Can justification of gay marriage lead to justification of incest?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tenofovir
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Whad

Wow…that is obscure.

Not really. It’s fairly definite and says a lot about Jefferson’s views.

The sodomites in Jefferson’s time knew better than to mess with Jefferson, and the amendment could not have been obscure to them.

**Lord, what goes on in your mind? **

Mostly these days the Lord goes on in my mind. What goes on in yours? 😃
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Whad

Wow…that is obscure.

Not really. It’s fairly definite and says a lot about Jefferson’s views.

The sodomites in Jefferson’s time knew better than to mess with Jefferson, and the amendment could not have been obscure to them.

**Lord, what goes on in your mind? **

Mostly these days the Lord goes on in my mind. What goes on in yours? 😃
Click to expand...
No, not the amendment, I mean for heaven’s sake, what did you have to do to find that? You actually spend time doing that???
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
The argument here really has nothing to do with what people can or can’t “justify.” The issue is a legal one. The government can restrict civil rights, and marriage is defined as such by the Supreme Court, as long as it can demonstrate a compelling State interest in doing so. It has already done that in terms of incest, polygamy, etc but it has not done so in the case of same-sex marriage. So far, the only arguments that have been presented are personal views on morality and a pretended carte-blanche authority on the part of the States to ignore the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Marriage has always been between opposite sexes because biologically only that produces offspring. Why do you say that civil marriage is automatically and by default extended to same sex marriage when in history marriage was never such?

Incest, polygamy - why are they not in the State’s interest when same sex marriage is?

If they’re not in the State’s interest, why do the State’s interests overrule the interests of the public and the interests of the incestuous/polygamous marriage participants?

Will incestuous/polygamous marriages always not be in the State’s interests?

Since public debate can lead to a change in opinion and change in laws, why do you think this will not influence public debate in favour of polygamous/incestuous and other marriages? Surely the State should allow maximum freedom to pursue one’s own fate/happiness - if incest/bestiality/pedophilia/polygamy can be seen as not harmful beyond the dislike from Christian ‘bigots’/old fashioned people why would any State not allow them, if enough people agitate for them?
 
Tenofovir said:
Marriage has always been between opposite sexes because biologically only that produces offspring. Why do you say that civil marriage is automatically and by default extended to same sex marriage when in history marriage was never such?

Incest, polygamy - why are they not in the State’s interest when same sex marriage is?

If they’re not in the State’s interest, why do the State’s interests overrule the interests of the public and the interests of the incestuous/polygamous marriage participants?

Will incestuous/polygamous marriages always not be in the State’s interests?

Since public debate can lead to a change in opinion and change in laws, why do you think this will not influence public debate in favour of polygamous/incestuous and other marriages? Surely the State should allow maximum freedom to pursue one’s own fate/happiness - if incest/bestiality/pedophilia/polygamy can be seen as not harmful beyond the dislike from Christian ‘bigots’/old fashioned people why would any State not allow them, if enough people agitate for them?
Click to expand...
Love makes a family, and a marriage. and if we are looking for advertisements of how not to love and raise children, how many of the people on death row and other parts of prison were born of and raised by gays? it is time to go to the Great Commandment for our definition of things, not to the forms of convention.
 
Whad

**No, not the amendment, I mean for heaven’s sake, what did you have to do to find that? You actually spend time doing that??? **

Not much time. Just google three words … "“Thomas Jefferson sodomy” and see how easy it is to learn some history.

Here is another author writing while Jefferson was still alive.

J**ohn David Michaelis, author of an 1814 four-volume legal work, outlined why homosexuality must be more strenuously addressed and much less tolerated than virtually any other moral vice in society:
Code: 
"If we reflect on the dreadful consequences of sodomy to a state, and on the extent to which this abominable vice may be secretly carried on and spread, we cannot, on the principles of sound policy, consider the punishment as too severe. For if it once begins to prevail, not only will boys be easily corrupted by adults, but also by other boys; nor will it ever cease; more especially as it must thus soon lose all its shamefulness and infamy and become fashionable and the national taste; and then . . . national weakness, for which all remedies are ineffectual, most inevitably follow; not perhaps in the very first generation, but certainly in the course of the third or fourth. . . . To these evils may be added yet another, viz. that the constitutions of those men who submit to this degradation are, if not always, yet very often, totally destroyed, though in a different way from what is the result of whoredom.

"Whoever, therefore, wishes to ruin a nation, has only to get this vice introduced; for it is extremely difficult to extirpate it where it has once taken root because it can be propagated with much more secrecy . . . and when we perceive that it has once got a footing in any country, however powerful and flourishing, we may venture as politicians to predict that the foundation of its future decline is laid and that after some hundred years it will no longer be the same . . . powerful country it is at present."**
I’m curious, do you have objections to learning from history?

Sodomy has taken many lives and wounded many other lives. It is the sort of thing that we should know as much about as possible.

You might, for example, google “St. Paul and sodomy” if you want to know how serious a problem Paul that it was.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Whad

**No, not the amendment, I mean for heaven’s sake, what did you have to do to find that? You actually spend time doing that??? **

Not much time. Just google three words … "“Thomas Jefferson sodomy” and see how easy it is to learn some history.

