Same sex marriage laws

[john_ennis]

But once again, does anyone here disagree that, if two closely related adults claim firmly to wish to be married, and that they know fully what they’re doing, and that no one else should be deciding what they REALLY want or what’s REALLY good for them, that this is no more objectionable than two men or two women?

If two men want to be married, that’s one thing, but if they happen to be brothers, that’s another?

Peace.
John

 

[iamrefreshed]

But once again, does anyone here disagree that, if two closely related adults claim firmly to wish to be married, and that they know fully what they’re doing, and that no one else should be deciding what they REALLY want or what’s REALLY good for them, that this is no more objectionable than two men or two women?

If two men want to be married, that’s one thing, but if they happen to be brothers, that’s another?

Peace.
John

John, you will continue to be attacked for the ‘details’ and ‘meaning’ of what you post.

Under no circumstance will anyone here post anything that will in any way tie their support of SSM to incestuous marriage. They refuse to admit they are enforcing their own moral code.

It is the epotime of hypocracy.

 

[KarenNC]

If I’m arrested for “violating speeding laws,” that in no way means that those laws are the only reason for being arrested…
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?

What in the world are you talking about?

I “get” that no other law-breaking acts were committed by the parties mentioned in that sentence and that violation of those specific laws was indeed the sole reason that the parties mentioned were arrested on that occasion. It has nothing to do with whether laws against other acts exist.

I “get” that both people being discussed were arrested solely because they violated speeding laws, not because they were also jaywalking, dealing drugs, cheating on their taxes, sunbathing in the nude on the courthouse lawn or any number of other illegal acts. I also do not “get” that the first person was arrested for violating speeding laws and the second was arrested for building code violations but can be said to be the same because the two violations are identical.

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.

It is exactly the same way that every other pair of human beings on the planet naturally conceive, with the introduction of the sperm to the egg via heterosexual intercourse. It is not the method that is at fault.

The reasons behind the taboos against incest are multiple. See the entry on consanguinity in the Catholic encyclopedia, in which yes, the biological potential issues are mentioned, but such mention is much outweighed by the attention to the issues regarding social bonds.

newadvent.org/cathen/04264a.htm (my emphasis added):
By the law of nature, it is universally conceded, marriage is prohibited between parent and child, for the reverential relation between them is recognized as incompatible with the equality of relations engendered by the bond of marriage. The universal sentiment of peoples is likewise opposed to marriage between all persons related in any degree in the direct line, thus between grandparent and grandchild.

Concerns regarding increases in birth defects (btw, does the Church also screen all couples for their likelihood of passing along birth defect before permitting marriage?) would have absolutely no bearing on prohibitions against stepsiblings marrying or a surviving spouse marrying the family members of the deceased spouse, as they do not share a genetic background.

Same citation
*Affinity from a true marriage is a diriment impediment to the fourth degree of consanguinity of the deceased spouse; according to the ecclesiastical law a widower may not marry any of his deceased wife’s blood-relations as far as the fourth degree inclusively, nor a widow her deceased husband’s blood-relations.
*

The issue of incest (either heterosexual or homosexual) is a much more complex one than that of same sex marriage between unrelated consenting adults.

 

[KarenNC]

John, you will continue to be attacked for the ‘details’ and ‘meaning’ of what you post.

No, John will continue to be expected to communicate clearly what he means and asked for clarification when he does not do so. That is called “communication” not “attack”.

Under no circumstance will anyone here post anything that will in any way tie their support of SSM to incestuous marriage.

And that might just be because the one has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

I say it is time to
BRING BACK THE SODOMY LAWS!

 

[KathleenElsie]

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.

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.

Procreation for the continuation of the species is the goal of both prohibitions (incest and SSM.) A man and a woman could produce children. The limit as to how close a relative you may marry was to protect the potential result of the union from the many diseases and genetic abnormalities.

 

[john_ennis]

What in the world are you talking about?

So as long as they can have children together, they are okay?

 

[john_ennis]

And that might just be because the one has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

Incestual marriage has to do with same-sex marriage only if the philosophy supporting same-sex marriage is,

“What consenting adults do…”

Which, btw, IS the proclaimed philosophy to suppport same-sex marriage, 95% of the time. It’s certainly vailid to test that philosophy. For those challenged, to say, “one has nothing to do with the other” is for them to refuse to discuss WHY they believe what they believe, and try to short-circuit the discussion.

