Can justification of gay marriage lead to justification of incest?

[Sair]

There is no good reason to expect that separating marriage from its procreative context will not open the floodgates.

I am absolutely, spectacularly unimpressed by the claim that the only thing left keeping society from endorsing pedophilia or bestiality is that either of these things cannot consent. This is simply an unprincipled exception to the ways we normally interact with children and animals. We do not ask children’s consent before we send them to school. We do not ask animals’ consent before we slaughter them for meat.

That’s true. It’s only relatively recently in human history that we started recognising that human consent was important. Most people still assume that it’s okay to treat other animals as we see fit, with no regard for their welfare or interests.

Marriage has already been separated from its procreative context. The fact that marriage is generally allowed between heterosexual couples who have no ability or no wish to have children is evidence that the floodgates are already well and truly open, if you want to think about it that way.

The only way this exception can make sense is if you say that consent is the PURPOSE of marriage. But this is stupid: the purpose of marriage is to consent to being married? This is as good as saying marriage need not exist – and if that’s what you believe, just come right out and say it.

Again, agreed - the purpose of marriage has never been simply to consent to marriage or to sexual relations. Plenty of marriages throughout history have been effected without consent anyway, so that can hardly be its purpose. The purpose has, for most of the history of marriage, been to arrange a binding social and economic contract between two families, preferably for their mutual benefit. It’s only in the last couple of centuries that the romantic feelings of the couple have even been a matter of importance in that regard. Certainly, many marriages that we recognise as such nowadays would not have been considered valid in ages past - it has become, like everything else in our society, a matter for individual decision, rather than community interest. I would, in fact, go so far as to say that the legal and ceremonial aspects of modern marriage are mere window-dressing - the historical role of marriage has diminished to practical irrelevance in the modern age. Most people who marry only do so either because their families expect it as part of the life script, because of the legal benefits involved, or because they want a public ceremony of mutual commitment. Pair-bonding, in the way it has happened throughout human existence, can happen with or without the socioeconomic construct of marriage.

At any rate, what is offensive about bestiality and pedophilia is NOT that animals and children cannot consent, it is that they are abominable outrages against the order of being. Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply morally deficient and spiritually pathological – to put it less delicately, a real scumbag.

Is there actually an objective order of being that makes bestiality and paedophila abominable? Or are they simply abominable because of the harm they almost invariably do to the subordinate parties - the children and the nonhuman animals - involved? This is a very different situation from consensual sexual relations between adults of the same sex, if you consider it from a pragmatic and consequentialist point of view.

 

[Sair]

Social science confirms the benefits to children and society of intact traditional families. This is the kind of family that, for the sake of children, should be encouraged. Recognizing and encouraging traditional, lifelong marriage should be a priority for the benefit of everyone, including the benefit of those not raised in traditional families. I was not raised in a traditional family environment, but I have been greatly blessed by the gentle emotional stability of those who have. We all benefit when children are nurtured as nature obviously intended.

I don’t think nature ‘intends’ anything - it just happens that children are more psychologically well-adjusted if they have parents and/or carers who are reliable. When the biological parents are not reliable, the children are better off without them. The feeling of security in their immediate surroundings is extremely important in allowing a child to adjust to a world of potential dangers and uncertainties. Would you go so far as to say that unstable people should refrain from having children?

 

[inocente]

Oh my! This is the first time I’ve heard a Baptist prefer the Catholic Church’s position to the positions clearly stated in Scripture.

If you had read on for a few words, you’d have seen I gave a long list of countries which weren’t convinced by the document, which might tell you what I think of it.

I linked it to show that the Church is infinitely more measured on this than some of its adherents. For instance, the document doesn’t confirm your reading of Matt 10:15, and I’ll challenge you to find anything on vatican.va which does.

That’s another limp retort. The words of Genesis, Jesus, and Paul are there for all to see. They are not equivocating. But you deliberately twist them to serve your purpose, which apparently is to defend sodomy as something not at all condemned in Scripture

The words are not there for us to quote out of context. The books you quoted from are narratives, we can’t just superficially pick out lines that appear to confirm our prejudices and ignore the rest.

Well, I guess some can and do.

But for example, did you notice that after your quote from Romans 1, the next lines prove Paul isn’t talking about the average gay? “Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.”

So go find some gays and tell them they are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice, etc. and then report back on your findings. Then turn the page to Romans 2, which starts “You, therefore” and realize Paul hasn’t even finished developing his point yet.

