If We Don't Say No to Same-Sex Unions, then Why Not Incest and Pedophilia Says Archbishop

[Mirdath]

Two ways: one, trying to explain the difference between legal marriage, spiritual marriage, and Christian spiritual marriage to my children.

‘People get legally married to be recognized by the state; people get religiously married to be recognized by the church’. I fail to see what’s so difficult about that.

The other: employers being forced by law to provide benefits based upon behaviors which are immoral.

Once again, that’d be Catholicism overstepping its bounds into secular society. Employers must already provide benefits to a practicing Catholic couple of which one or both members was previously divorced; that’s ‘immoral behavior’ for you right there. The church has no say in secular law.

 

[fix]

‘Common good’ here as defined by the Catholic Church, which has no ability or right to define such a thing for a society not founded on its principles and beholden to its moral authority.

Truth is not relative. Redefining it to suit one’s desires is not a virtue.

Again, Catholic moral values, Catholic perception of marriage. And I would argue that it would cause no such occulting of anyone’s moral values – recognition of gay marriages is not forcing anyone to surrender their opinion on the morality of homosexual acts. Is the Church going to start vocally condemning oral sex between consenting, heterosexual, married non-Catholic couples any time soon? That’s quite a double standard at work there, considering the sin committed is the same at root.

She condemns all sin. The public demand for gay unions requires a public response. It is that simple.

Not a satisfying answer, and not really matching the question: how is the marriage of a couple you don’t know in a place you’ve never been to personally affecting you?

It effects me because it effects all of society. As soon as you redefine marriage you change how marriage is understood by the population. That is exactly the goal of the gay union supporters.

 

[Mirdath]

Truth is not relative. Redefining it to suit one’s desires is not a virtue.

And if one does not accept something as the truth in the first place, what then? Disagreement is not a vice.

She condemns all sin. The public demand for gay unions requires a public response. It is that simple.

Heterosexual oral sex is far more widespread and pervasive. Not only is there public demand for it, it is popularly assumed to happen and to be a part of a normal sex life.

I’m still waiting for the papal letters condemning that.

It effects me because it effects all of society. As soon as you redefine marriage you change how marriage is understood by the population. That is exactly the goal of the gay union supporters.

Not the population – you. I believe I’m right in supposing that it wouldn’t affect your understanding of marriage one whit?

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Not the population – you. I believe I’m right in supposing that it wouldn’t affect your understanding of marriage one whit?

You’re wrong. It will add and expand and dilute (and pervert) the definition for everyone. It will taint the original definition. It will be a shame to the original. Were I married civilly, I would considder a civil, not sacramental divorce, if this came to pass. By being civilly married couples are now complicit in the new institution, a silent yes to homosexual perversion.

 

[Mirdath]

You’re wrong. It will add and expand and dilute (and pervert) the definition for everyone. It will taint the original definition. It will be a shame to the original. Were I married civilly, I would considder a civil, not sacramental divorce, if this came to pass. By being civilly married couples are now complicit in the new institution, a silent yes to homosexual perversion.

How is recognizing people who love each other 'til death do they part a perversion of marriage? It’s tantamount to saying that homosexuals are incapable of romantic love, an utter falsehood if ever there were one.

If all you can offer in opposition is that it would ‘taint’ what you consider marriage – and civil marriage, at that, not sacramental – you don’t have much of an argument. If the government admitted homosexual unions, the definition of sacramental marriage would not change.

 

[fix]

And if one does not accept something as the truth in the first place, what then? Disagreement is not a vice.

Disagreement is not vice, rejecting what is true may be vice depending on certain factors.

Heterosexual oral sex is far more widespread and pervasive. Not only is there public demand for it, it is popularly assumed to happen and to be a part of a normal sex life.

There is no shortage of sin or error. Do we now overlook all bad things because some bad things still go on?

I’m still waiting for the papal letters condemning that.

There are all types of teachings on the gift of sexuality. People hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest.

Not the population – you. I believe I’m right in supposing that it wouldn’t affect your understanding of marriage one whit?

First, I am part of the population. Secondly, I have children and relatives and friends and I care about them, Thirdly, you seem to support a materialistic notion of morality where the only “immoral” action would be something you can quantify in some way?

