R
Robin_des_Bois
Guest
We used to get brought up that homosexuality is wromg, but the atheists started crying inquisition.
- Status
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
You would have to demonstrate that, in principle, individuals between the ages of 14 and 18 do not have the physiological maturity to become responsible parents, when in many parts of the world, historically and culturally, individuals even younger than that have successfully fulfilled the roles of mother or father.
Your apparent disapproval is culturally based on a narrow view of “children” achieving maturity only at 18 or 21, when that is not a “given.”
Many states and countries allow individuals as young as 14 to marry with parental consent. There is reason to believe that the Church allows such marriages in order to follow the law of the land, but also because some individuals of that age could well have the maturity (psychological, physical and emotional) requirements to fulfill the role as well as some other individuals who are much older.
Moral and physiological maturity does not always correlate directly with age. That is not to say that every 14 year old should be allowed to marry, but some might be. Do you wish to demonstrate that 14 years olds are never capable of fulfilling marriage vows?
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
It is even more difficult to reconcile, for example, Canadian law that allows a variety of sexual relationships as young as 12 years old.
*What is Canada’s age of consent?
The age of consent for sexual activity is 16 years. It was raised from 14 years on May 1, 2008 by the Tackling Violent Crime Act.
However, the age of consent is 18 years where the sexual activity “exploits” the young person – when it involves prostitution, pornography or occurs in a relationship of authority, trust or dependency (e.g., with a teacher, coach or babysitter). Sexual activity can also be considered exploitative based on the nature and circumstances of the relationship, e.g., the young person’s age, the age difference between the young person and their partner, how the relationship developed (quickly, secretly, or over the Internet) and how the partner may have controlled or influenced the young person.
Are there any exceptions to this?
The Criminal Code provides “close in age” or “peer group” exceptions.
For example, a 14 or 15 year old can consent to sexual activity with a partner as long as the partner is less than five years older and there is no relationship of trust, authority or dependency or any other exploitation of the young person. This means that if the partner is 5 years or older than the 14 or 15 year old, any sexual activity will be considered a criminal offence unless it occurs after they are married to each other (in accordance with the “solemnization” of marriage requirements that are established in each province and territory, governing how and when a marriage can be performed, including the minimum age at which someone may marry).
There is also a “close-in-age” exception for 12 and 13 year olds: a 12 or 13 year old can consent to sexual activity with another young person who is less than two years older and with whom there is no relationship of trust, authority or dependency or other exploitation of the young person.
justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/clp/faq.html
This is not different from many jurisdictions, including American states.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America
How could the Church reasonably deny the possibility of marriage between couples which are allowed, by the laws of their land, to engage in sexual relationships?
B
Bradski
Guest
It’s not a greater trust, Charles. It’s completely different trust. It’s a completely different relationship. If you don’t appreciate the difference between a child’s trust in a father and a woman’s trust in her sexual partner, then there’s not much point in continuing this line of discourse.
A child matures very late in life. Much, much later than any other species. So it needs to be looked after for a number of years before it can fend for itself. It is biologically determined that a child listens to mature adults. It is evolutionary driven. It is genetically in-built. Because those who didn’t listen were eaten, drowned, fell of cliffs. A child will automatically trust an adult – that is why we spend so much time warning them about strangers talking to them.
It is wrong to use break that natural trust for sexual ends.
How is my disapproval apparent? You are jumping to conclusions, Peter.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Bradski
It’s not a greater trust, Charles. It’s completely different trust.
That’s just your opinion. It would not be the opinion of a father and daughter who wanted to marry.
You defend the right of men to marry other men on the ground that it is their opinion they should be married. Why don’t you see that the same unnatural attraction between a man and a daughter that you despise is not just as despicable as the unnatural sexual attraction between two men or between two women? On trust grounds only? Give me a break. That will not fly in a court of law.
If same-sex marriage is going to be allowed on the basis of people demanding their rights, so will incestuous marriage be demanded by people demanding their rights. And you will never find a judge who will deny incestuous marriage on the basis of trust issues that he gets to decide for the demanding father and daughter.
Now since both kinds of marriage involve unnatural sex, both can be legally denied on the same grounds.
As could other types of sexual perversity, such as polygamy.
It’s not a greater trust, Charles. It’s completely different trust.
That’s just your opinion. It would not be the opinion of a father and daughter who wanted to marry.
You defend the right of men to marry other men on the ground that it is their opinion they should be married. Why don’t you see that the same unnatural attraction between a man and a daughter that you despise is not just as despicable as the unnatural sexual attraction between two men or between two women? On trust grounds only? Give me a break. That will not fly in a court of law.
If same-sex marriage is going to be allowed on the basis of people demanding their rights, so will incestuous marriage be demanded by people demanding their rights. And you will never find a judge who will deny incestuous marriage on the basis of trust issues that he gets to decide for the demanding father and daughter.
Now since both kinds of marriage involve unnatural sex, both can be legally denied on the same grounds.
As could other types of sexual perversity, such as polygamy.
B
Bradski
Guest
And I couldn’t resist giving this statement a post of its own. I completely agree with it, but I think it says more than you wanted it to. You might want to re-word it.