Have you ever been in a Bible study group? Where for homework you research when a passage was written, the culture in which it was written, the way that the writer thought about the world? And then look at different translations, discuss the writer’s intended meaning, how that meaning may have got changed since, what the core of the meaning might be outside of our own subjectivity?

Every chapter in Romans from 2 to 8 starts with a continuation from the previous chapter, a “Therefore” or a “What shall we say, then?”. Then Paul reaches a humungous conclusion, that forever we are free: “No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

All I can offer is the old saying: Read the Bible in the Spirit, and the Spirit in the Bible.

 

[sw85]

That’s true. It’s only relatively recently in human history that we started recognising that human consent was important. Most people still assume that it’s okay to treat other animals as we see fit, with no regard for their welfare or interests.

Marriage has already been separated from its procreative context. The fact that marriage is generally allowed between heterosexual couples who have no ability or no wish to have children is evidence that the floodgates are already well and truly open, if you want to think about it that way.

Marriage remains exactly what it always has been. That society decides to let people escape their moral obligations without consequence is a feature of society’s deficiency, not a consequence of some change in human nature.

Again, agreed - the purpose of marriage has never been simply to consent to marriage or to sexual relations. Plenty of marriages throughout history have been effected without consent anyway, so that can hardly be its purpose. The purpose has, for most of the history of marriage, been to arrange a binding social and economic contract between two families, preferably for their mutual benefit. It’s only in the last couple of centuries that the romantic feelings of the couple have even been a matter of importance in that regard. Certainly, many marriages that we recognise as such nowadays would not have been considered valid in ages past - it has become, like everything else in our society, a matter for individual decision, rather than community interest. I would, in fact, go so far as to say that the legal and ceremonial aspects of modern marriage are mere window-dressing - the historical role of marriage has diminished to practical irrelevance in the modern age. Most people who marry only do so either because their families expect it as part of the life script, because of the legal benefits involved, or because they want a public ceremony of mutual commitment. Pair-bonding, in the way it has happened throughout human existence, can happen with or without the socioeconomic construct of marriage.

You are conflating practical benefits with teleology.

Marriage exists to delineate duties: specifically, the conjugal duties of man to his wife, and woman to her husband, and their mutual parental duties to children.

This probably sails right over your head since you’ve already basically admitted you’re a materialist.

Is there actually an objective order of being that makes bestiality and paedophila abominable?

Nope, clearly I’m being dishonest about my motives because I just hate gays.

Or are they simply abominable because of the harm they almost invariably do to the subordinate parties - the children and the nonhuman animals - involved? This is a very different situation from consensual sexual relations between adults of the same sex, if you consider it from a pragmatic and consequentialist point of view.

Well, why in the world should we do that? If we simply presume consequentialism to be true, we can skip all this painful debate nonsense and get straight to the taxpayer-subsidized sexual degeneracy and pogroms against the Catholic Church.

Whether or not consequentialism is true is precisely what’s at issue in the gay “marriage” debate.

 

[crazzeto]

I’m sorry but you’ll have to explain to me why you think acknowledging homosexual couples as married is a comment whatsoever on raping children.

I’m not sure if you’re aware, but American Psychiatric Assocation has already moved to declare that Pedophilia is a disorder “if the patient feels disturbed by his behaviour”… This was the first move in the normalization of homosexaul relations. If left unchecked, as time marches on and Pedophilia finally becomes fully normalized, there will no longer be a leg to stand on when attempting to make the case against marriage between an adult and a child of any age.

 

[crazzeto]

When someone has to resort to personal attacks then I know they are well and truly defeated. Thanks for the arguments you’ve made, they’ll be very helpful in persuading folk to vote yes to gay marriage if only not to be associated with such views.

Here’s the Church’s case against gay union, it might be worth reading as it’s rather more measured, although admittedly it hasn’t held the day so far for marriage in Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, parts of Mexico and USA; or for civil union in Andorra, Austria, Brazil, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, Greenland, Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Slovenia, Switzerland, United Kingdom and Uruguay (source: Wikipedia).

Its interesting to note, that the proponents of gay marriage have never succeeded in actually convincing the majority of a large population that gay marraige is good and proper.

In England for instance, where gay marriage is being pushed into churchs (the next big push) and has been legal for a decade give or take… 54% of people feel gay marraige is wrong, and should not be legal, as well 64% beleive that gays should not be able to adopt.