Gay marriage will start to destroy marriage. It will change the way all marriage is viewed. It will increase the moral pathology you allude to now regarding marriage. More divorce, more cohabitation, more trial unions, rejection of the need for marriage, gay adoption, polygamy, it opens the door further to any and all experimentation.

 

[Mirdath]

Disagreement is not vice, rejecting what is true may be vice depending on certain factors.

Yet perceptions of truth differ, as we see here. Pilate was not wrong to ask ‘What is truth?’ – his perception was markedly different from what you propose is truth.

There is no shortage of sin or error. Do we now overlook all bad things because some bad things still go on?

I’m asking why a more pervasive, already socially acceptable ‘wrong’ is generally overlooked in favor of vocally condemning another. Most people outside the Church don’t hear much at all about Catholicism’s stance on oral sex. Everyone hears about their stance on homosexuality.

First, I am part of the population. Secondly, I have children and relatives and friends and I care about them, Thirdly, you seem to support a materialistic notion of morality where the only “immoral” action would be something you can quantify in some way?

Yes, but again, I am asking about you specifically, not the general population. I’m not sure what you mean by your third point – could you perhaps clarify it?

 

[Brendan]

Most people outside the Church don’t hear much at all about Catholicism’s stance on oral sex. Everyone hears about their stance on homosexuality.

Really?

How many people don’t know about the Church’s stance on any type of contraceptive sex?

I believe it’s just as widely known as it’s stance on homosexual acts.

 

[Mirdath]

Really?

How many people don’t know about the Church’s stance on any type of contraceptive sex?

I believe it’s just as widely known as it’s stance on homosexual acts.

Contraceptives, perhaps; but onanism and other acts resulting in orgasm without the possibility of conception, no, that isn’t nearly as widely known. In fact, I’ve heard otherwise orthodox Catholics say it’s fine.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Contraceptives, perhaps; but onanism and other acts resulting in orgasm without the possibility of conception, no, that isn’t nearly as widely known. In fact, I’ve heard otherwise orthodox Catholics say it’s fine.

They are wrong. Check the CCC. Catholics are called to the virtue of chastity.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

How is recognizing people who love each other 'til death do they part a perversion of marriage? It’s tantamount to saying that homosexuals are incapable of romantic love, an utter falsehood if ever there were one.

That’s your erroneous valuee judgement that they love each other. While they may love each other, they are certainly hurting each other by giving in to disordered behaviour.

Why is it a falsehood? Why is expressing harmful behaviour and disordered behaviour a proof of an expression of love? Why is destroying the dignity of the object of actual love a proof of love? You make no sense.

If all you can offer in opposition is that it would ‘taint’ what you consider marriage – and civil marriage, at that, not sacramental – you don’t have much of an argument. If the government admitted homosexual unions, the definition of sacramental marriage would not change.

You are wrong, because there is only ONE marriage, not the false dichotomy you represent. There is marriage that is then recognized by state and church. If that marriage is defiled in meaning it is wholly defiled. As I said, the only recourse I see would be a civil divorce in protest, public protest so as not to be complicit.

Why should your value judgement be more valid than the centuries long normative value judgement. Why should you have the right to destroy marriage. Are you not engaging in tyranny?

 

[Ferdinand_Mary]

**NOTICE: **This thread is meandering from the original topic. Please re-read the title of the thread and curb your posts to reflect the OP, or this thread will be closed.

Mane Nobiscum Domine,
Ferdinand Mary

 

[Aramis]

Heterosexual oral sex is far more widespread and pervasive. Not only is there public demand for it, it is popularly assumed to happen and to be a part of a normal sex life.

Humanae Vitae. Where in it references that sexual union within marriage must be open to the possibility of children. So male-orgasmic fellatio is inherently NOT in line with Humanae Vitae, as it expressly precludes conception.

Non-orgasmic pre-coital, well, if they both feel it makes preparation for coitus, that would still be in line with that.

Of course, Humanae Vitae is only Doctrinal (what must be taught), not dogma (what must be believed).

 

[Dale_M]

Dale_M:

Yet we allow couples who are past the age of bearing children or who are otherwise infertile, to get married. Surely marriage for such persons must have some other socially redeeming quality?

I did say primary.