B
Bradski
Guest
The relationship between two consenting adults, of whatever gender, is, to all intents and purposes, a new relationship that doesn’t affect any previous. If there is a previous relationship, especially where there is a degree of control over one person by another (boss to worker, army superior to lower rank) then there can be problems when that relationship is changed and it is often frowned upon if not specifically disallowed.
If the relationship is between a parent and a child the problems are much, much greater, as I’m sure you’d agree. But that is in no way comparable to a new relationship between two consenting adults when there was no previous trust to be broken.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Bradski
If the relationship is between a parent and a child the problems are much, much greater, as I’m sure you’d agree. But that is in no way comparable to a new relationship between two consenting adults when there was no previous trust to be broken.
I don’t doubt that a trust is broken in the case of incest. But that is not legal grounds for denying a marriage license. All kinds of marriages are allowed, and many of them are based on exploitation by one or both parties. It is not the law’s business to decide whether any two people petitioning for the right to marry are in a trustworthy relationship with each other.
But you are still not seeing it from the point of view of the father and the daughter. They believe they are in a loving relationship. So do two men or two women who want to marry. No judge can get inside the heads of any of the people and affirm or deny that they truly love each other.
What a judge can decide is whether in both cases the parties are petitioning for a license to validate an unnatural relationship.
All civilizations from the dawn of civilization to the present have held both types of marriage to be taboo. Only in our time and in our place have we become so perverse as to entertain the notion that either or even both types should be held as honorable types of marriage rather than mockeries of the institution.
If the relationship is between a parent and a child the problems are much, much greater, as I’m sure you’d agree. But that is in no way comparable to a new relationship between two consenting adults when there was no previous trust to be broken.
I don’t doubt that a trust is broken in the case of incest. But that is not legal grounds for denying a marriage license. All kinds of marriages are allowed, and many of them are based on exploitation by one or both parties. It is not the law’s business to decide whether any two people petitioning for the right to marry are in a trustworthy relationship with each other.
But you are still not seeing it from the point of view of the father and the daughter. They believe they are in a loving relationship. So do two men or two women who want to marry. No judge can get inside the heads of any of the people and affirm or deny that they truly love each other.
What a judge can decide is whether in both cases the parties are petitioning for a license to validate an unnatural relationship.
All civilizations from the dawn of civilization to the present have held both types of marriage to be taboo. Only in our time and in our place have we become so perverse as to entertain the notion that either or even both types should be held as honorable types of marriage rather than mockeries of the institution.
B
Bradski
Guest
If the relationship between a father and daughter changes from one between a parent and a child to that of a sexual relationship, there is most definately a case to be answered that harm could come from it. They may say that there’s no problem and they may put forward a good argument to that effect. But the case needs to be answered.
There is no such case to answer when the two people are non-related consenting adults.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Bradski
**
There is no such case to answer when the two people are non-related consenting adults. **
Being an adult and giving consent has nothing to do with perverse behavior. No government should be required to license perverse behavior just because two people are adults and consent to be perverse.
No government should be required to license a whorehouse just because the parties are consenting adults. No government has ever been forced by any court to license such a perversity between consenting adults. Governments who do this are evil. They are evil just as is the consenting adult who decides to kill her own child because she got pregnant working in a whorehouse, or because she found out her unborn child was not the right sex.
**
There is no such case to answer when the two people are non-related consenting adults. **
Being an adult and giving consent has nothing to do with perverse behavior. No government should be required to license perverse behavior just because two people are adults and consent to be perverse.
No government should be required to license a whorehouse just because the parties are consenting adults. No government has ever been forced by any court to license such a perversity between consenting adults. Governments who do this are evil. They are evil just as is the consenting adult who decides to kill her own child because she got pregnant working in a whorehouse, or because she found out her unborn child was not the right sex.
B
Bradski
Guest
Indeed. And neither should they be required to legislate morality. There have been instances in the past when that has happened. Homosexual acts used to be illegal simply because some people thought them immoral. That is no longer the case.
But I think that we’re drifting off topic. Maybe the discussion has run its course.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Bradski
** Homosexual acts used to be illegal simply because some people thought them immoral. That is no longer the case.**
That is way off the mark. Many people still consider sodomy to be immoral … and disgustingly so.
At any rate, it ties in with the thread. The morality of condoning sodomy and even legalizing it with a marriage certificate is only to be found in a civilization that has abandoned its God.
** Homosexual acts used to be illegal simply because some people thought them immoral. That is no longer the case.**
That is way off the mark. Many people still consider sodomy to be immoral … and disgustingly so.
At any rate, it ties in with the thread. The morality of condoning sodomy and even legalizing it with a marriage certificate is only to be found in a civilization that has abandoned its God.
B
Bradski
Guest
Charles: Sodomy is immoral and should be made illegal.
Government: I’m sorry but we don’t legislate purely on some people’s moral viewpoint.
Charles: But it’s disgustingly immoral!
Government: What? Did he just say ‘disgustingly immoral’? Well, why didn’t you say, man. Normal immorality is outside our purview but if you can show that it’s disgusting as well. Well, that’s another matter entirely. Consider it a capital offence as from this moment.
