Can justification of gay marriage lead to justification of incest?

[crazzeto]

It means “… sex is a process of combining and mixing genetic traits, often resulting in the specialization of organisms into a male or female variety (each known as a sex). Sexual reproduction involves combining specialized cells (gametes) to form offspring that inherit traits from both parents. Gametes can be identical in form and function (known as isogametes), but in many cases an asymmetry has evolved such that two sex-specific types of gametes (heterogametes) exist: male gametes are small, motile, and optimized to transport their genetic information over a distance, while female gametes are large, non-motile and contain the nutrients necessary for the early development of the young organism.” - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex

Male and female is more to do with physical anatomy than spiritual personhood.

Wait, so a Baptist accepts the opinion of Wikipedia over what is written in the bible?

 

[Nec5]

Wait, so a Baptist accepts the opinion of Wikipedia over what is written in the bible?

Wikipedia is the new gospel.

 

[tonyrey]

It is directly relevant because Jesus loved and forgave sinners even though He did not condone their sins.

Opinion or fact?
:

An argumentum ad hominem.

How?

"That only** someone** who found the verse on a homophobe website, and ** has never read the book from the start**, and knows nothing about the sins of Sodom except the word sounds like sodomy, and imagines that Jesus is given to blurting out irrelevant asides as if afflicted by Tourette’s, could possibly **imagine in their wildest dreams **it’s about gays. "!
The official Church document on gay marriage contains a number of references to scripture, but none suggesting Jesus is talking about gays when He mentions Sodom. I can only think that the authors omitted such a sure-fire argument because they know it wouldn’t be true, but am sure the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would welcome alternative constructs.
The case had been well established without the need to bring in every Biblical reference.

Do you believe the Catholic Church condones homosexual actions?

No.

Without justification?

The issue is whether the justification of gay marriage leads to justification of incest? The answer is that both are distortions of Christ’s teaching:"Have you not read that at the beginning the Creator "made them male and female

," and said, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh”? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate."

— Matthew 19:4–6; also Mk 10:7–9​

Jesus is quoting Genesis while teaching about divorce from the sacrament of marriage, not about civil union.

Marriage** is** the issue.

As for a slippery slope to incest, the Church’s aforementioned official document makes no mention, which I assume means the authors, along with me, give it no credence.

Consanguinity!

 

[inocente]

It simply isn’t the same thing. Sex is not something one chooses. Sex is a gift from God, but more specifically it is a gift from God given for a particular and undeniable purpose: procreation (and unity, though I don’t know if you accept the latter). So rather than being like a child choosing a color it would be like you giving your child whose family cannot afford food 1,000 dollars to get back on their feet. Unfortunately your child has a tendency to spend money on things solely for their pleasure. So when you give them the money you say “I am willing to help you out until you find a job but only spend this on the necessities.” So then your child leaves but decides that the last few months, through no fault of his or her own, has been tough. So instead of spending the money on rent or food he or she spends it on a cruise so that he or she can relax. Now how could you not care that your child deliberately went against your will and abused your gift to pleasure themselves?

It isn’t merely a choice. It is a gift.

I got a bit lost here. Gender identity and sexual orientation are not something one choses, so it seems like you’re saying either they are not gifts from God, or only gifts in certain circumstances, or are gifts which can only be accepted in certain circumstances. The issue is that for a non-Catholic, this business of a “particular and undeniable purpose” is very hard to understand. Is the undeniable purpose of my nose for breathing, smelling roses, or holding up my sunglasses?

Imho one reason why so many people have agreed with gay union is the rather tortuous complexity of the arguments against it, while the case for it is simply that all citizens should be equal before the law.

*Well, I personally believe that some have to struggle for the greater good of the majority. Mentally handicap individuals often cannot drive because it would be dangerous to themselves as well as society. Some people cannot adopt children because they do not have the proper setting to raise children. *

I strongly disagree that any minority must struggle, against their will for “the greater good of the majority”, it just sounds far too socialist and utilitarian.

In any case, how could making gays struggle benefit the majority? Gay people function fully in society, why is there a case for making them struggle any more than making left-handed people struggle?

Aside from that there is also the point I have been arguing. Marriage is a natural institution. It has its natural purpose(s) as I stated before. We do not have the power to change what naturally exists.