However, Karen was forthright enought to address the question, and to say that the difference is that consent is impossible in incestual relations. I assert that this is not only unproveable, but that no study makes that specific conclusion.

If one reasons that incestual relationships are often unbalanced with regard to power, one must admit that they aren’t always, and that all relationships can have this defect (if it’s a defect). Can we probit all incestual marriage, because of that possibility? Should we not investigate ALL potential marriages, to weed out this unacceptable condition?

And just to keep perspective, let’s understand that, after solving these issues, we’re left with the implication that aside from the consent problem, incestual marriages are acceptable, just as same-sex marriages are (for ssm supporters).

But I’ve essentially never heard a same-sex marriage supporter admit this.

Peace.
John

 

[iamrefreshed]

Incestual marriage has to do with same-sex marriage only if the philosophy supporting same-sex marriage is,

“What consenting adults do…”

Which, btw, IS the proclaimed philosophy to suppport same-sex marriage, 95% of the time. It’s certainly vailid to test that philosophy. For those challenged, to say, “one has nothing to do with the other” is for them to refuse to discuss WHY they believe what they believe, and try to short-circuit the discussion.

And just to keep perspective, let’s understand that, after solving these issues, we’re left with the implication that aside from the consent problem, incestual marriages are acceptable, just as same-sex marriages are (for ssm supporters).

But I’ve essentially never heard a same-sex marriage supporter admit this.

Peace.
John

And you can add marriages with more than two parties as well. Why should SSM be allowed and not marriage between three ‘consenting adults’?

Moral relativism, that’s why.

 

[Elric]

I am just trying to figure out why you cant be in favor of homosexuality/same sex marriages and be opposed to incest ect.

I mean, why cant you?

People can be in favor of Pepsi and opposed to Coca-Cola, but they are both cola drinks. So using that logic, you have to be in favor of both beverages as well as the other cola brands available (I hope Dr Pepper doesnt count as “cola”).

It simply makes no sense to suggest that if you are in favor of one, then you have to be in favor of all. We could take the cynical approach and say that if you are in favor of hetrosexual marriage/intercourse, then you have to be in favor of the others as well since its all marriage and intercourse.

There simply isnt a comparison and they are quite different, much like Pepsi and Coke are.

 

[KathleenElsie]

I am just trying to figure out why you cant be in favor of homosexuality/same sex marriages and be opposed to incest ect. An idea: Maybe it is because both are prohibited by Holy Mother Church?

I mean, why cant you? read above

People can be in favor of Pepsi and opposed to Coca-Cola, but they are both cola drinks. So using that logic, you have to be in favor of both beverages as well as the other cola brands available (I hope Dr Pepper doesnt count as “cola”). Marriage (civil unions) are not soft drinks. Nor is any food prohibited to a Christian.

It simply makes no sense to suggest that if you are in favor of one, then you have to be in favor of all. We could take the cynical approach and say that if you are in favor of heterosexual marriage/intercourse, then you have to be in favor of the others as well since its all marriage and intercourse.

There simply isnt a comparison and they are quite different, much like Pepsi and Coke are.

Praying you come to the belief that what Holy Mother Church teaches is truth and not to be made convenient for convience sake.

 

[Elric]

An idea: Maybe it is because both are prohibited by Holy Mother Church?

No, that just explains how you can be opposed to them all. It doesnt answer my question, especally when you consider that not everyone is cathloic.

Marriage (civil unions) are not soft drinks. Nor is any food prohibited to a Christian.

I think that you may have missed the point over that.

Praying you come to the belief that what Holy Mother Church teaches is truth and not to be made convenient for convience sake.

Truthfully I would rather that you didnt, especally with that statement in mind. I think it would be better for you to pray that we are able to understand truth, regardless of its source.

 

[john_ennis]

I am just trying to figure out why you cant be in favor of homosexuality/same sex marriages and be opposed to incest ect.

I mean, why cant you?

People can be in favor of Pepsi and opposed to Coca-Cola, but they are both cola drinks. So using that logic, you have to be in favor of both beverages as well as the other cola brands available (I hope Dr Pepper doesnt count as “cola”).

It simply makes no sense to suggest that if you are in favor of one, then you have to be in favor of all. We could take the cynical approach and say that if you are in favor of hetrosexual marriage/intercourse, then you have to be in favor of the others as well since its all marriage and intercourse.

