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.
teno
**
Straight marriage doesn’t open the door to polygamous marriage or incestuous marriages, so why do you assume that gay marriage would?**

And marijuana doesn’t open the door to harder drugs?

You probably don’t believe that doors open to anything.

But there can’t be any doubt in most minds that the acceptance of civil unions opened the door to the demand for gay marriage.
 
Biblepoe

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.

And you are assuming there are neither harmful psychological nor physical effects of sodomy, a myth to be sure. 😃
 
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? 😉
I fail to see how the moral significance of those facts can be denied by a Christian… :confused:
 
Charlemagne II;8742234 said:
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!’”

Good example of Christianity. Oh. You forgot to say that Lot offered his two virgin daughters to that mob to be gang raped. That must be a good example as well. I guess they were grateful, because they later commit incest with Lot after getting him drunk.
 
Charlemagne II;8742234:
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!’”
Good example of Christianity. Oh. You forgot to say that Lot offered his two virgin daughters to that mob to be gang raped. That must be a good example as well. I guess they were grateful, because they later commit incest with Lot after getting him drunk.Christianity didn’t exist!
 
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?
Because it is redefining marriage, or at least the arguments for it make it seem so. For example, they argue that they are taxpaying citizens so they should get the same rights as everyone else. Well then a sister wife could ask for legal recognition, as a taxpaying citizen, for her love with her husband as well as the legal benefits that go along with it. They argue that they should have a ceremony to express their love, but couldn’t a sister wife ask for the same thing? What other arguments for gay marriage are there? I am sure I could relate it back to polygamy in the very same way I did above.
 
Whadyamean;8743551:
Christianity didn’t exist!
Darn, Tonyrey, you got me!! 🙂 I am simply referring to the many folks, not necessarily of the church, who thump the Bible and claim it to be the inviolable Word of God as it stands and purport that every word being true, all of its astonishing stories must be held as a standard for good moral behavior. I’m referring to the mentality described by a story I once heard of a woman who would not learn another language because "God writ the Bible in English, and that’s good enough for me!’
 
tonyrey;8743568:
Darn, Tonyrey, you got me!! 🙂 I am simply referring to the many folks, not necessarily of the church, who thump the Bible and claim it to be the inviolable Word of God as it stands
and purport that every word being true, all of its astonishing stories must be held as a standard for good moral behavior. I’m referring to the mentality described by a story I once heard of a woman who would not learn another language because "God writ the Bible in English, and that’s good enough for me!’

All of the moral truths in the bible are true and the bible is inerrant in that way. Some of the stories themselves may or may not be taken literally.
 
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 gays can’t do that.
True. But that is regulating an act not an institution… two very different things. There are many non-cohabitating couples who would not know as well. There are probably many devout Catholics that do not fully understand it. Whats you point? It isn’t the ability to do something. Women could very well be priests, for example, but they can’t. Many men would do well in the army, but because of medical disabilities they can’t. Many smart students could do well at Harvard but because of financial restraints they can’t. There are many things people could do or appear to do but because of some limitation they can’t.
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.
I’m not going to debate natural law, as that would be off topic, but I assure you it is more than just a code of ethics.

I addressed that in my last post to you. I know that they aren’t the same. Which is why I said marriage isn’t so much a natural law as a natural institution.

It is mentioned in scripture. Look at Matthew 19

You are taking the story literally; you need to take the moral and spiritual truths literally but not the story as it is told.
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.
That is solely your opinion and I am sure you are not a polygamist, so to you that is true. A polygamist, on the other hand, would probably deny that. I would say the same thing about same-sex marriage. Of course there is love and devotion but I don’t think their love and devotion could ever be the same as the love between a husband and a wife.
Its okay:D I have been called chap, bro, and brother many times!
 
Whad

**Good example of Christianity. Oh. You forgot to say that Lot offered his two virgin daughters to that mob to be gang raped. That must be a good example as well. I guess they were grateful, because they later commit incest with Lot after getting him drunk. **

They were no Christians back then. Shows how much you know! ;)😃

Darn, Tonyrey, you got me!! I am simply referring to the many folks, not necessarily of the church, who thump the Bible and claim it to be the inviolable Word of God as it stands and purport that every word being true, all of its astonishing stories must be held as a standard for good moral behavior.

