Can justification of gay marriage lead to justification of incest?

[Sair]

Wadyamean,

God has spoken clearly though. Homosexuality has always been banned, from the earliest days of Torah Law, to the earliest of the Christian dispensation. Do you really think Christs own Apostles could be so wrong? Or St. Paul, whom God personally called, who was taken to the third levek of heaven (by tradition). You seem to forget your faith is an unbroken chain going back to Christ him self, it is no abandoned releic with only a mysterious book to remember it by.

An unbroken chain, huh?

What do you make, then, of this?

 

[Cathy]

An unbroken chain, huh?

What do you make, then, of this?

I don’t know about the reliability of the source linked in the quote above. What I do know is that the Catholic Church does not condemn chaste, celibate same-sex friendships. These are necessary for all people for emotional and spiritual well-being.

What the Church forbids is homosexual activity. I have lived long enough to see the terrible harm that the so-called “homosexual movement” has done to individuals and society by sexualizing same-sex friendships. In the early 70’s, I worked in a large city in the South, and would often see businessmen walking down the street, one with the arm over the shoulder of the other. No one thought anything of it. Today businessmen would be afraid to treat each other so warmly for fear of what others would think, or worse, what the other man would think. It is a very sad loss of innocence that our society has sustained in the last 40 years.

The same has happened between women. Women, especially, need each other as confidantes. We are created for emotional closeness. When emotional closeness turns sexual, something very precious is lost in the same-sex relationship, and both parties are deeply wounded by the breach in chastity. It used to be assumend that a man could trust a fellow man to treat him as a friend without using him as a sexual object, and the same between women. No longer can we be free to put down our guard, ever, with anyone. What a terrible loss for all of us.

 

[crazzeto]

An unbroken chain, huh?

What do you make, then, of this?

Easy, someone saw an image of what they saw as two males standing next to each other, and decided it must be a wedding. This is a frequent practice amongst supporters of the homosexual agenda, it’s an ancient custom known as “lieing”.

With all due respect, you will not get very far with these deceptive arguments. I stand by what I say, an unbroken chain. God has spoken, homosexuality is contrary to the natural order. This can be derived from biology, and basic life sciences.

 

[Sair]

I don’t know about the reliability of the source linked in the quote above. What I do know is that the Catholic Church does not condemn chaste, celibate same-sex friendships. These are necessary for all people for emotional and spiritual well-being.

No, apparently the only thing it condemns is people acting upon their - if your beliefs are correct - god-given, innate desires.

What the Church forbids is homosexual activity. I have lived long enough to see the terrible harm that the so-called “homosexual movement” has done to individuals and society by sexualizing same-sex friendships.

Right. Because every friendship between a man and a woman is automatically sexually charged, right, because they’re allowed to do that kind of thing? Actually, one of my very best friends is a man with whom I’ve never had any sexual interaction whatsoever, and have no desire to have. He feels the same. It’s a common fallacy for heterosexual people to suppose that homosexuality means a person is automatically attracted to everyone of their own sex. Please. Such people who assume so, generally overestimate their own attractiveness.

In the early 70’s, I worked in a large city in the South, and would often see businessmen walking down the street, one with the arm over the shoulder of the other. No one thought anything of it. Today businessmen would be afraid to treat each other so warmly for fear of what others would think, or worse, what the other man would think. It is a very sad loss of innocence that our society has sustained in the last 40 years.

And whose fault is that, pray tell? The people who actually explore the possibilities for sexual intimacy, or the people who condemn such sexual intimacy as “disordered”? Why is it even anyone’s business to know whether two men who walk arm-in-arm are lovers or platonic friends? People assume these kinds of gestures were all innocent in the past, but that was not necessarily the case - people just didn’t talk about it much, given that homosexual activity (at least for men) was illegal and all.

The same has happened between women. Women, especially, need each other as confidantes. We are created for emotional closeness. When emotional closeness turns sexual, something very precious is lost in the same-sex relationship, and both parties are deeply wounded by the breach in chastity. It used to be assumend that a man could trust a fellow man to treat him as a friend without using him as a sexual object, and the same between women. No longer can we be free to put down our guard, ever, with anyone. What a terrible loss for all of us.

That, or you could try being honest. Do you assume, as a woman (as I presume you are) that every woman you meet is scoping you out in a predatory fashion? Or do you reserve that judgement for women you know to be homosexual? Maybe you could try being honest about your boundaries. Most people, in my experience, appreciate an up-front, honest approach rather than skirting around and making erroneous assumptions.

 

[tonyrey]

Most people, in my experience, appreciate an up-front, honest approach rather than skirting around and making erroneous assumptions.

I think “skirting around” confuses the issue…

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t know about the reliability of the source linked in the quote above. What I do know is that the Catholic Church does not condemn chaste, celibate same-sex friendships. These are necessary for all people for emotional and spiritual well-being.

