Same sex marriage laws

[Spirithound]

Why can I not appeal to the law because it changes? We all do so, all the time. Often (hopefully in most cases) it changes for the better.

In making my statement, I made two assumptions:

1. Your belief is that incestuous marriage is morally wrong;
2. Your opposition to incestuous marriage would not change if the legal status of it does.

If either of those assumptions are false, then I will reformulate my response.

 

[KarenNC]

In making my statement, I made two assumptions:

1. Your belief is that incestuous marriage is morally wrong;
2. Your opposition to incestuous marriage would not change if the legal status of it does.

If either of those assumptions are false, then I will reformulate my response.

When the definition of “incestuous” is limited to what we now consider immediate family—siblings, parent/child, etc—rather than cousin (which it has included at times in the past, and still does in many areas), then no, I would not change my position on such sexual relationships if the legal status changed. Such sexual relationships are almost invariably entered into initially when one the of parties is much too young to have even a presumption of the ability to consent freely.

 

[Spirithound]

Such sexual relationships are almost invariably entered into initially when one the of parties is much too young to have even a presumption of the ability to consent freely.

Certainly there are power issues that need to be monitored, but we have that regarding heterosexual relationships, in the form of statutory rape laws. Shouldn’t that be sufficient?

 

[KarenNC]

Certainly there are power issues that need to be monitored, but we have that regarding heterosexual relationships, in the form of statutory rape laws. Shouldn’t that be sufficient?

Sufficient for what? Incestuous relationships? Statutory rape and incest are not interchangable. Incest is also not only between an adult and a minor, particularly in the case of siblings.

sasian.org/guide/aguide_en.htm

I really don’t see where you are going with this?

Incestuous relationships and sexual relationships between adults and minors, either homosexual or heterosexual, are totally separate issues from that of civil marriage between unrelated adult same sex freely consenting partners.

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

Incestuous relationships and sexual relationships between adults and minors, either homosexual or heterosexual, are totally separate issues from that of civil marriage between unrelated adult same sex freely consenting partners.

But for how long? If you allow one then it is sure that the others will follow.

 

[KarenNC]

But for how long? If you allow one then it is sure that the others will follow.

Why? These are the exact same claims that were made about interracial marriage decades ago (along with people being allowed to marry their dogs, etc).

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

Why? These are the exact same claims that were made about interracial marriage decades ago (along with people being allowed to marry their dogs, etc).

If we allow one perversion (homosexual marriage) do you think that others in perverted relations (polygamy, incest etc.) will not want the same right?

 

[RomanCrusader]

As opposed as I am to the horrific idea of “gay weddings”, they are probably going to be legal nationwide within 50 years. Our traditional moral beliefs are just not very popular anymore .

 

[iamrefreshed]

If we allow one perversion (homosexual marriage) do you think that others in perverted relations (polygamy, incest etc.) will not want the same right?

That’s the whole point of the thread.

Why should those in favor of homosexual marriage not be in favor of incestuous or polygamous marriage if it is between consenting adults?

You will usually find some very creative reasoning why they think one pervesion should be allowed but not another.

 

[KarenNC]

If we allow one perversion (homosexual marriage) do you think that others in perverted relations (polygamy, incest etc.) will not want the same right?

As I said, exactly the same arguments that were used against legalizing interracial marriage decades ago, with as much basis in my opinion.

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

As I said, exactly the same arguments that were used against legalizing interracial marriage decades ago, with as much basis in my opinion.

But an interracial marriage is not a perversion (it still is between a man and a woman).

So my question still remains, *If we allow one perversion (homosexual marriage) do you think that others in perverted relations (polygamy, incest etc.) will not want the same right?
*

 

[KarenNC]

But an interracial marriage is not a perversion (it still is between a man and a woman).

Interracial sexual relations were indeed considered contrary to the law of God, a perversion and even an abomination, on both sides of the issue. There are still those who consider it so.

oah.org/pubs/magazine/family/cruz-berson.html
At the trial, the Virginia judge gave the Lovings a choice: they could spend one year in jail or move to another state. In his opinion, the judge said:

Almighty God created the races, white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix (16).

hnn.us/articles/4708.html

books.google.com/books?id=D6aMlWsVxIQC&pg=PA216&lpg=PA216&dq=purity+white+race+miscegenation&source=web&ots=2Yy9N0u0v2&sig=JGiAmfXfTg8ZOJ-sPgq1Puq4ub8#PPA217,M1
see page 216 “Essays on Racial Purity” by Marcus Garvey

 

[john_ennis]

This thread has reavealed one thing, for certain:

Those who oppose same-sex unions for the reason that the Church opposes them, are able to oppose incestual unions under the exact same philosophy. There need not be any searching for rationale according to what happens to be legal, or what is practical/safe, or whether there can truly be “consent.”

The reason same-sex unions are unacceptable to a Catholic is because they contradict the procreative element of marriage. Incest (even consentual) is wrong for the same reason.

On the other hand, those who accept same-sex unions but not incest, have to find some reason to reject one but not the other. They always contradict themselves, for the battle-cry “consenting adults can do what they wish with their own bodies” doesn’t work.