I think this has to do with the confusing terms. While religious marriage could be said to exist naturally, civil union and civil marriage cannot, whether applied to straights or gays.

*God cannot change, as if he changes He was not perfect. So as morality is essentially defined as His will, it also cannot change.

Nowhere does it say one must own slaves. Obviously slavery (in the North American way) is immoral, but this could also be seen in relation to being written because of the hardness of their hearts. Christ never said anything resembling owning slaves. Nor did He change the morality of slave owning. *

You are in danger of introducing the strange choice of agreeing to gay union or else following a slippery slope back into owning slaves.

There has been a change in morality, and in some ways it can be seen as different interpretations of who is our neighbor. Leviticus 19:18 says “Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. This is the golden rule, but “your people” is interpreted quite narrowly, as can be seen from the law on owning slaves Lev 25:44-46. These days our neighbor can include someone we see in a disaster on the other side of the world.

*While I believe gay sex is sinful and an abuse of the natural gift God gave us, I am not trying to legislate against it. *

I just can’t see any sin.

As to it not applying to women, however, I see a few scenarios. Without being graphic, two homosexual males can have what seems to be intercourse (penetration) while two females can’t, so perhaps it wouldn’t even fall under sex but sexual stimulation, which is still an abuse of God’s gift (much like masturbation is). Or perhaps they are speaking as often done in the old testament: using man in a broader sense but still using man as an example. You would have to ask a biblical scholar or someone else, however. I cannot say for certain.

As far as I know, Mosaic law never mentions masturbation or lesbians, and by “man” the text can’t be including “woman” since it refers to “a man as one does with a woman”.

Maybe it’s a Baptist thing. Here’s a piece of music by Bach which expresses gentleness, freedom, joy, unity, courtesy. Imagine that the band and choir, and Bach himself, are all openly gay. I think it would be a great contradiction to say that diminishes them in any way in the Spirit, or mean they have any special burden.

Christmas Oratorio #1 / Gardiner - youtube.com/watch?v=a6MMW-NJmt8

You didn’t comment on this, but hopefully see my point of view. At any rate, it’s nice for me to talk to someone who doesn’t just bark back.

 

[inocente]

God designed them male and female for a reason. I have no idea what the Wiki article has to do with God’s designs in creating them male and female.

I gave the reason, it’s to combine genetic traits in reproduction. When a black man and a white woman fall in love, they make coffee colored babies. I’ve no idea why else God would have created them male and female, please enlighten me.

 

[inocente]

Wait, so a Baptist accepts the opinion of Wikipedia over what is written in the bible?

What’s me being a Baptist got to do with it? What’s wrong with knowing a bit of biology?

 

[inocente]

Wikipedia is the new gospel.

My favorite psalm is 131 (“My heart is not proud”), which I read out at my water baptism. It isn’t about delighting in ignorance. It’s about humility.

 

[inocente]

Opinion or fact?

My understating is that for Catholics, being gay is not a sin. Please give your opinion if you think I’m wrong.

The case had been well established without the need to bring in every Biblical reference.

You’ve had ample opportunity to find a Church document which says Jesus was speaking about gays, and haven’t done so.

*Without justification?

Marriage** is*** the issue.

Consanguinity!

Giraffes are for Wednesdays (see note 1).

Note 1: Mystic one-liners will get mystic one-liner replies.

 

[Buck_Crosswhite]

merecomments.typepad.com/merecomments/2011/12/the-dance-of-the-straw-men.html

What do people here think?

One perversion leads to another.

 

[karebear92]

I got a bit lost here. Gender identity and sexual orientation are not something one choses, so it seems like you’re saying either they are not gifts from God, or only gifts in certain circumstances, or are gifts which can only be accepted in certain circumstances. The issue is that for a non-Catholic, this business of a “particular and undeniable purpose” is very hard to understand. Is the undeniable purpose of my nose for breathing, smelling roses, or holding up my sunglasses?

