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.
Biblepoe said:
Does straight marriage lead to justification of straight incest? If not, why would/could expanding the legal definition of marriage to include gay marriage lead to incest? I’m not necessarily arguing that gay marriage is good, but this ins’t a good reason to suppress legal gay marriage.
Click to expand...
Generally that isn’t what people mean. This argument usually is a reaction to someone who says that marriage is a way to express two peoples’ love for one another and that nobody should interfere in a consentual relationship. Therefore, if there are two loving people who happen too be brother and sister (personally I prefer to use polygamy as an example rather than incest) want to express their love for one another, how can one refuse if marriage simply becomes a ceremony to express love between two consenting adults? The argument is that by changing the institution of marriage by defining it not as a union of a man and a woman to become husband and wife but as a ceremony for two (maybe more) consenting individuals to express their love, then how can one tell, for example, a man who loves three women who also has the consent of the women to be married to them all that he can’t. What possible reason could one give?
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Thomas Jefferson believed male sodomites should be castrated. So please don’t plead that Thomas Jefferson was a Catholic bigot. He simply knew a crime against nature when he saw it, and he didn’t have to hear all the insane arguments offered today in favor of it.
Click to expand...
So if we estimate that just 2.5% of the world population is gay, he was talking about mutilating the equivalent of everyone in Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina, New Jersey, Virginia, Washington, Massachusetts and then some. :eek:

And that’s your sane argument? 😃
 
karebear92 said:
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.
Click to expand...
That would be a dream ticket for your opponents. They will point out, using lots of graphs and charts, that you’ve been all but silent for decades when the real threats to marriage have been soaring cohabitation and divorce rates. They’ll say that’s proof positive you don’t really value the institution of marriage and are just using it as an excuse for a hidden agenda. Wouldn’t really matter what you say after that - politics is tough!
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?
Click to expand...
Gays are a tiny minority, a side-show when marriage has been wounded by years of drive-thru matrimony and divorce. In that context it’s a non-starter trying to argue that the institution is in any way protected by forcing gays to live out of wedlock. The reverse sounds more reasonable - equal rights protect the institution more.
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).
Click to expand...
Freedom of religion and the freedom to act in conscience are absolutes. 🙂
 
So question…

The OT had instances of men with multiple wives. And assuming Yahweh didn’t start making new people and breathing life into them then would not Adam’s and Eve’s children have been engaging in incestuous relationships? Same could be said for Noah’s family post-flood. Is this not viewed in the same was as the “potential” polygamy and incest discussed in this thread?

Sent from my Windows Phone. Please pardon my mistakes.
 
ThinkingSapien said:
So question…

The OT had instances of men with multiple wives. And assuming Yahweh didn’t start making new people and breathing life into them then would not Adam’s and Eve’s children have been engaging in incestuous relationships? Same could be said for Noah’s family post-flood. Is this not viewed in the same was as the “potential” polygamy and incest discussed in this thread?

Sent from my Windows Phone. Please pardon my mistakes.
Click to expand...
I’ve asked the incest question myself before- Not just about the children of Adam and Eve but about Adam and Eve themselves. See, Eve’s biology was wholly derived from Adam’s so their relationship, biologically-speaking, must have been at-least like father and daughter or indeed even closer (They shared more genes than a daughter shares with her father, seeing as Eve’s biological make-up was wholly from one source).

Someone linked me an earlier thread that attempted to answer it but I don’t think I can pin-point it.

But as far as sex and gay marriage, incest etc- Once the procreative meaning, function and purpose of sex is divorced from sex itself, then there remains little moral basis to oppose deviations of sex. That’s why the artificial birth control pills brought on such a revolution in sexual norms within a few decades. The point of sex was lost. Sex is seen primarily as a tool for bonding and pleasure. So if a couple, married or not, gay or straight, related or not etc can achieve pleasure and bonding through consensual sex, on what basis does anyone say it is wrong? 🤷
 
Biblepoe said:
Does straight marriage lead to justification of straight incest? If not, why would/could expanding the legal definition of marriage to include gay marriage lead to incest? I’m not necessarily arguing that gay marriage is good, but this ins’t a good reason to suppress legal gay marriage.
Click to expand...
Brilliant! Thanks.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
inocente

Thomas Jefferson believed male sodomites should be castrated. So please don’t plead that Thomas Jefferson was a Catholic bigot. He simply knew a crime against nature when he saw it, and he didn’t have to hear all the insane arguments offered today in favor of it.
Click to expand...
Thomas Jefferson also owned slaves and had a child by one of them, as you probably know from the internet. So by your way of thinking, we ought to have slaves and children by them because it was OK by TJ???
 
inocente said:
So if we estimate that just 2.5% of the world population is gay, he was talking about mutilating the equivalent of everyone in Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina, New Jersey, Virginia, Washington, Massachusetts and then some. :eek:

And that’s your sane argument? 😃
Click to expand...
Wow, Charlemagne!!! get out your charitable knife! You gonna be busy, boy!
 