It should be noted that Englad is also quite a bit more secularized that the USA. Gay marriage has only succeed through political back room hardball, and litigation.

 

[inocente]

Its interesting to note, that the proponents of gay marriage have never succeeded in actually convincing the majority of a large population that gay marraige is good and proper.

It was the will of the majority here in Spain.

When the bill was announced in June 2004, the independent Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas, which takes monthly polls for Congress, asked the following questions:

1. In your opinion, should stable homosexual couples be granted the same rights and have the same obligations as heterosexual couples?
   Yes 67.7%, No 23.7%, Don’t know/no answer 8.6%
2. Continuing on this topic, do you believe that gay couples should have the right to contract to marriage?
   Yes 66.2%, No 26.5%, Don’t know/no answer 7.3%
3. I’m going to read you some statements about homosexuality. I’d like you to say whether or not you agree with each of them.
   Homosexuality is unnatural: Agree 22.2%, Disagree 67.8%
   Homosexuality is, simply, a sexuality distinct from the majority: Agree 76.6%, Disagree 13.8%
   Homosexual behavior should be penalized: Agree 4.2%, Disagree 88%
   Homosexuality is a personal choice as respectable as heterosexuality: Agree 79%, Disagree 11.4%
   Basically homosexuality is a disease and as such should be treated: Agree 13.3%, Disagree 75.2%

Then, a standard monthly question:

1. How do you define yourself on religious matters?
   Catholic 79.1%, Other religion 1.2%, No belief 11.9%, Atheist 5.8%, No answer 2.1%

Source: cis.es/cis/opencm/ES/1_encuestas/estudios/ver.jsp?estudio=3994

 

[inocente]

In England for instance, where gay marriage is being pushed into churchs (the next big push) and has been legal for a decade give or take… 54% of people feel gay marraige is wrong, and should not be legal, as well 64% beleive that gays should not be able to adopt.

The Wikipedia entry on the UK appears to dispute those figures, with the majority in support:

*An opinion poll conducted in June 2009 by Populus for The Times reported 61% of the British public agreed with the statement ‘Gay couples should have an equal right to get married, not just to have civil partnerships’, while 33% disagreed. Support was highest among those aged between 25 and 34 where 78% agreed and 19% disagreed. It was lowest amongst those over 65 where 37% agreed and 52% disagreed. A majority of both men and women agreed but support was higher among women (67%) than men (55%). On voting intention, 73% Liberal Democrats, 64% Labour voters and 53% Conservatives agreed that gay couples should have the right to marry.[44][45]

A poll conducted by Angus Reid in July 2010 showed that 78% of people supported either same-sex marriage or civil union for gay couples, with 41% opting for same-sex marriage and 37% opting for civil union. The amount of people who supported no legal unions for gay couples decreased by 3% since August 2009.[46]

According to the 2010 Scottish Social Attitudes Survey, 61 per cent of Scotland’s population supports same-sex marriage. Just 19 per cent said they disagreed, while 18 per cent said they neither agreed nor disagreed. In a similar poll in 2002, 42% of Scotland’s population supported same-sex marriage. In 2006, 53% of Scots backed same-sex marriage.[47]

In July 2011, a representative survey conducted by Angus Reid Public Opinion showed that 43 per cent of Britons believe same-sex couples in the UK should be allowed to legally marry, 34 per cent think same-sex couples should be allowed to form civil partnerships, but not marry, and 15 per cent would grant no legal recognition to same-sex couples.[48]*

 

[crazzeto]

Date Line September 22nd, 2011
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2040783/Conservative-UK-Most-Britons-oppose-gay-marriage.html

Conservative UK: Most Britons still oppose gay marriage

More than half believe homosexual marriages should not be allowed and two thirds think the adoption of children by same-sex couples should not have become legal nine years ago.

