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

[RyanL]

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.

Actually, an interesting story about Massachusetts’ first “gay marriage” couple – here. You should probably click the link.

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

Doesn’t matter to humans. It’s fairly normative in many species to eat their young, but that’s not exactly something I would hold up as a model for human behavior…

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

Its religiously proscribed for Jews, Muslims and Christians – at least among those who don’t feel free to re-invent their religions. That’s a fair chunk of global society.

Wait…do you believe in democracy?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Aramis]

Ryan:
Precisely the point: pointing to a non-extant statistic (gay divorce) as being lower since it could not, by law, occur is a non-sequiteur.

Now that there have been, we might get some stats to support the frequent and unproven theory that gay couples are as stables as straight ones. I doubt it, given that most of the gay couples I’ve known are broken within a year.

 

[Urf]

Well that’s not really a very difficult question.

Pedophilia: is not between 2 consenting adults, simple as that. The same reason a relationship (sexual) between a 7 year old boy and a 30 year old woman wouldnt be considered acceptable even though it is technically heterosexual

Incest: Issues with reproduction.

Actually, an interesting story about Massachusetts’ first “gay marriage” couple – here. You should probably click the link.

Gosh what would it be like if there were an article on every heterosexual marriage divorce. I dont think anyone was trying to argue that gay marriages would never result in divorce.

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

K, maybe someone was, but there still isnt an accurate statistic to make it relevant.

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?

FYI, a homosexual population does not consist of “gay males who have died of AIDS.” Thought that needed to be cleared up.

 

[Holly3278]

The archbishop makes a very good point!

 

[fix]

Well that’s not really a very difficult question.

Pedophilia: is not between 2 consenting adults, simple as that. The same reason a relationship (sexual) between a 7 year old boy and a 30 year old woman wouldnt be considered acceptable even though it is technically heterosexual

Incest: Issues with reproduction.

Gosh what would it be like if there were an article on every heterosexual marriage divorce. I dont think anyone was trying to argue that gay marriages would never result in divorce.

In other words, the Church is emphasizing family policy must have a basis in natural law and the moral order, or else public opinion someday may justify with law destructive sexual relationships once believed inconceivable, even well beyond homosexual unions.

That is the point.

 

[Bob_Byrnes]

The primary purpose of marriage is procreation.

The tax benefits and other social benefits attached to marriage have their root in the assumption that a married couple will be producing children and thus be in need of said benefits.

A homosexual couple has no chance at procreation with eachother. As such, the primary purpose being void, homosexual couples should not be allowed to marry.

In the United States, there is no real need to create civil unions, although it is occurring. If two homosexual people want to confer benefits upon eachother, (like inheritance, standard of living, etc.) they can contract with each other for said benefits. The creation of civil unions simply makes a ready made state contract, which is wholly unnecessary.

Are you saying that any couple who has “no chance at procreation” makes the primary purpose void and should not be allowed to marry? I presume you would not permit the marriage of someone who is infertile or beyond the age of childbearing. That is the logical conclusion of your argument. I’ll have to tell my 75 year old brother that you believe he should not have been permitted to marry.

 

[GreenJeans]

Are you saying that any couple who has “no chance at procreation” makes the primary purpose void and should not be allowed to marry? I presume you would not permit the marriage of someone who is infertile or beyond the age of childbearing. That is the logical conclusion of your argument. I’ll have to tell my 75 year old brother that you believe he should not have been permitted to marry.

It might also be in our interest to dissolve the marriages of any couples which become infertile. If they can’t achieve the purpose of marriage, then there is no need for the state to recognize a marriage.

 

[CSJ]

Scripture is very clear on the practice of homosexuality. We all know that God does not approve of same sex relationships of a sexual nature.

Let us set morality aside, however. Homosexual relationships are against natural law. There is no benefit to humanity in the way of procreation - if we were all homosexual, we technically would not last past one generation. It’s funny though, that we always hear that homosexuality occurs “all the time” in nature and it therefore must be natural. Firstly, we are not animals nor should we be compared to them. Animals act on instinct and sexual urge alone - they do not exercise love that we as human beings do. Nature’s purpose intended for sex to be between male and female.

Back to the morality issue. As Pope John Paul II put it, if we simply act on sexual urge, it is not love, it is the opposite of it (lust). To simply act on our urges is more of a “taking” action rather than a “giving of oneself to our spouse.” This means that even if a heterosexual husband treats his wife as a sexual object simply for his own needs, he is in sin. While this sounds idealistic, this was how God created us in the beginning - Jesus reiterated this to the Pharisees when they questioned him on divorce. Jesus simply pointed back to Adam & Eve.

I can’t say or judge regarding whether or not someone was “born” homosexual. It would basically be their word against mine. Personally, I am inclined to disbelieve it - I rather think that this disordered thinking is more of a product of our society and our disordered views on love and marriage. As Jesus put it, we need to conduct ourselves as God originally created us.

CJ

 

[Aramis]

Homosexual relationships are against natural law.

CJ:

in rat populations, homosexual copulation rises in frequency with population density. At certain densities, it changes from bisexual normative to a significant fraction purely homosexual.