There simply isnt a comparison and they are quite different, much like Pepsi and Coke are.

You are basically saying that favoring a certain type of marital relationship based entirely on something as arbitrary as one’s taste in sodas is valid.
Don’t you see that the debate about what is right or wrong is essentially different from the question of what drink tastes good to you?

If you favor same-sex marriage but not incestual marriage, and have no reason for favoring one or being against the other, then you have no grounds to criticize anybody who disagrees with you. It’s just a matter of taste to you.

To most of us on any side, we believe that we have an underlying philosophy on which our conclusions are based. Most people who favor allowing same-sex marriage do so because they believe that “Whatever consenting adults do is their business…and no one else’s morals should be imposed on them,” and they are willing to admit that, and defend it. If they’re asked why they don’t support incestual marriages then, or polygamous marriages, among consenting adults, they generally recognize that they ought to be able to explain why, without contradicting their own philosophy.

Why do you feel anybody should accept same-sex marriage, but deny people the right to incestual marriage, just because of their own taste? Doesn’t that sound wrong to you?

Peace.
John

 

[Elric]

You are basically saying that favoring a certain type of marital relationship based entirely on something as arbitrary as one’s taste in sodas is valid.
Don’t you see that the debate about what is right or wrong is essentially different from the question of what drink tastes good to you?

Wow you really missed the point I was making.

If you favor same-sex marriage but not incestual marriage, and have no reason for favoring one or being against the other, then you have no grounds to criticize anybody who disagrees with you. It’s just a matter of taste to you.

Well the question has to be asked, what counts as a reason?

To most of us on any side, we believe that we have an underlying philosophy on which our conclusions are based. Most people who favor allowing same-sex marriage do so because they believe that “Whatever consenting adults do is their business…and no one else’s morals should be imposed on them,” and they are willing to admit that, and defend it. If they’re asked why they don’t support incestual marriages then, or polygamous marriages, among consenting adults, they generally recognize that they ought to be able to explain why, without contradicting their own philosophy.

Well I am actually failing to see the connection between them, they really sound like different things altogether.

Why do you feel anybody should accept same-sex marriage, but deny people the right to incestual marriage, just because of their own taste? Doesn’t that sound wrong to you?

Peace.
John

For starters, lets drop that whole “taste” bit, I didnt bring that up.

Next, you didnt actually answer why you cant be in favor of one but not the others (which is what I was asking for).

Because homosexual marriage isnt incestous and doesnt involve having “relations” with a member of your own family.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

Wow you really missed the point I was making.

Well the question has to be asked, what counts as a reason?

Well I am actually failing to see the connection between them, they really sound like different things altogether.

For starters, lets drop that whole “taste” bit, I didnt bring that up.

Next, you didnt actually answer why you cant be in favor of one but not the others (which is what I was asking for).

Because homosexual marriage isnt incestous and doesnt involve having “relations” with a member of your own family.

LEt’s try this: A man and a woman meet. They begin to date, and eventually decide to get married. However, a DNA test proves that they are in fact brother and sister- their mother had put them up for adoption soon after their individual births. Why can they not get married?

 

[Elric]

LEt’s try this: A man and a woman meet. They begin to date, and eventually decide to get married. However, a DNA test proves that they are in fact brother and sister- their mother had put them up for adoption soon after their individual births. Why can they not get married?

Because they are siblings?

Is there a point to this?

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

Because they are siblings?

Is there a point to this?

Why do you think two men can be allowed to be married? Because they are mutually consenting adults? If that is the case, you must allow the case as stated above.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

Why do you think two men can be allowed to be married? Because they are mutually consenting adults? If that is the case, you must allow the case as stated above.

If you still refuse to allow our hypothetical siblings to marry, you must provide justification for homosexual marriage other than “mutually consenting adults”.

 

[Elric]

Why do you think two men can be allowed to be married? Because they are mutually consenting adults?

Yes and they are not related to each other.

If that is the case, you must allow the case as stated above.

Lets ignore my answer for a sec, why mush I allow the siblings to marry?

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

Yes and they are not related to each other.
Lets ignore my answer for a sec, why mush I allow the siblings to marry?

Because they love each other. They mutually consent, regardless of the fact that they are indeed siblings. Why can’t you let siblings marry?