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

Interracial sexual relations were indeed considered contrary to the law of God, a perversion and even an abomination, on both sides of the issue. There are still those who consider it so.

oah.org/pubs/magazine/family/cruz-berson.html
At the trial, the Virginia judge gave the Lovings a choice: they could spend one year in jail or move to another state. In his opinion, the judge said:

Almighty God created the races, white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix (16).

hnn.us/articles/4708.html

books.google.com/books?id=D6aMlWsVxIQC&pg=PA216&lpg=PA216&dq=purity+white+race+miscegenation&source=web&ots=2Yy9N0u0v2&sig=JGiAmfXfTg8ZOJ-sPgq1Puq4ub8#PPA217,M1
see page 216 “Essays on Racial Purity” by Marcus Garvey

In the context that marriage is between a man and a woman I do not see interracial marriages as being a perversion. The Church has no issue with it either

 

[john_ennis]

In the context that marriage is between a man and a woman I do not see interracial marriages as being a perversion. The Church has no issue with it either

Right, the fact that others have used poor logic and bad theology to oppose interracial marriage, and use the exact same bad reasoning to oppose same-sex marriage, has nothing to do with the Church’s correct opposition to same-sex marriage.

 

[iamrefreshed]

This thread has reavealed one thing, for certain:

On the other hand, those who accept same-sex unions but not incest, have to find some reason to reject one but not the other. They always contradict themselves, for the battle-cry “consenting adults can do what they wish with their own bodies” doesn’t work.

That is why you will find most of those in favor of SSM declining to post on this thread. It would expose them as the hypocrites they are

 

[KarenNC]

The reason same-sex unions are unacceptable to a Catholic is because they contradict the procreative element of marriage. Incest (even consentual) is wrong for the same reason.

So as long as they can have children together, they are okay? That is certainly a unique argument, I grant you that, unless by “procreative” you mean something entirely different than “produce children”. If the only criteria for the Church to accept a marriage is that it can produce children, then I am at a loss to understand why it balks at remarriage of divorced couples. They certainly can be and are “procreative”.

How in the world would heterosexual marriage between an adult brother and sister (as is being put forward here by the OP) “contradict the procreative element of marriage”? Unprotected sex between those of childbearing age is just as likely to end in a pregnancy between related as unrelated opposite sex individuals. Doesn’t matter if the sex is consensual or not. It’s simple biology.

On the other hand, those who accept same-sex unions but not incest, have to find some reason to reject one but not the other. They always contradict themselves, for the battle-cry “consenting adults can do what they wish with their own bodies” doesn’t work.

I certainly do have reasons to “reject one but not the other”, reasons which I hope I have made clear. They are not identical nor interchangeable situations. The issue with incest is that it is not, as shown by studies, freely consensual or begins only when the two people in question are both adults.

Feel free to point out exactly where you feel I have “contradicted myself” in this thread.

 

[john_ennis]

So as long as they can have children together, they are okay? That is certainly a unique argument, I grant you that, unless by “procreative” you mean something entirely different than “produce children”. If the only criteria for the Church to accept a marriage is that it can produce children, then I am at a loss to understand why it balks at remarriage of divorced couples. They certainly can be and are “procreative”.

 

[KarenNC]

I was very careful to say no such thing. The procreative element is, I said, AN element of marriage.
You and I can see clearly, as does the Church, why incestual relations contradict the procreative element of marriage–if you deny that such a relation is problematic with regard to procreation, I don’t know how to convince you.

Obviously, it is not as clear as you seem to think. I think what is needed is for you to define what you mean by “the procreative element of marriage” and to do so explicitly. What I understand by the term is that the marriage is capable of producing children, at least in theory (since infertile couples and elderly people are also deemed by the Church to be sufficiently theoretically procreative to be allowed to marry). Incestuous heterosexual sexual relations are clearly capable of doing so—there are people walking around who are living proof. You seem to understand it to mean something else entirely and for the life of me I can’t figure out what that understanding is.

Not careful enough, evidently. You explicitly said “The reason same-sex unions are unacceptable to a Catholic** is because they contradict the procreative element of marriage**. Incest (even consentual) is wrong for the same reason.” Not “one of the reasons” or “part of the reason” but “the reason”. Not once, but twice.

 

[john_ennis]

Obviously, it is not as clear as you seem to think. I think what is needed is for you to define what you mean by “the procreative element of marriage” and to do so explicitly. What I understand by the term is that the marriage is capable of producing children, at least in theory (since infertile couples and elderly people are also deemed by the Church to be sufficiently theoretically procreative to be allowed to marry). Incestuous heterosexual sexual relations are clearly capable of doing so—there are people walking around who are living proof. You seem to understand it to mean something else entirely and for the life of me I can’t figure out what that understanding is.

Not careful enough, evidently. You explicitly said “The reason same-sex unions are unacceptable to a Catholic** is because they contradict the procreative element of marriage**. Incest (even consentual) is wrong for the same reason.” Not “one of the reasons” or “part of the reason” but “the reason”. Not once, but twice.

Last first:

My words, “they contradict the procreative element of marriage,” in no way indicate that this is the only element of marital relations that should exist. If I’m arrested for “violating speeding laws,” that in no way means that those laws are the only reason for being arrested, or that abiding by speeding laws is sufficient to be totally law-abiding.

Do you get that when someone says, “i was arrested for violating speeding laws,” and then, “so-and-so was arrested for the same reason,” that that doesn’t imply that there are no other law-breaking acts?

When I said “Incest is wrong for the same reason,” the means I’ve been addressing one specific reason, which is sufficient to amount to making relations wrong. If you feel I wasn’t clear, I’ll be clear now: the procreative element of marital relations is not the only necessary element of marital relations (there is the loving, unifying element as well). Its deliberate violation makes the relations wrong; this doesn’t mean that not violating them makes them right, anymore than not speeding means you’re not breaking *any *law.

Now, for your second disagreement, I assert that incest is by its nature a faulty way of conceiving. You disagree? I don’t mean that incest cannot result in offspring, but that the malformations that are more likely to result by the very nature of these relations make it a wrong method of conceiving.

Peace.
John