Whad
**
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 have set yourself above the Catholic Church, Saint Paul, and the Bible. It is all very sad indeed!
 
Whad

Inocente

The reference to Jefferson’s espousal of anti-sodomy laws was to show the horror of sodomy that was more sane than the praise of it we have today in the media … oh yes, so praiseworthy that we must dignify it and celebrate it with a marital rite.

That is what is insane. 😃

Likewise it is insane that women today routinely kill their children in the womb without apparently any conscience. And that too is made so legal and praiseworthy that it is considered insane hate speech to speak up for the unborn.

Sodomy is not the only sign of a civilization that has on all visible fronts corrupted itself beyond recognition what it was even fifty years ago.
 
Whad

**Yes, and of course both hetero- and homo- sexual couples who love clearly know the difference. Thanks for pointing it out. **

How does anal sex become an act of love?

It is a perverse act. If you don’t know that for a fact, what is wrong with you? :confused:
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Whad

**Yes, and of course both hetero- and homo- sexual couples who love clearly know the difference. Thanks for pointing it out. **

How does anal sex become an act of love?

It is a perverse act. If you don’t know that for a fact, what is wrong with you? :confused:
Click to expand...
Love is like water. It will find its level. I know that for you, in your mind, it is a perversity. But no one is asking or forcing you to indulge. So what is your problem, young fellow? And you don’t seem to have anything to say about lesbianism, so maybe you are skewed in your critique from an actual stance on homosexuality as such. You just have a fear of a particular act.

Do you flush with the lid up? Then your toothbrush nearby has those same germs. Go ask a hygienist. What are you really about here, my young friend?
 
Whad

**Love is like water. It will find its level. I know that for you, in your mind, it is a perversity. **

Old man, love is not a perversity. Sodomy is not love. So I take it you are all for sodomy (including anal sex) as an expression of true love?

Yes or no? Don’t obfuscate. 😃

Is incest perverse? Yes or no? Or is it love finding its own level?

Is pedophilia perverse? Yes or no? Or is it love finding its own level.

Is bestiality (sex with animals) perverse? Yes or no? Or is it love finding its own level?
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Whad

**Yes, and of course both hetero- and homo- sexual couples who love clearly know the difference. Thanks for pointing it out. **

How does anal sex become an act of love?

It is a perverse act. If you don’t know that for a fact, what is wrong with you? :confused:
Click to expand...
If two men who love each other decide to have anal sex out of love, who are you to tell them that they’re not doing it out of love? “Oh, I know that for the two of you it was loving and you felt loved during, but it’s not a loving act because I said so!”

Unless you have supernatural powers, you’re not a mind-reader (so you cannot say they were not doing it out of love).
 
Lemon

If two men who love each other decide to have anal sex out of love, who are you to tell them that they’re not doing it out of love? "Oh, I know that for the two of you it was loving and you felt loved during, but it’s not a loving act because I said so!"

So I guess in your mind if a mother and son have sex, or a father and daughter, that is true love, and you have no right to tell them it is perverse? 😃
 
Lemon

**If two men who love each other decide to have anal sex out of love, who are you to tell them that they’re not doing it out of love? **

And because you are a lapsed Catholic you are not going to tell anybody anything … unless they are Catholic? 😉
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Whad

**Love is like water. It will find its level. I know that for you, in your mind, it is a perversity. **

Old man, love is not a perversity. Sodomy is not love. So I take it you are all for sodomy (including anal sex) as an expression of true love?

Yes or no? Don’t obfuscate. 😃

Is incest perverse? Yes or no? Or is it love finding its own level?

Is pedophilia perverse? Yes or no? Or is it love finding its own level.

Is bestiality (sex with animals) perverse? Yes or no? Or is it love finding its own level?
Click to expand...
I see that you are operating in a mode of binary perception and judgement. And as you know, there are only 10 kinds of people: those who understand binary and those who don’t. I don’t; neither do I understand conflating apples with oranges and pears and coconuts and horseradish. You seem facile in that, but it’s not my cup of tea. Thanks for your time and lack of attention.
 
Marybeloved said:
I’ve asked the incest question myself before- Not just about the children of Adam and Eve but about Adam and Eve themselves. See, Eve’s biology was wholly derived from Adam’s so their relationship, biologically-speaking, must have been at-least like father and daughter or indeed even closer (They shared more genes than a daughter shares with her father, seeing as Eve’s biological make-up was wholly from one source).
Click to expand...
Some one briefly explored that line of thought in a recent episode of “The Middle” (episode “A Christmas Gift”). One of the characters had just “discovered” the bible and was exploring it and presented the question to his parents on how the rib thing worked, asking “wouldn’t that just make another adam if they have the same DNA”?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top