What I was trying to say is sex and marriage are not rights given under the law but gifts given from God. Certainly gays are equal to me or anybody else, but God did not give the gift of sex and marriage to every person. I believe Jesus might even address this when discussing eunuchs, but I will have to get back to you on that. And what I mean by undeniable is it is undeniable that a man has a penis for two purposes: urination and procreation. A woman has a vagina for one purpose: procreation. That is undeniable. To me it is also fairly obvious that sex is meant to be a unity of two people. That two people are engaging intimately with one another towards one purpose, procreation. This is the problem that arises when one separates the unitive and procreative act. Marriage is equally obvious in that it has always been two people coming together and joining in every way: monetary, name, household etc, and the expectation of children. That is what marriage is. Marriage is the uniting of man in women as one entity with the purpose of raising a family.

Imho one reason why so many people have agreed with gay union is the rather tortuous complexity of the arguments against it, while the case for it is simply that all citizens should be equal before the law.
I agree that civil unions are harder to argue against.

I strongly disagree that any minority must struggle, against their will for “the greater good of the majority”, it just sounds far too socialist and utilitarian.

No you don’t. If I were blind and wanted to drive like everyone else, you would say no. If I were a drug addict and just want cocaine to be legal, you would most likely say no. If I really liked the home you paid for but am disabled and cannot ever afford a home like yours, you would not give me your home. At times people struggle because there are simply things they cannot do without compromising the greater good.

In any case, how could making gays struggle benefit the majority? Gay people function fully in society, why is there a case for making them struggle any more than making left-handed people struggle?

I am not saying to put them in concentration camps. All I am saying is they are not permitted to marry because it compromises the values that our society represents. It also abolishes the true meaning of sex and marriage, which although is being abolished by society in general, recognizes the abolishment of the true meaning.

I think this has to do with the confusing terms. While religious marriage could be said to exist naturally, civil union and civil marriage cannot, whether applied to straights or gays.

No, for marriage is the union of two individuals for unitive and procreative purposes. We are a monogamous species and always have been (at least one would presume). The evolutionary purpose of our existence is procreate, and since children in the human species are raised for extended periods, the mother and father both play significant roles. But the main point is, even speaking from a strictly evolutionary stance, the purpose of the union of two individuals is to procreate and work together in a single purpose as a united entity to raise children. That is what marriage is.

You are in danger of introducing the strange choice of agreeing to gay union or else following a slippery slope back into owning slaves.

There has been a change in morality, and in some ways it can be seen as different interpretations of who is our neighbor. Leviticus 19:18 says “Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. This is the golden rule, but “your people” is interpreted quite narrowly, as can be seen from the law on owning slaves Lev 25:44-46. These days our neighbor can include someone we see in a disaster on the other side of the world.

I disagree. Human morality can change. Divine morality cannot. We were back on a religious side of the debate.

Jesus was actually the one who fulfilled the idea that our neighbor is everyone. It is clear that He was not talking to Jews but to all of humankind. It is a fulfillment of the phrase, not the changing of it.

 

[karebear92]

As far as I know, Mosaic law never mentions masturbation or lesbians, and by “man” the text can’t be including “woman” since it refers to “a man as one does with a woman”.

I actually think orthodox Judaism forbids both. And when I said that I meant that the Torah was really written with a male prejudice. So perhaps it would be equally logical to say the same thing for women. I also think it could be that lesbian sex is really not sexual intercourse but masturbation. Sexual intercourse implies penetration, which females really cannot do. I don’t know for certain, however. Perhaps Meltzerboy can come and clarify?

You didn’t comment on this, but hopefully see my point of view. At any rate, it’s nice for me to talk to someone who doesn’t just bark back.

I actually misread what you wrote the first time. I thought you were asking me to listen to the music. And I missed the imagine, so I thought you said Bach, the band, and the choir were all openly gay, and that doesn’t diminish the Spirit in any way.

No, of course it is not a special burden they have. Of course it wouldn’t diminish the spirit of their music. Of course they would be blessed as equally as anyone else is blessed. But homosexual sexual acts are sinful, so each and every time they had sex it would be a sin. We could enjoy their music, they could be lovely people. but it wouldn’t change the sinful nature of their sexual acts.

 

[crazzeto]

What’s me being a Baptist got to do with it? What’s wrong with knowing a bit of biology?

Biologically speaking, we are made male and female. There are our immutable biological states. No amount of make beleive, or even surgery can change that. You were made make or female, which ever one of those you are is what you will die. And which ever one of those you die as, is what you will eternally be. The same is true of all of us, we are each of us what God made us to be.