In sheep, there are certain breeds with serious homosexuality issues… rams who simply don’t get it up for ewes, and others which don’t care whether what they mount is ram or ewe, and some rams that stand to be mounted. (2006.)

In dogs and hyenas, homosexual mounting is frequent, and part of dominance/submission language.

I don’t have the studies to hand, as I read most of them several years ago. But homosexual copulation, especially by procreative males, is not uncommon in the animal world.

 

[CSJ]

CJ:

in rat populations, homosexual copulation rises in frequency with population density. At certain densities, it changes from bisexual normative to a significant fraction purely homosexual.

In sheep, there are certain breeds with serious homosexuality issues… rams who simply don’t get it up for ewes, and others which don’t care whether what they mount is ram or ewe, and some rams that stand to be mounted. (2006.)

In dogs and hyenas, homosexual mounting is frequent, and part of dominance/submission language.

I don’t have the studies to hand, as I read most of them several years ago. But homosexual copulation, especially by procreative males, is not uncommon in the animal world.

Thanks Aramis,

While I don’t disagree with homosexual acts by animals, I simply disagree that we compare ourselves with them. The reason being is that animals act more on instinct than on “love.” Animals are incapable of sin, whereas we are. We, as human beings" are created in God’s image and we are commanded to “love.” Sadly, we’ve subjected ourselves to animalistic behavior. We’ve submitted to acting out our sexual desires in a selfish manner regardless of whether it was homosexual or heterosexual. This is simply not the way God designed us.

Sex was Divinely created as an act to lovingly consumate our marriage with a person of the opposite sex and for reproduction. Jesus was very clear about this with the Pharisees when they attempted to “trick” him. He simply pointed to the beginning - Adam & Eve.

CSJ

 

[goofyjim]

While I do not support same sex unions I wish we would stop equating homosexuality with pedophilia or incest. Homosexuality, at least in desire, is a natural deviance, as has been stated. To equate it with the other two is like equating mental illness with violence. The mentally ill by a majority are peaceful.

 

[CCM08]

The issues are entirely different, and it amazes me that an archbishop who is supposed to possess a lick of sense about moral and ethical questions can’t see how.

Consent. Homosexuality between consenting adults poses no ethical problems (morality is a personal or faith-based issue, not a legal one). Incest, pedophilia, bestiality – all of those raise serious questions at the very least as to whether or not informed consent has been given or is even possible (and in the cases of bestiality and pedophilia, it by definition is not possible). That the archbishop can’t make this basic distinction is shameful and reflects poorly on the entire hierarchy.

That may apply to some forms of pedophila, however, groups like NAMBLA certain argue that children are able to consent to sexual relations. Societies that have been tolerant of homosexual behavior, such as that of pagan Greece, were certainly tolerant of pedophila as well.
As for incest, it’s clear that in many cases (such as on provided featuring a German brother and sister living as spouses) that if you are going to say the state can’t say anything about two men or women committing buggery then obviously it’s only logical to say that nothing can be said of adult siblings that wish to pursue a sexual relationship.
Animals are regarded as property, and property has no ability to consent or refuse.

 

[Mirdath]

That may apply to some forms of pedophila, however, groups like NAMBLA certain argue that children are able to consent to sexual relations. Societies that have been tolerant of homosexual behavior, such as that of pagan Greece, were certainly tolerant of pedophila as well.

That doesn’t make it right, now does it?

As for incest, it’s clear that in many cases (such as on provided featuring a German brother and sister living as spouses) that if you are going to say the state can’t say anything about two men or women committing buggery then obviously it’s only logical to say that nothing can be said of adult siblings that wish to pursue a sexual relationship.

If it can be proven beyond any doubt that consent is not impaired, I am not one to stand in their way. So far as I know, that is not provable; and hence I object generally to incest.

Animals are regarded as property, and property has no ability to consent or refuse.

Property is inanimate; animals are not. They may be considered pets or chattel, much as women were in the Middle Ages to very recently; this does not make them any less rational than they are. Animals by their very nature cannot consent to relations with a human, it is instead imposed upon them.

 

[CCM08]

That doesn’t make it right, now does it?

You’re an athiest, your worldview is by nature devoid of concepts like “right” and “wrong.” These are theogoical moral absolutes, concepts that cannot be established by natural order. I certainly think it’s grossly immoral, but I think the same of homosexual relations. It is, however, merely logical to denote that as our society becomes more like that of pagan Greece and sexual tabboos are done away with the more likely it is that like those pagans pedophila will also become tolerated.

If it can be proven beyond any doubt that consent is not impaired, I am not one to stand in their way. So far as I know, that is not provable; and hence I object generally to incest.

Up until the 1970’s homosexuality was considered a mental disorder and the same case your attempting to use against incest could easily be made vis a vis homosexual behavior. It is more than silly, and highly illogical, to try and establish that anyone in any relationship is in a proper position to consent to it. Hence we assume that because two people are adults they can consent to sexual relations. Your position is hypocritical and based on nothing more than your subjective views regarding taboos. In the natural order of things incest is not natural, but it is more natural that homosexuality.

