pay for it in the long run.

 

[jimrob]

Different cultures have different cultural taboos. If we start interfering with moral values, it can lead us to all kinds of worrying places. There is no direct link between gay marriage and incest, but the accommodation of either can be a sign of a society that has abandoned morality.

The Catholic Church teaches that sex is the preserve of married couples where the intention is to make babies. Anything else is potentially sinful. It also teaches that marriage can only be between a man and a woman and forbids marriage between close family members. Sexual activity between same sex couples is immoral whatever ceremonies they have been through, as is sexual activity between close relatives. It is abhorrent to me that two people of the same sex should go through a ceremony that apes Christian marriage - but it’s none of my business.

It’s not for me to pry into what Clive and Brian get up to in private if they are consenting adults. But it is my responsibility to ensure that anyone who might have a claim to my protection is not abused.

 

[SteveGC]

Look, I’m all fine with Catholics defining marriage however they like. They want to insist that it can only be between a man and a woman, and then only if the man and woman intend to and are capable of having children, whatever.

What you don’t understand, and what you must understand, is that your right to dictate terms to anyone else ends at the churchhouse door. Society is not interested in your definitions, or your junk science studies presuming to conclude what a real family can be.

I see. So Catholics (and other Christians) aren’t part of society? Why is that? Because our morals originate from a belief different from yours? Hmm.

So, we have theism as the source of our moral beliefs, in contrast to your atheistic morality, but somehow, only morals of an atheistic origin are allowed in the public square?

So, a moral relativist (who himself is the origin of his moral belief) who shouts “give gays the right to marry!” is exercising his national right to freely express his opinion and encourage others to vote likewise. But a Christian (who allows God to be the origin of his moral belief) who shouts “do not give gays the right to marry”, is suddenly not exercising this same right…no…he’s somehow “dictating” to others.

How exactly are members of society “dictating” terms to others? Give me one example of how any political activist, regardless of the origin of their moral belief, has ever “dictated” that belief onto others.

Your comment reeks of discrimination.

 

[ASimon]

I see. So Catholics (and other Christians) aren’t part of society? Why is that? Because our morals originate from a belief different from yours? Hmm.

They are a part of society, and they can define marriage however they like. They cannot, however, force anyone else to accept their definitions as valid.

And yes, the same is true in reverse. If the Catholic Church refuses to define marriage as anything but a union between a man and woman who intend to have children, secular society cannot force them to change their definition. Catholic priests are perfectly free to refuse the sacrament to any couple they wish.

So, it would appear that we have all the makings of a perfectly serviceable detente. So why don’t we? Because one of us isn’t actually content to allow “their rules” to be practiced only by “their people” - they won’t be content until everyone is playing by those rules. And they pursue this agenda all the while claiming violations of their “religious freedom” - that is, the freedom to force everyone who doesn’t agree with them to live their lives a certain way.

So, we have theism as the source of our moral beliefs, in contrast to your atheistic morality, but somehow, only morals of an atheistic origin are allowed in the public square?

So, a moral relativist (who himself is the origin of his moral belief) who shouts “give gays the right to marry!” is exercising his national right to freely express his opinion and encourage others to vote likewise. But a Christian (who allows God to be the origin of his moral belief) who shouts “do not give gays the right to marry”, is suddenly not exercising this same right…no…he’s somehow “dictating” to others.

How exactly are members of society “dictating” terms to others? Give me one example of how any political activist, regardless of the origin of their moral belief, has ever “dictated” that belief onto others.

Your comment reeks of discrimination.

Yes, by telling Catholics I have no interest in changing how THEY define marriage, and asserting society’s right to not be ruled by it from end to end, I’m discriminating against Catholics.

The difference again, for all to see: You want everyone in this country to live by the Catholic/Christian definition of marriage, whether they like it or not. I’m saying the Catholic/Christian is free to define marriage however they like, proclaim from the pulpit the validity or invalidity of anyone’s marriage, and have all the government protections due to them in these matters. But they have no more power to tell me who I may marry than they have to tell me what foods I may eat, and on what day.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

ASimon
**
They are a part of society, and they can define marriage however they like. They cannot, however, force anyone else to accept their definitions as valid.

And yes, the same is true in reverse. If the Catholic Church refuses to define marriage as anything but a union between a man and woman who intend to have children, secular society cannot force them to change their definition. Catholic priests are perfectly free to refuse the sacrament to any couple they wish.**

All this shows is your bigotry and your ignorance of history. Plato and Aristotle were not Catholics, and they could easily see the absurdity of sodomy. Moreover, never in the ancient world, or until modern times, has any culture ever countenanced same sex marriage. Sodomy rising to the level of a civil right is a social disease peculiar to our time because only in modern times has the dictatorship of relativism prevailed so fully as it is presently prevailing, thanks to the propaganda of atheists like yourself and some religious wild cards who have fallen prey to relativism and betrayed their Christian principles. The sodomite disease is widespread, but that doesn’t mean that the whole world has to approve the sickness. The Catholic Church has every right to stand alongside the tradition of every human civilization that ever lived, and also has the right to condemn sodomy as a barbaric practice that should not and must not be given the smiling nod of those civilized people who are still sane enough to shake their heads in utter disbelief.