 

[crazzeto]

As far as I know, Mosaic law never mentions masturbation or lesbians, and by “man” the text can’t be including “woman” since it refers to “a man as one does with a woman”.

What God forbid for “Man” in the Torah is what is forbidden for Mankind, i.e. all human beings. So if male on male homosexual sex is forbidden, lesbian sex is no less forbidden. Lesbian’s don’t get a pass due to the specified gender in a bible verse.

Masturbation, per Orthodox Judaism and Christianity is forbidden in the story of Onan found in Genesis 38. I have heard 3 common refutations of this, all of which do not hold up under scrutiney. I wonder which you will bring fourth =)

 

[inocente]

And what I mean by undeniable is it is undeniable that a man has a penis for two purposes: urination and procreation. A woman has a vagina for one purpose: procreation. That is undeniable. To me it is also fairly obvious that sex is meant to be a unity of two people.

The logic you are using derives (I think) mainly from the Thomas Aquinas version of natural law, which says that everything has a purpose, and which uses procreation as one of its moral goods. If we follow only that logic then you are correct. The issue for me is that while the Church thinks it’s pretty terrific, I don’t find it at all obvious or convincing that things have specific purposes, or even why they should be thought to have specific purposes. While natural law is a snappy name, it’s just one amongst many systems of ethics, and when we use other forms of moral reasoning, based on other or no such purposes, we reach very different conclusions.

So then I stop and wonder if it’s at all legitimate to affect the lives of such a large number of people purely on the basis of definitions and dry theory, and think hang on, what does the Spirit say, and to me the Spirit says that treating gays differently causes senseless suffering so I shouldn’t do it.

*No you don’t. If I were blind and wanted to drive like everyone else, you would say no. If I were a drug addict and just want cocaine to be legal, you would most likely say no. If I really liked the home you paid for but am disabled and cannot ever afford a home like yours, you would not give me your home. At times people struggle because there are simply things they cannot do without compromising the greater good.
*

Yes I do. There’s no reason why gays must struggle for the greater good.

I am not saying to put them in concentration camps. All I am saying is they are not permitted to marry because it compromises the values that our society represents. It also abolishes the true meaning of sex and marriage, which although is being abolished by society in general, recognizes the abolishment of the true meaning.

All I am saying is that there is a far more important value that our society represents, that all are created equal before God.

No, for marriage is the union of two individuals for unitive and procreative purposes. We are a monogamous species and always have been (at least one would presume). The evolutionary purpose of our existence is procreate, and since children in the human species are raised for extended periods, the mother and father both play significant roles. But the main point is, even speaking from a strictly evolutionary stance, the purpose of the union of two individuals is to procreate and work together in a single purpose as a united entity to raise children. That is what marriage is.

Evolution has no purpose, and since gays (kind of by definition) don’t produce offspring, we should ask instead what the evolutionary function of homosexual behavior is, as it also exists in a number of other species and in some way must have contributed to their survival or the trait would have died out. Personally I’m very unwilling to even begin to call it a sin against nature, whatever that could possibly mean, on the basis of not knowing what function(s) it serves.

I disagree. Human morality can change. Divine morality cannot. We were back on a religious side of the debate.

Yes … and the “author of several fantasy novels” in the blog linked in the OP should move to a courageous heaven of right thinking more in tune with his opinion such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan or Yemen, which did not take the wishy washy liberal slippery slope and instead kept the death sentence from Leviticus 20:13.

 

[inocente]

I actually think orthodox Judaism forbids both. And when I said that I meant that the Torah was really written with a male prejudice.

I think it does too, but if you look at Judaism 101, the various rules for males and females derive from traditions which are rather more sophisticated than the Christian habit of trying to interpret the English translation of isolated verses.

No, of course it is not a special burden they have. Of course it wouldn’t diminish the spirit of their music. Of course they would be blessed as equally as anyone else is blessed. But homosexual sexual acts are sinful, so each and every time they had sex it would be a sin. We could enjoy their music, they could be lovely people. but it wouldn’t change the sinful nature of their sexual acts.

We’ll never agree.