What the Church forbids is homosexual activity. I have lived long enough to see the terrible harm that the so-called “homosexual movement” has done to individuals and society by sexualizing same-sex friendships. In the early 70’s, I worked in a large city in the South, and would often see businessmen walking down the street, one with the arm over the shoulder of the other. No one thought anything of it. Today businessmen would be afraid to treat each other so warmly for fear of what others would think, or worse, what the other man would think. It is a very sad loss of innocence that our society has sustained in the last 40 years.

The same has happened between women. Women, especially, need each other as confidantes. We are created for emotional closeness. When emotional closeness turns sexual, something very precious is lost in the same-sex relationship, and both parties are deeply wounded by the breach in chastity. It used to be assumend that a man could trust a fellow man to treat him as a friend without using him as a sexual object, and the same between women. No longer can we be free to put down our guard, ever, with anyone. What a terrible loss for all of us.

A very important point, Cathy. The obsession with physical sex has deeply affected our ability to have friends of the opposite sex without having to think about what others will think. Even with strangers an attempt at friendly conversation is often regarded as having an ulterior motive…

 

[Sair]

A very important point, Cathy. The obsession with physical sex has deeply affected our ability to have friends of the opposite sex without having to think about what others will think. Even with strangers an attempt at friendly conversation is often regarded as having an ulterior motive…

My interpretation of this perceived problem is somewhat different - it comes from the obsession with sex that is often conferred by repression of natural desires.

If you understand your own preferences and boundaries, you will have no problem making others aware of where you stand. It’s only if you have spent a lifetime holding back that you will be fearful of unwanted advances, not knowing how to deal with them.

 

[John21652]

An unbroken chain, huh?

What do you make, then, of this?

Sair, you are becoming pathetically transparent.

That article is based on John Boswell’s Same Sex Unions In PreModern Europe.

Read here -

The past chairman of Yale’s history department was gay and a convert to Catholicism. He resided in New Haven with his long-time companion, and died not too long ago (1994) at age 42 of an AIDS-related illness.

He has been totally discredited throughout academia for his blatant attempts at manufacturing and forging history to push the gay agenda. The internet is awash with articles which totally destroy his attempts at perverting history. Similarly, he has been discussed at length on other threads on CAF.

You even pulled that article off an anti-Christian web site, which has this scrolling across one of its pages -

"Religion, especially Abrahamic derivations, is a malignant cancer metastasizing on humanity

Worse, a check on the author of the article you so maliciously linked to has his own blog page and on it he has this to say about himself -

The Christian system of religion is an outrage on common sense.

A quick reading of his other writings shows a great anti-Christian bias.

You, in your desperate attempts at pushing the same idelogical agenda as Boswell and his ilk could not even go to an original source, but, instead, to one that uncritically repeated Boswell’s absurd claims. That not only reeks of lazy scholarship, it reeks of something else -

Like bogus Marxist, feminist and black histories, “homosexual” histories such as Boswell’s are intent on “politics,” and these scholastic works have become instruments in the struggle for influence and right of citizenship. What they are intent upon toppling, however, is the whole code of ethics and morality of Christian Civilization.

 

[tonyrey]

Sair, you are becoming pathetically transparent.

That article is based on John Boswell’s Same Sex Unions In PreModern Europe.

Read here - He has been totally discredited throughout academia for his blatant attempts at manufacturing and forging history to push the gay agenda. The internet is awash with articles which totally destroy his attempts at perverting history. Similarly, he has been discussed at length on other threads on CAF.

You even pulled that article off an anti-Christian web site, which has this scrolling across one of its pages -
Worse, a check on the author of the article you so maliciously linked to has his own blog page and on it he has this to say about himself -
A quick reading of his other writings shows a great anti-Christian bias.

You, in your desperate attempts at pushing the same idelogical agenda as Boswell and his ilk could not even go to an original source, but, instead, to one that uncritically repeated Boswell’s absurd claims. That not only reeks of lazy scholarship, it reeks of something else -
Thank you for a superb exposé!

 

[tonyrey]

A very important point, Cathy. The obsession with physical sex has deeply affected our ability to have friends of the opposite sex without having to think about what others will think. Even with strangers an attempt at friendly conversation is often regarded as having an ulterior motive…

The current obsession with sex is not conferred by the repression of natural desires but the unrestrained expression of natural desires! How else do you explain the disasters of our permissive society? They are not the result of inhibition but the exhibition of naked and semi-naked bodies! Sexploitation is a fact of life which distorts the meaning of life into the pursuit of pleasure rather than love.

 

[tonyrey]

I’m glad we finally got there in the end, Señor Enigmático. :compcoff:

I regret not having seen your magnificent display of nested posts before, Señor Problemático!