Read more: dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2040783/Conservative-UK-Most-Britons-oppose-gay-marriage.html#ixzz1hwjf9KYD

The Wikipedia entry on the UK appears to dispute those figures, with the majority in support:

*An opinion poll conducted in June 2009 by Populus for The Times reported 61% of the British public agreed with the statement ‘Gay couples should have an equal right to get married, not just to have civil partnerships’, while 33% disagreed. Support was highest among those aged between 25 and 34 where 78% agreed and 19% disagreed. It was lowest amongst those over 65 where 37% agreed and 52% disagreed. A majority of both men and women agreed but support was higher among women (67%) than men (55%). On voting intention, 73% Liberal Democrats, 64% Labour voters and 53% Conservatives agreed that gay couples should have the right to marry.[44][45]

A poll conducted by Angus Reid in July 2010 showed that 78% of people supported either same-sex marriage or civil union for gay couples, with 41% opting for same-sex marriage and 37% opting for civil union. The amount of people who supported no legal unions for gay couples decreased by 3% since August 2009.[46]

According to the 2010 Scottish Social Attitudes Survey, 61 per cent of Scotland’s population supports same-sex marriage. Just 19 per cent said they disagreed, while 18 per cent said they neither agreed nor disagreed. In a similar poll in 2002, 42% of Scotland’s population supported same-sex marriage. In 2006, 53% of Scots backed same-sex marriage.[47]

In July 2011, a representative survey conducted by Angus Reid Public Opinion showed that 43 per cent of Britons believe same-sex couples in the UK should be allowed to legally marry, 34 per cent think same-sex couples should be allowed to form civil partnerships, but not marry, and 15 per cent would grant no legal recognition to same-sex couples.[48]*

 

[tonyrey]

]Depends on whether the Bible is interpreted through special glasses to affirm our preconceptions or is read in the Spirit with the intent of challenging them.

“challenging” is the appropriate word because it implies revolt. Thousands of different sects are the result of individual Christians reading “in the Spirit”…

I repeat the statistic – in 2005 when gay marriage was legalized in Spain, two thirds of a mainly Catholic population agreed with legalization. Which indicates that in the real world, when push comes to shove, far more Christians may take the same view as me even though we might be a minority on CAF.

Is Christian morality determined by the view of the majority?

 

[qui_est_ce]

Then, a standard monthly question:

1. How do you define yourself on religious matters?
   Catholic 79.1%, Other religion 1.2%, No belief 11.9%, Atheist 5.8%, No answer 2.1%

Source: cis.es/cis/opencm/ES/1_encuestas/estudios/ver.jsp?estudio=3994

Have been lurking for a few days.

I find it interesting that people who disagree with Church Teaching self-identify as in communion with that Church.

IMHO this is a reflection of how poorly people understand their own beliefs.

 

[Poof]

I just read this awhile back and I figured its a good read to share with you guys. It hits the topic on justification as well.

“The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.” - Adam Kolasinski

tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html (A secular case against Gay Marriage)

 

[Whadyamean]

I just read this awhile back and I figured its a good read to share with you guys. It hits the topic on justification as well.

“The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.” - Adam Kolasinski

tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html (A secular case against Gay Marriage)

Whoa!!! Why is the love between a gay couple only, as implied, if at all–sexual? And who says that the purpose of marriage is procreation? I know, as I bet you do, older folks who either live together or are married who are beyond sex. And as for numbers? That is already extant in many polygamies and probably polyandries. You just don’t like what other people are doing because it offends you personally on the grounds of a BELIEF!!! Jeez. give it up, already.

 

[sw85]

Whoa!!! Why is the love between a gay couple only, as implied, if at all–sexual? And who says that the purpose of marriage is procreation? I know, as I bet you do, older folks who either live together or are married who are beyond sex. And as for numbers? That is already extant in many polygamies and probably polyandries. You just don’t like what other people are doing because it offends you personally on the grounds of a BELIEF!!! Jeez. give it up, already.

YEAH, WHY WOULD ANYONE TAKE BELIEFS SEIROUSLY LOL

Come on. At least be bothered to do your basic homework about what the Church teaches before you noisily proclaim your dissent from it.

 

[Whadyamean]

YEAH, WHY WOULD ANYONE TAKE BELIEFS SEIROUSLY LOL

Because some of them aren’t worth the electrons they use. Some are excellent, uplifting, and serve to lift the heart and mind to God. Or are you saying that because it is a belief it is good? Really?

Come on. At least be bothered to do your basic homework about what the Church teaches before you noisily proclaim your dissent from it.

I’m quite aware of those, thank you. I am, by the Church’s definition and by long education, a Catholic.

 

[Sair]

Whoa!!! Why is the love between a gay couple only, as implied, if at all–sexual? And who says that the purpose of marriage is procreation? I know, as I bet you do, older folks who either live together or are married who are beyond sex. And as for numbers? That is already extant in many polygamies and probably polyandries. You just don’t like what other people are doing because it offends you personally on the grounds of a BELIEF!!! Jeez. give it up, already.