 

[inocente]

Biologically speaking, we are made male and female. There are our immutable biological states. No amount of make beleive, or even surgery can change that. You were made make or female, which ever one of those you are is what you will die. And which ever one of those you die as, is what you will eternally be. The same is true of all of us, we are each of us what God made us to be.

I don’t really see how that’s different from what I said, except I’m not sure whether we have a gender after death. Matthew 22: 23-33 implies not, but I don’t know what Catholic theology says.

 

[inocente]

What God forbid for “Man” in the Torah is what is forbidden for Mankind, i.e. all human beings. So if male on male homosexual sex is forbidden, lesbian sex is no less forbidden. Lesbian’s don’t get a pass due to the specified gender in a bible verse.

That would make it read “If a man or a woman lies with a man or a woman as one lies with a woman”, so forbidding a man to lie with a woman. Don’t think so. You’d have to go back to the original Hebrew. In any event, the verses say that the offenders must be put to death, so unless anyone is saying they should be put to death no one is obeying the verses.

Masturbation, per Orthodox Judaism and Christianity is forbidden in the story of Onan found in Genesis 38. I have heard 3 common refutations of this, all of which do not hold up under scrutiney. I wonder which you will bring fourth =)

I said it’s not mentioned in the Mosaic law, and as far as I know stories in Genesis are not part of Mosaic law.

 

[Whadyamean]

The logic you are using derives (I think) mainly from the Thomas Aquinas version of natural law, which says that everything has a purpose, and which uses procreation as one of its moral goods. If we follow only that logic then you are correct. The issue for me is that while the Church thinks it’s pretty terrific, I don’t find it at all obvious or convincing that things have specific purposes, or even why they should be thought to have specific purposes. While natural law is a snappy name, it’s just one amongst many systems of ethics, and when we use other forms of moral reasoning, based on other or no such purposes, we reach very different conclusions.

this is very well stated. Thank you.

So then I stop and wonder if it’s at all legitimate to affect the lives of such a large number of people purely on the basis of definitions and dry theory, and think hang on, what does the Spirit say, and to me the Spirit says that treating gays differently causes senseless suffering so I shouldn’t do it.

I agree. After all, it needs to be comprehended by the Faithful that what we adhere to is a FAITH, not an absolute condition of life. If it was, Catholicism would be hard wired as original equipment. Is it? If anything, the church lacks a factor of other than superficial epistemological protocol in its public aspect, as far as I can see. Most religions shun this while some philosophies thrive on it.

Yes I do. There’s no reason why gays must struggle for the greater good.

Amen

All I am saying is that there is a far more important value that our society represents, that all are created equal before God.

amen amen.

Evolution has no purpose, and since gays (kind of by definition) don’t produce offspring, we should ask instead what the evolutionary function of homosexual behavior is, as it also exists in a number of other species and in some way must have contributed to their survival or the trait would have died out. Personally I’m very unwilling to even begin to call it a sin against nature, whatever that could possibly mean, on the basis of not knowing what function(s) it serves.

You have hit the (Cath)anthropomorphic nail on the head.
Yes … and the “author of several fantasy novels” in the blog linked in the OP should move to a courageous heaven of right thinking more in tune with his opinion such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan or Yemen, which did not take the wishy washy liberal slippery slope and instead kept the death sentence from Leviticus 20:13. Ouch!!!

 

[qui_est_ce]

I said it’s not mentioned in the Mosaic law, and as far as I know stories in Genesis are not part of Mosaic law.

Genesis is part of the Torah, the first five books of the Bible.

Torah = Law

The Oral Torah consists of the traditional interpretations and amplifications.

Where we differ is Authority. As a Baptist, you are your own authority. Catholics and Jews have an Authority. For Catholics, it is the Magesterium. For Jews, it was the Pharisees, who sat on the seat of Moses.

Jesus is the fulfillment of the OT. The Old Law is summed up as Love the Lord your God with all your heart, Love your neighbor as yourself.

Jesus taught his disciples many things which were not written in the Gospels, but were expounded upon in the Epistles and letters.

If we accept the Sacred writings of Paul and the other writers as inspired and inerrant, we must accept that homosexual acts and fornication are sins.

 

[tonyrey]

My understating is that for Catholics, being gay is not a sin. Please give your opinion if you think I’m wrong.