Here is another author writing while Jefferson was still alive.

J**ohn David Michaelis, author of an 1814 four-volume legal work, outlined why homosexuality must be more strenuously addressed and much less tolerated than virtually any other moral vice in society:
Code: 
"If we reflect on the dreadful consequences of sodomy to a state, and on the extent to which this abominable vice may be secretly carried on and spread, we cannot, on the principles of sound policy, consider the punishment as too severe. For if it once begins to prevail, not only will boys be easily corrupted by adults, but also by other boys; nor will it ever cease; more especially as it must thus soon lose all its shamefulness and infamy and become fashionable and the national taste; and then . . . national weakness, for which all remedies are ineffectual, most inevitably follow; not perhaps in the very first generation, but certainly in the course of the third or fourth. . . . To these evils may be added yet another, viz. that the constitutions of those men who submit to this degradation are, if not always, yet very often, totally destroyed, though in a different way from what is the result of whoredom.

"Whoever, therefore, wishes to ruin a nation, has only to get this vice introduced; for it is extremely difficult to extirpate it where it has once taken root because it can be propagated with much more secrecy . . . and when we perceive that it has once got a footing in any country, however powerful and flourishing, we may venture as politicians to predict that the foundation of its future decline is laid and that after some hundred years it will no longer be the same . . . powerful country it is at present."**
Click to expand...
Yes, a nice pile of tripe.
I’m curious, do you have objections to learning from history?
Click to expand...
No, I think it is the most under taught and misused subject in school apart from one.
Sodomy has taken many lives and wounded many other lives. It is the sort of thing that we should know as much about as possible.
Click to expand...
And the people who are unnecessarily against homosexuals who love each other and may, and others who may not but still have that sort of sex, have caused untold numbers of deaths and destroyed lives as well. It is all very very sad.
You might, for example, google “St. Paul and sodomy” if you want to know how serious a problem Paul that it was.
Click to expand...
yes, I’m sorry I don’t have the reference at hand, but someone wrote a piece explicating how Paul himself might have been a homosexual. It is not uncommon, the opposite in fact, in repressive situations for someone to fight mightily against what is in fact their own condition. Sound familiar? I don’t know.
 
Sair said:
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.
Click to expand...
How would you justify that generalisation? :confused:
 
inocente said:
Sounds a bit relativist. 🙂 But even that fails. For instance, two thirds of a majority Catholic population supported gay union in Spain. Many more people were swayed by a simple appeal to civil rights than the complicated notion that the institution of marriage is somehow protected, rather than damaged, by forcing gays to live out of wedlock.
Click to expand...
It isn’t so much relativist as it is picking one’s battles. Think of children: you don’t correct every single thing they do wrong, especially if it is something that the parent has allowed for years (perhaps a bad example but you still get the point), but you would correct them if they suddenly developed a biting habit. You wouldn’t be labeled a relativist. I and I am sure most people on this forum would love nothing more than the divorce rate to be lowered and for there to be divorce laws or stricter marriage laws that prevent people from getting divorced because they had a rough day. Unfortunately, however, that is not the main concern at the moment and since the probability of the efforts to change an American mindset it is only reasonable to try and tackle the more important and more probable issue in a more public way.

I Don’t see how your second point relates to my post. I also don’t quite understand what you are referring to with regard to Spain? Are you saying that they were more likely to support civil unions from a civil rights perspective than from the perspective that forcing gays to live out of wedlock is damaging marriage?

If so, then it is probably similar to many Catholic American’s perspective that they cannot force their religion on others and that there really is no right or wrong (you know, relativism).
 
Whadyamean said:
Y
And the people who are unnecessarily against homosexuals who love each other and may, and others who may not but still have that sort of sex, have caused untold numbers of deaths and destroyed lives as well.
Click to expand...
There is a vast difference between love and pursuing sexual pleasure…
 
tonyrey said:
There is a vast difference between love and pursuing sexual pleasure…
Click to expand...
Yes, and of course both hetero- and homo- sexual couples who love clearly know the difference. Thanks for pointing it out.
 
tonyrey said:
Whether they always put it into practice is another matter because sexual pleasure is not an expression of love when it has a harmful effect on them or on others…
Click to expand...
That is sort of a truism, but I;m sure that you have your ideas of what constitutes “harm” that may not coincide with actuality, but only with your belief preferences. And those preferences are what you are trying to put over, I’m guessing.
 
Whadyamean said:
Whether they always put it into practice is another matter because sexual pleasure is not an expression of love when it has a harmful effect on them or on others…
Click to expand...
My concept of harm is that there are adverse physical, psychological, moral, social or spiritual consequences…
Click to expand...
 
tonyrey said:
My concept of harm is that there are adverse physical, psychological, moral, social or spiritual consequences…
Click to expand...
As there are to many things. Some are imagined, construed, and fabricated, as we know, and some not. It takes a deep self knowledge beyond the superficiality of dogmas to discern which is which. Good luck with that. And a very Blessed and Merry Christmas to you and yours!
 
tonyrey said:
I can’t think of any dogmas so precise that they cater for every contingency! May you and yours also enjoy the blessings of this great feast.
Click to expand...
Wow! Smarter than the average fundamentalist bear! That can be difficult. Good going. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top