Not so. The stories are about both vice and virtue. Certainly the story of Adam and Eve is not held up “as a standard for good moral behavior.”
 
tonyrey

I fail to see how the moral significance of those facts can be denied by a Christian…

Ah, but just wait! 😃
 
Whad

Good example of Christianity. Oh. You forgot to say that Lot offered his two virgin daughters to that mob to be gang raped. That must be a good example as well. I guess they were grateful, because they later commit incest with Lot after getting him drunk.

They were no Christians back then. Shows how much you know! ;)😃

Darn, Tonyrey, you got me!! I am simply referring to the many folks, not necessarily of the church, who thump the Bible and claim it to be the inviolable Word of God as it stands and purport that every word being true, all of its astonishing stories must be held as a standard for good moral behavior.

Not so. The stories are about both vice and virtue. Certainly the story of Adam and Eve is not held up “as a standard for good moral behavior.”
Good grief. Want to invite a few others to repeat what I’ve already been admonished about and admitted to? OK, of the morality of god fearing people, then. How small minded are you, anyway? Maybe you would like to call me that name in Latin again?
 
The Unchanging “God” sure seems to have different morals before and after Jesus!
If you start a new thread we can discuss this, but it wasn’t God that changed it was the hardness of peoples’ hearts.
 
Whad
**
How small minded are you, anyway?**

How big hearted are you? :confused:
 
“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?
Being brought up by one’s biological mother and father is a common good. That is, it is good for every human being, just as having two arms and two legs is good for every human being. Some people are born without this common good of two arms and two legs, but it is a deprivation not to have this common good. Every child naturally desires to know and be known by his biological mother and father. Tragic circumstance may interfere with this natural desire, but it is never completely erased.

When it is not possible for the child to be brought up by his biological mother and father, the next best thing is to be brought up by a loving substitute mother and father.
Mothers and fathers are complementary, not equal, though equally important and valuable. Children learn how to relate to both sexes by relating to their mother and father. Also, children are helped to appreciate their own sex when they see the parent of their own sex appreciated by the parent of the opposite sex, and when they have a parent of their own sex easily available with whom to bond.

If a household with a loving mother and father is not available for a child in tragic circumstances, those who lovingly nurture the child should be lovingly supported. But this is a deprivation to the child and cannot be viewed as an ideal.
 
Being brought up by one’s biological mother and father is a common good. That is, it is good for every human being, just as having two arms and two legs is good for every human being. Some people are born without this common good of two arms and two legs, but it is a deprivation not to have this common good. Every child naturally desires to know and be known by his biological mother and father. Tragic circumstance may interfere with this natural desire, but it is never completely erased.
I wouldn’t dispute that anyone has a right to actually know who their biological parents are - especially since it’s important to know about any inherited diseases or dispositions. However, if the supposed ‘right’ of every child to be raised by his/her biological parents were enforced, that would not lead to good outcomes for those children whose parents are not actually suited to raising them.

I don’t know if this fits into your category of ‘tragic circumstances’ but the fact of the matter is that there are many children who are far better off never having anything to do with their biological parents. Is it better to wish these children had never been conceived or born? Maybe, but reality must be dealt with. Ideals are just that - actual circumstances don’t always conform to them. There’s no doubt that part of the misery involved in the experience of children who are adopted or for some reason don’t know their biological parents is the stigma applied to them by those who can’t see beyond their own ideals.

Moreover, there is absolutely no reason a child raised by a homosexual couple should lack for role models of the opposite sex of the parents - this is what close friends (and in some circumstances, the other biological parent if that is what works for those involved) are for.

What I suspect is actually more harmful for children is to be isolated within the nuclear family unit, with no examples from adults beyond it. Every child needs to know that he/she is wanted and valued by the adults in his/her life, regardless of the genetic relationship the child has with those adults.
 
If you start a new thread we can discuss this, but it wasn’t God that changed it was the hardness of peoples’ hearts.
Are you saying that the medieval Christians who tortured and burned ‘heretics’ and ‘witches’, who invented hanging, drawing and disembowelling as a punishment for disagreeing with a reigning sovereign, and for whom public executions and exhibitions of animal violence were a good day out for the family, were not hard-hearted?
 
Are you saying that the medieval Christians who tortured and burned ‘heretics’ and ‘witches’, who invented hanging, drawing and disembowelling as a punishment for disagreeing with a reigning sovereign, and for whom public executions and exhibitions of animal violence were a good day out for the family, were not hard-hearted?
Thank you for proving my point. God does not change. People are responsible for their actions. However, just as people (children, infants etc.) are not intelligent enough to be fully culpable or held to the same standards as adults, those who are hard-hearted through no fault of their own may not be fully culpable or held to the same standard.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top