It is directed toward that purpose. Though it also serves other purposes for the couple. However, all those purposes, from a secular viewpoint, are secondary to the purpose of procreation. Companionship, financial security, etc.

But if procreation is impossible in a marriage, such things as companionship, financial security, etc. are perfectly good reasons to marry?

It seems to me that marriage without procreation can be, and already is, accepted in society without opening the doors to pedophilia and incest.

 

[jdnation]

The moment society accepted contraception, it opened the doors to homosexuality. When heterosexuals compromised the undermining of proper sexuality had begun.

If one accepts homosexuality, this means one major thing:

Sex is completely divorced from procreation.

Therefore what is wrong with incestuous relationships if they use contraception?

And if abortion is already a legalized practice, what is to stop incestuous couples from killing the child if it does occur?

And furthermore who are we to deny them their right to conceive? The conception is a perfectly natural act, and no Christian would deny the life of their children whatever the health implications if they’re willing to put up with it?

Why is there then any reason to prohibit incestous unions?

And one of the largest arguments against pedophilia is that depending on the age of the child, they cannot give proper consent.

However extreme liberal thinkers are making moves against this.

To make pedophilia acceptable, it must be engineered into society by:

1. Exposing children as young as kindergarten to sexual education, sometimes explicit. This has already been argued and in some cases happening to older children in elementary schools.
2. There are already cases of boys as young as 11-12 raping girls of the same age. This can be used as a reason for introducing sexual education to young children. To ‘avoid’ such situations.
3. Since children are then more likely to experiment with sex or naturally grow curious about such emotions, why not allow them to experience and learn about it in the loving arms of an experienced adult who cares for them (related or not)?
4. There are already pedophile rights organizations and even a political party in Europe (Scandanavia?). Psychologists frustrated for trying to find a root cause for pedophilia, are beginning to assume that it may be genetic (Sound familiar?).
5. Pedophiles argue that just like homosexuals, nobody can understand how they feel and these so called emotions and sexual orientation that they have, so why are they being discriminated against? They did not ‘choose’ to become like this, they simply are. On this point we must concede that they are correct to point this out.

It’s frankly a matter of time… that is, if the world continues the way it is going…

 

[Mirdath]

If one accepts homosexuality, this means one major thing:

Sex is completely divorced from procreation.

Doesn’t really follow. The separation between sex and procreation started with Onan (and probably well before). It’s a pretty natural human idea to try to have fun and minimize risk and responsibility.

Why is there then any reason to prohibit incestous unions?

Been over that. Informed consent cannot be truly verified.

However extreme liberal thinkers are making moves against this.

I’m not sure I’d call the likes of NAMBLA ‘extreme liberals’. They’re liberals like the NRA or the pro-life groups are conservatives – concentrated on a single issue. Any of those groups would jump ship for a party on the other side of the spectrum the moment they seemed more likely to pander to them.

1. There are already pedophile rights organizations and even a political party in Europe (Scandanavia?).

The Netherlands, I believe.

Psychologists frustrated for trying to find a root cause for pedophilia, are beginning to assume that it may be genetic (Sound familiar?).

Not surprising at all. The mind is very strange, and who really knows where some of its proclivities originate? A genetic cause for pedophilic tendencies does not, however, excuse assaulting children one bit – just as a genetic cause for homosexual attractions doesn’t excuse homosexuality in the eyes of people predisposed to believe it’s ‘evil’. It’s just a lot more sensible to condemn pedophilia on the grounds of consent – there’s no such damning characteristic to adult homosexuality that isn’t based on religion.

It is interesting to note that our ideas of what constitutes a ‘proper age’ for sex have drastically increased since what are often incorrectly regarded as the prudish Middle Ages. Child marriages weren’t an uncommon thing at all then – and before and after, to boot. Wasn’t Mary supposed to be 12 or 13 when she married Joseph?

 

[y_hallo_thar]

Homosexuality is not a sexual deviance. It is a natural condition that we can see in animals even, dolphins, penguins, birds. I agree, marriage is a matter of the Church, but the Church should NOT, NOT, run the government, and homosexual couples should be allowed the same legal rights, i.e tax breaks, as heterosexual couples.