If anything, marriage in the modern world has evolved to the point where it is for the most part a public recognition of personal commitment - regardless of what private arrangements that commitment involves. It doesn’t necessarily involve children, it doesn’t necessarily involve the cooperative union of two whole families (essential aspects of marriage in past times) - it is up to the individuals involved (both by law and by recent custom) to decide what they expect from the marriage contract.

As I’ve said in previous posts, the expectations attached to marriage have changed for many of the participants in the modern world. Conservatives and reactionaries can choose whether or not they appreciate this change, but they can’t deny that it’s happened.

 

[Sair]

Have been lurking for a few days.

I find it interesting that people who disagree with Church Teaching self-identify as in communion with that Church.

IMHO this is a reflection of how poorly people understand their own beliefs.

Inability and unwillingness to conform to particular Church beliefs was a major factor in my departure from Catholicism…

 

[Sair]

Marriage remains exactly what it always has been. That society decides to let people escape their moral obligations without consequence is a feature of society’s deficiency, not a consequence of some change in human nature.

Then you believe that reproduction is a marital obligation, even for those who cannot accomplish it, regardless of the fact that they fit with the man-woman arrangement?

You are conflating practical benefits with teleology.

Actually, I am denigrating teleology in favour of practical benefits. If you can show me why this is unfavourable, I will pay attention.

Marriage exists to delineate duties: specifically, the conjugal duties of man to his wife, and woman to her husband, and their mutual parental duties to children.

That is the archaic version of marriage. All social contracts exist to delineate duties - marriage has grown to encompass emotional unions and the commitments - privately envisaged - that go along with them. One couple’s marriage contract no longer resembles every other couple’s marriage contract.

This probably sails right over your head since you’ve already basically admitted you’re a materialist.

Your view of materialism is limited by your supernatural beliefs - naturalism encompasses all phenomena we experience, but posits natural explanations for them.

Nope, clearly I’m being dishonest about my motives because I just hate gays.

Do you think it extraordinary that I could deny an ‘order of things’, when you have offered no justification for believing in such? I don’t question your honesty in declaring your belief - only your reasons for holding to that belief.

Well, why in the world should we do that? If we simply presume consequentialism to be true, we can skip all this painful debate nonsense and get straight to the taxpayer-subsidized sexual degeneracy and pogroms against the Catholic Church.

To back up this tirade, you first need to justify your choice of teleology over consequentialism; then you need to define what you mean by sexual degeneracy, as opposed to natural human inclination.

Whether or not consequentialism is true is precisely what’s at issue in the gay “marriage” debate.

Consequences observably and undeniably happen. Teleology is a product of imagination.

 

[crazzeto]

Whoa!!! Why is the love between a gay couple only, as implied, if at all–sexual? And who says that the purpose of marriage is procreation? I know, as I bet you do, older folks who either live together or are married who are beyond sex. And as for numbers? That is already extant in many polygamies and probably polyandries. You just don’t like what other people are doing because it offends you personally on the grounds of a BELIEF!!! Jeez. give it up, already.

What other standard do you offer? Let us at least be honest, we face this only because we now hold “sexual rights” in higher regard than any other right. Let me say that again, sexual rights. The Obama administration has been honest enough to call it as it is, this is about sexual rights. There for, just as posted, the standard is indeed sex.

 

[Sair]

What other standard do you offer? Let us at least be honest, we face this only because we now hold “sexual rights” in higher regard than any other right. Let me say that again, sexual rights. The Obama administration has been honest enough to call it as it is, this is about sexual rights. There for, just as posted, the standard is indeed sex.

And the question then must be, upon what basis do you deny any person the experience - with its bodily, emotional and intellectual aspects - of sex? Do you subordinate these aspects to the biological necessity of procreation? Do you value what might be considered the base, material aspects of sexual interaction over and above its esoteric - what might be considered more human - aspects? It’s interesting that in this respect alone, many philosophers and religionists alike have desired to confine humans to the limits of other animals.

What I see here is primarily the aversion to pleasure - in and of itself - fostered by ascetically-focused religions, including Catholicism. The base belief is that pleasure is never allowable as an end in itself, but must be justified by some other “higher” - and preferably difficult or painful (to the woman, in particular, in the case of childbirth) - goal.