Well if you do need God to be moral and God says homosexuality is immoral but a majority of Catholics are saying it’s OK, then they do appear to be abandoning their God. Can’t argue with that…
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Bradski
Charles: Sodomy is immoral and should be made illegal.
Government: I’m sorry but we don’t legislate purely on some people’s moral viewpoint.
The government, until now, has never been called upon to license perverse acts with a certificate from City Hall.
**Well if you do need God to be moral and God says homosexuality is immoral but a majority of Catholics are saying it’s OK, then they do appear to be abandoning their God. Can’t argue with that… **
Here we agree. Many Catholics have been corrupted by the putrid morals of the far left.
Charles: Sodomy is immoral and should be made illegal.
Government: I’m sorry but we don’t legislate purely on some people’s moral viewpoint.
The government, until now, has never been called upon to license perverse acts with a certificate from City Hall.
**Well if you do need God to be moral and God says homosexuality is immoral but a majority of Catholics are saying it’s OK, then they do appear to be abandoning their God. Can’t argue with that… **
Here we agree. Many Catholics have been corrupted by the putrid morals of the far left.
T
Tyrion
Guest
Sounds like their personal problem to me. By the way, I wonder if you consider those acts , where the anus is not involved — for example: “lesbian love” also “disgusting”?Many people still consider sodomy to be immoral … and disgustingly so.
What is “perverse” is also a personal opinion. How “charitable” of you to call the actual love of other people “perverse”? Is that what you learned in Sunday school? :tsktsk:
It is always ironic to see the “charitable” adjectives, like “putrid” in an environment where one should be respectful of others, even if one vehemently disagrees with their point on view. If I would ever dare to charactarize your behavior as “putridly disgusting”, I would be banned in a heartbeat, and righfully so… but then again, maybe “all animals are equal, but some some animals are more equal than others”.
T
Tyrion
Guest
Ah, the priceless beauty of Freudian slips, when reality cuts through the hypocrisy…
P
PRmerger
Guest
Invoking the great Tina Turner: what’s love got to do with it?
Are you of the position that sex has to involve love? Is this a morality that you’re imposing on others?
T
Tyrion
Guest
Oh, I think it happens once in a while that people who love each other, actually express that love by having sex.
“Has to”??? Where is this “imposition” you speak of? Did you reply to someone else’s post? All I said that it is not very “charitable” to call other people “perverts”, or their actions coming from a “putrid” morality… I thought that the rules are applicable both to catholics and non-catholics… but maybe I am mistaken. I have seen many examples of highly uncharitable remarks made by catholics, and they are still around. Strange…
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Tyrion
What is “perverse” is also a personal opinion. How “charitable” of you to call the actual love of other people “perverse”? Is that what you learned in Sunday school?
This is where you show your typical lack of charity.
Sodomy is not love. It is unnatural lust whether between men or between women. I am very much for love. I have nothing against people who are drawn toward a love relationship with another member of the same sex. But a love relationship between members of the same gender is not fulfilled by anal sex any more than hunger is fulfilled by eating excrement.
If I would ever dare to charactarize your behavior as “putridly disgusting”, I would be banned in a heartbeat, and righfully so… but then again, maybe "all animals are equal, but some some animals are more equal than others"
Would it really occur to you to describe my heterosexual behavior as “putridly disgusting”?
What is “perverse” is also a personal opinion. How “charitable” of you to call the actual love of other people “perverse”? Is that what you learned in Sunday school?
This is where you show your typical lack of charity.
Sodomy is not love. It is unnatural lust whether between men or between women. I am very much for love. I have nothing against people who are drawn toward a love relationship with another member of the same sex. But a love relationship between members of the same gender is not fulfilled by anal sex any more than hunger is fulfilled by eating excrement.
If I would ever dare to charactarize your behavior as “putridly disgusting”, I would be banned in a heartbeat, and righfully so… but then again, maybe "all animals are equal, but some some animals are more equal than others"
Would it really occur to you to describe my heterosexual behavior as “putridly disgusting”?
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
deny the possibility of marriage between couples which are allowed, by the laws of their land, to engage in sexual relationships?
And I couldn’t resist giving this statement a post of its own. I completely agree with it, but I think it says more than you wanted it to. You might want to re-word it.
Ah, the priceless beauty of Freudian slips, when reality cuts through the hypocrisy…
Sometimes, as they say, a cigar is just a cigar. In this a case, an omission, no matter how glaring is just an omission.
I guess I presumed too much charity on the part of some members. My statement should have been:
How could the Church reasonably deny the possibility of marriage between couples which are allowed, by the [morally legitimate] laws of their land, to engage in sexual relationships?
My presumption was to assume that any government that overreached its legitimate authority by thinking itself capable of revising the natural moral order would be seen, reasonably, to have lost its legitimacy.
I also presumed we were on a philosophy forum where posters would understand the meaning of terms like “hypocrisy” and “Freudian slip” before using them, arbitrarily. Of course, I should have known better because these same posters do not seem to understand the difference between a legitimate marriage and mere sexual gratification with a physiologically incompatible partner.
[/QUOTE]
- Status