And there is no evidence that homosexuality damages family structure. The divorce rate for heterosexual marriages is much higher, percentage wise.

 

[Aramis]

Homosexuality is not a sexual deviance. It is a natural condition that we can see in animals even, dolphins, penguins, birds. I agree, marriage is a matter of the Church, but the Church should NOT, NOT, run the government, and homosexual couples should be allowed the same legal rights, i.e tax breaks, as heterosexual couples.

And there is no evidence that homosexuality damages family structure. The divorce rate for heterosexual marriages is much higher, percentage wise.

That’s becuase there is no need for divorce when there is no legal marriage, and thus the legal divorce rate has traditionally been 0 for gay marriage, as it hasn’t been a matter of law.

Bisexuality, that seems fairly normative in many species. Exclusive homosexuality is rare; some sheep species.

In any case, for biblical peoples, it’s also proscribed, by the bible, to act on said desires.

 

[Holly3278]

We should say no to same sex unions and any other immoral stuff. I don’t care what people say about not legislating morality. I say that morality needs to be legislated! And if we didn’t legislate morality then I guess murder and robbery would be just fine and dandy wouldn’t it?

 

[RyanL]

Doesn’t really follow. The separation between sex and procreation started with Onan (and probably well before). It’s a pretty natural human idea to try to have fun and minimize risk and responsibility.

Murder has also been around a while. Rape and prostitution, too.

All very natural…for our fallen human nature.

Been over that. Informed consent cannot be truly verified.

Been over this, too – your statement is without foundation, either legal or logical. I’m amazed that you continue to flout it.

As a side note, I don’t think anyone really believes you when you claim this. I’m hesitant to say that I honestly think you don’t even believe this, regardless of what you claim.

Not surprising at all. The mind is very strange, and who really knows where some of its proclivities originate?

Agreed. Same thing for same sex attraction. The people who claim, “I was born this way,” or, “God made me this way,” have always left me wondering how they could be so sure…

A genetic cause for pedophilic tendencies does not, however, excuse assaulting children one bit

Agreed, but you’re begging the question when you use value statements like"excuse" and “assaulting”. If I were to say that same sex acts assault both partners (which they do), and consent doesn’t excuse them, you probably wouldn’t accept that.

Which makes me wonder why you accept it here…

– just as a genetic cause for homosexual attractions doesn’t excuse homosexuality in the eyes of people predisposed to believe it’s ‘evil’.

Homosexuality is not “evil”, it’s disordered. Homosexual *acts *are “evil”, in that they are contrary to our nature. Then are contrary both to our personal good and the communal good.

The individual shouldn’t be the base unit of analysis for a society. It should be the family.

It’s just a lot more sensible to condemn pedophilia on the grounds of consent – there’s no such damning characteristic to adult homosexuality that isn’t based on religion.

Consent is legal determination by the legislature. That’s it. The legislature has set various ages for consent…18 for contracts, sometimes 16 for marriage, and sometimes 14 for sex. The ability to consent is whenever the legislature says it is, legally.

Should the legislature lower the age of consent for sexual activity to 9 years old (as an orthodox Muslim-influenced legislature might), your response is pretty weak.

If you’re not going to base your “age of consent” on the law, you had better produce the science. Tell me, where has science determined humans to first be capable of rational judgment?

As for the damning characteristics for homosexual acts, would you please tell me the average life expectancy of a homosexual male in Canada, and then the average life expectancy of a heterosexual male in Canada just prior to the 20th century?

How about the CDC’s statistics on lymphadenopathy, HIV/AIDS (despite increased availability of condoms and “awareness”), LGV, and other STDs? Nah…the CDC is probably biased…and these people consented, so these epidemiological concerns don’t really concern us as a society…better to let people do what they want…and maybe even give them government incentives for doing so…

It is interesting to note that our ideas of what constitutes a ‘proper age’ for sex have drastically increased since what are often incorrectly regarded as the prudish Middle Ages.

Have no fear…as we continue to lose sight of the purposes of sex, it will slide down again.

When we finally convince people to drop these exalted religious views of sex, we can finally attain the view that sex is only for pleasure and there’s good no reason withhold pleasure from a child. Do we withhold ice cream? No? Then why what is simply another form of physical pleasure?

God Bless,
RyanL