Property is inanimate; animals are not. They may be considered pets or chattel, much as women were in the Middle Ages to very recently; this does not make them any less rational than they are. Animals by their very nature cannot consent to relations with a human, it is instead imposed upon them.

Nor can a plastic object operated by batteries consent to being used as a sex toy, but no one is asking. Legally animals are property, property can neither consent nor refuse.

 

[Mirdath]

You’re an athiest, your worldview is by nature devoid of concepts like “right” and “wrong.”

Keep on bangin’ that drum, maybe it’ll help you ignore the fact that I do hold certain moral absolutes and believe in good and evil. It may also help you ignore the fact that I’m not atheist but agnostic, as I’ve repeatedly said.

Up until the 1970’s homosexuality was considered a mental disorder and the same case your attempting to use against incest could easily be made vis a vis homosexual behavior.

Once again, consent is generally questionable in cases of incest. How often do I have to repeat this? If two siblings were brought up completely separately and only realized they were closely related after having started courting, I wouldn’t stop the marriage if they wanted to go through with it anyway. There’s no question of consent in that situation. Where they’ve been raised together all their lives, there is.

It is more than silly, and highly illogical, to try and establish that anyone in any relationship is in a proper position to consent to it.

You have a better way, I presume? Let’s hear it.

Hence we assume that because two people are adults they can consent to sexual relations. Your position is hypocritical and based on nothing more than your subjective views regarding taboos. In the natural order of things incest is not natural, but it is more natural that homosexuality.

Nope, it’s actually pretty well thought out and sound, you just don’t like it. No call to label me a hypocrite for disagreeing with you.

Nor can a plastic object operated by batteries consent to being used as a sex toy, but no one is asking. Legally animals are property, property can neither consent nor refuse.

Chattel is distinct from property.

 

[CCM08]

Keep on bangin’ that drum, maybe it’ll help you ignore the fact that I do hold certain moral absolutes and believe in good and evil. It may also help you ignore the fact that I’m not atheist but agnostic, as I’ve repeatedly said.

You can say what you wish. In your world view you can say incest is evil, however to this German couple it’s not. So we have a drug addict vs. a guy that sleeps with his sister. So what gives you the authority to say your views are “right” and theirs are “wrong?”

Once again, consent is generally questionable in cases of incest.

You have not established that two adults are inable to consent to an incestous relationship. Given the rather high rates at which homosexuals suffer mental illness there is absolutely nothing you can say regarding consent issues in adult incest that cannot be said about adult homosexuality.

How often do I have to repeat this? If two siblings were brought up completely separately and only realized they were closely related after having started courting, I wouldn’t stop the marriage if they wanted to go through with it anyway. There’s no question of consent in that situation. Where they’ve been raised together all their lives, there is.

The basis for you to challenge their ability to consent is that they wish to have a relationship that is considered taboo by society because it’s unnatural. That is just as true of homosexuality as it is of incest. Just like with homosexuality throughout history a small part of the population has developed romantic relationships with closely related family members. Nor have you in any way addressed the changing concepts of what is and is not incest. Today marriage between first cousins is incest, 100 years ago in most rural areas it was fairly common place. We’ve had a president that was married to a second cousin. You’ve provided absolutely no evidence, outside of your say so and frankly with someone that admits mulitple drug overdoses that doesn’t count for much, that adults in incestous relationships have imparied consent.

You have a better way, I presume? Let’s hear it.

Two adults are presumed, until it is established otherwise in a court of law, able to consent. That assumption is a wise one. According to you we must have every couple wishing to marry to establish that they are able to consent.

Nope, it’s actually pretty well thought out and sound, you just don’t like it. No call to label me a hypocrite for disagreeing with you.

No, it’s your personal assumption that you haven’t provided a single shred of evidence to support. Your a hypocrite because you believe in enforcing one standard on people in unnatural sexual relationships and another on one that you find to be acceptable. If anything at least with incest sexual relations accomplish their natural purpose, something that cannot be said of homosexuality.

Chattel is distinct from property.

Actually, it’s not. Chattel and property are interchangable terms. In real estate agreements, for example, personal property that will not be included transfered in the real property transfer is referred to as chattel. Terms like “chattel slavery” denote the system of slavery, such as that in Imperial Rome, in which the slave is a peice of personal property no different from any other.

The dictionary defines chattel as:

chat·tel /ˈtʃætl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[chat-l] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. Law. a movable article of personal property.
2. any article of tangible property other than land, buildings, and other things annexed to land.
3. a slave.

From the law.com legal dictionary:

chattel
n. an item of personal property which is movable, as distin-guished from real property (land and improvements).
See also: personal property

Do you need me to futher educate you on the legal nature of property?

 

[goofyjim]

Here we go again. “Given the high rates that homosexuals have mental illnesses”. While I do not agree with homosexual marriages and I have emphatically stated that several times, I do believe the overwhelming amount of illnesses for those who experience same gender attraction come from without and not from within. If society would not be so super critical of the attraction in general then maybe we could cut down on the related illnesses.

 

[Mirdath]

CCM08:

words

Until you manage to drag your level of discourse above that of the playground, I think I’ll forbear stooping to your level.