Love Wins?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PRmerger
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PRmerger

Guest
Love Wins: this means that no one can tell you whom to love (here, a euphemism for who you get to have sex with).

It should follow, then, that a mother and son falling in love should be celebrated by the Love Wins movement?

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3529572/I-m-love-son-want-baby-Mother-falls-son-gave-adoption-32-years-ago.html



Let’s take the legal aspect out of the discourse. We are talking moral issues here.

And let’s take the biological objection out of the discourse as well. This mom is 51 so won’t be reproducing. Or, we can simply ask: if love wins and it’s all about getting to have sex without society telling you it’s wrong, is this permissible?

Would you sanction this if this were your brother who wished to do this?
 
PRmerger said:
Love Wins: this means that no one can tell you whom to love (here, a euphemism for who you get to have sex with).

It should follow, then, that a mother and son falling in love should be celebrated by the Love Wins movement?

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3529572/I-m-love-son-want-baby-Mother-falls-son-gave-adoption-32-years-ago.html

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/04/08/10/32F7365500000578-0-image-a-16_1460106699489.jpg

Let’s take the legal aspect out of the discourse. We are talking moral issues here.

And let’s take the biological objection out of the discourse as well. This mom is 51 so won’t be reproducing. Or, we can simply ask: if love wins and it’s all about getting to have sex without society telling you it’s wrong, is this permissible?

Would you sanction this if this were your brother who wished to do this?
Click to expand...
Of course it won’t get support. Nor will polygamy. These movements, to include the push for SSM movement, are about getting what their selfish selves desire. It isn’t about the broader message they preach. Most homosexual couples probably find the concept of incestual relationships with mom as disgusting as most heterosexual folks.

I find it hypocritical and it literally makes Swiss cheese out of all the old arguments that were peddled, but very few want to attach their name to the gofundme page for legalized incest, so it gets no traction.

Now attach a few celebrities too it and steal a popular symbol like God’s gift of the rainbow and now we are getting somewhere.
 
Maximilan_Kolbe said:
Most homosexual couples probably find the concept of incestual relationships with mom as disgusting as most heterosexual folks.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

So we need to point out that they are being inconsistent.

“No one can tell us whom we get to love, but we get to tell some folks that they don’t get to love”.
 
I think this is a joke. In a few years, it may become commonplace, however.
 
Maximilan_Kolbe said:
Of course it won’t get support. Nor will polygamy. These movements, to include the push for SSM movement, are about getting what their selfish selves desire. It isn’t about the broader message they preach. Most homosexual couples probably find the concept of incestual relationships with mom as disgusting as most heterosexual folks.

I find it hypocritical and it literally makes Swiss cheese out of all the old arguments that were peddled, but very few want to attach their name to the gofundme page for legalized incest, so it gets no traction.

Now attach a few celebrities too it and steal a popular symbol like God’s gift of the rainbow and now we are getting somewhere.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t be so quick to doubt the progress of the polygamy folks. It is arguably more “natural” than same-sex “marriage” and has roots in multiple recognized world religions (as opposed, say, to the “church” of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I mean, even 20 years ago, who would have predicted SSM or “whichever you want” restrooms?
 
Tarpeian_Rock said:
I wouldn’t be so quick to doubt the progress of the polygamy folks. It is arguably more “natural” than same-sex “marriage” and has roots in multiple recognized world religions (as opposed, say, to the “church” of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I mean, even 20 years ago, who would have predicted SSM or “whichever you want” restrooms?
Click to expand...
Egg-zactly. Just in the past year a rather public figure, Richard Carrier, has “come out poly”.

His position, echoing Lady Gaga and the gay mantra, is: “I’m just born that way”. Polyamorous, that is.

freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/6737
 
PRmerger said:
And let’s take the biological objection out of the discourse as well. This mom is 51 so won’t be reproducing.
Click to expand...
According to the news article, the couple plans on having a baby together, even if they need to use a surrogate.
 
Ojo_Feliz said:
According to the news article, the couple plans on having a baby together, even if they need to use a surrogate.
Click to expand...
And regardless, the question is bigger than biological.

If you are an advocate of Love Wins, then can you object to a father and son falling in love and wanting to marry, be sexually intimate, and be embraced as just another form of love?
 
PRmerger said:
Love Wins: this means that no one can tell you whom to love (here, a euphemism for who you get to have sex with).

It should follow, then, that a mother and son falling in love should be celebrated by the Love Wins movement?

(…)

Would you sanction this if this were your brother who wished to do this?
Click to expand...
PRmerger said:
And regardless, the question is bigger than biological.

If you are an advocate of Love Wins, then can you object to a father and son falling in love and wanting to marry, be sexually intimate, and be embraced as just another form of love?
Click to expand...
Just a quick reply to these and similar questions; not directed at PRmerger.

I will reference biblical and Church teaching as part of the explanation. Consanguinity is always prohibited in the direct line (parent/child, grandparent/child) but not in the collateral line. I think everyone knows that there are risks with the collateral line due to potential genetic problems.

Let’s take Church teaching out of it or any genetic impediments, why would it be prohibited? Or even, why does the church prohibit these relationships other than “because God says so.” If God says so, He says so for a reason, so what is the reason? In the direct line or even between siblings there is an problem with consent and coercion. These issues are still a potential problem in any relationship but a situation when individuals are enmeshed with with each other the potential of abuse is greater at an earlier age.

In other words there are people who are vulnerable who need to be protected. With same-sex “consenting adults” that isn’t an issue unless there is an significant age gap, one is a vulnerable adult, or one has authority over the other in some way; it would be the same for an opposite sex relationship. I don’t see same-sex relationships as problematic as incestuous ones for those reasons. I don’t see poly (-amorous -gamous -androus) relationships as problematic as incestuous ones for the same reasons but there are other concerns with poly relationships.

That mother in the OP should see her son as someone who is separate from her and should be independent from her. I get that they do not feel a natural revulsion because they were apart from the other and I also get that they may feel a connection due to the fact that they are blood and a loss of what their mother-son relationship could have been. I get it to a degree but I have my limits and I really can’t get my head around this. I deal with people who have poor boundaries, there is a lot of male privilege and parental privilege that makes family relationships unhealthy and abusive. It’s rampant where I live and I see it a continuing from generation to generation and spreading. That is my vantage point and why I don’t think that SSM or Love Wins having anything to do with the other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top