T
Thorolfr
Guest
First cousin marriage is actually legal in about 20 states
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage_law_in_the_United_States_by_state
- Status
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage_law_in_the_United_States_by_state
C
cena
Guest
And it is a criminal offense in others. Who’s right?
A
alchemist3
Guest
Well that is the question is it not? I don’t happen to find Natural Law arguments convincing in the slightest, I think they are all based upon personal and cultural bias. What has been considered to be “Natural Law” has never once been consistent and has been constantly changing as human society changes. Slavery used to be justified by Natural law since it just occurred everywhere in the world and just seemed to be the natural state of affairs for people. Some are weak, others are strong. The same Natural Law arguments have been used to restrict the rights and liberty of women since time immemorial. The argument went that women are just biologically inferior to men in mental capacity and are naturally just mean to be used for procreation and taking care of children. Anything else was considered a violation of god’s natural law for women. That is the exact argument one gets from these radical Muslims today, yet we all now know that this is just plain wrong, yet all of society actually believed exactly the way the Muslims did up until about 300 years ago in the West.
A
alchemist3
Guest
I am not endorsing any type of sex, I just fail to understand why using something other than for its primary purpose is immoral or wrong and I have yet to have a single person tell me why it is. Guns are meant for shooting bullets, primary purpose. Is it therefore wrong of me to hang a gun on my wall for purely decorative purposes? It is not it primary purpose, but it is not misusing it either.
C
cena
Guest
Okay since the primary purpose of eating is for nutrition and sustenance why don’t I just eat for the purpose of taste and become bulimic or anorexic? What’s wrong with that?
A
alchemist3
Guest
you make another faulty analogy. because we do not just eat for nutrition and sustenance. Food has a secondary purpose, pleasure. Many people, myself included do not base my diet solely on what my nutritional needs are. I also eat food that I enjoy the taste of irregardless of its nutritional content. Being bulimic or anorexic are harmful because they produce deltirious effects in the body. So I would agree with you in this instance that irresponsible eating like bulimia,or eating all junk food, or eating to the point where you become obese is indeed immoral. Similarly reckless promiscuous sexual conduct, whether homosexual or heterosexual is indeed immoral. But sexual conduct in a committed loving relationship is not harmful to anyone.
So please show me how homosexual conduct in a committed, monogamous relationship is harmful like bulimia? I challenge you to find me anything that come from a legitimate medical or scientific journal.
C
cena
Guest
zenit.org/en/articles/medical-downside-of-homosexual-behavior
They list some studies in the link
"Fitzgibbons: The list of medical diseases found with extraordinary frequency
among male homosexual practitioners as a result of abnormal homosexual
behavior is alarming: anal cancer, chlamydia trachomatis, cryptosporidium,
giardia lamblia, herpes simplex virus, human immunodeficiency virus or HIV,
human papilloma virus – HPV or genital warts – isospora belli,
microsporidia, gonorrhea, viral hepatitis types B and C, and syphilis.
Sexual transmission of some of these diseases is so rare in the exclusively
heterosexual population as to be virtually unknown. Others, while found
among heterosexual and homosexual practitioners, are clearly predominated by
those involved in homosexual activity.
Men who have sex with men account for the lion’s share of the increasing
number of cases in America of sexually transmitted infections that are not
generally spread through sexual contact.
These diseases, with consequences that range from severe and even
life-threatening to mere annoyances, include hepatitis A, giardia lamblia,
entamoeba histolytica, Epstein-Barr virus, neisseria meningitides,
shigellosis, salmonellosis, pediculosis, scabies and campylobacter. "
A
alchemist3
Guest
Sorry Zenit a blog having to do with the “View from Rome” is hardly a reputable scientific journal. Also his statements are not related to committed monogamous homosexual sex, it is related to promiscuous sexual conduct, which is bad for everyone. Also, I started a different thread to tidy this up. Thanks for contributing.
C
cena
Guest
From the link “Fitzgibbons: Two extensive studies appearing in the October 1999 issue of
the American Medical Association’s Archives of General Psychiatry confirm a
strong link between homosexual sex and suicide, as well as a relationship
between homosexuality and emotional and mental problems.”
A
alchemist3
Guest
Funny from the archive (meaning from studies published a long time ago, then appearing in a journal issue that appeared in 1999). Secondly none of those studies prove any type of causation, they simply demonstrate a correlation. That demonstrates nothing at all. It might indicate that homosexuals have higher rates of suicide because they suffer from discrimination and a societal stigma, the same with the emotional problems.
That is about as relevant as a posting a study showing that African Americans have lower test scores on standardized test and then leaping to the erroneous conclusion that African Americans are not as smart as white kids. Again, it only shows correlation, not causation. Studies like that prove nothing.
D
DrTaffy
Guest
Some are, such as those who beat up the two gay guys in Philadelphia. But nothing I said implied or referred to that.
I was just pointing out that it is now discrimination against gays, not homosexuality itself, that evokes a negative visceral reaction. Which highlights the dangers of trying to use visceral reactions as moral guidelines.
Sorry, what ‘personal attacks’? I may have said things you disagreed with, but I made no negative definite statements about you. You, however, have done so about me.
Well, then, your recital of the events may have misled me. Or we have different ideas of what ‘browbeat’ means. Try substituting the phrase that she was pressurised, not persuaded rationally, to change or at least conceal her opinion. What you seemed to say is that you did not persuade any of these girls in the lesson, instead you got the pastor to call and complain to their parents, and as a result only the one girl went through with their planned, peaceful expression of their moral position. And since then even she has given up on her lone stand.
How is that not the exact equivalent of the behaviour this thread allegedly deplores?
Consider the parallel situation where the school and parents were secular, and the girls had Catholic sympathies. The girls initially planned to make a peaceful, non disruptive expression of support for traditional marriage, but the teacher contacted the Principal, who complained to the parents. Only one girl dared go through with the demonstration, and later the teacher posted gloating that even she had now “changed her tune, dramatically” due to peer pressure - would you not see this as a classic example of the kind of behaviour referred to by this thread? For that matter, would you hesitate to call it ‘bullying’?
Yes, I do. And this is a direct, insulting reference to me as a person. Pot, kettle, black.
Do the children have the choice?
Apparently not.
For that matter, it is not that they are taught Catholic views, but whether they are permitted to dissent, or whether that will result in the Pastor complaining to their parents. As a teacher, as long as the students understand the argument, my job is done. They are free to disagree, even encouraged if they do intelligently.
My final point in the last post (which was admittedly poorly worded, it was added hastily as a last minute afterthought, apologies) was that this is arguably not true of a Catechist who must (?) see that they agree - where the phrase ‘by whatever means’ came in. Not implying that you would use drugs and waterboarding, but that making them understand the argument is possibly not the be all and end all that it would be for me.
Shouting down is one thing - although a teacher should be able to deal with that. Wearing a symbol such as rainbow colours is another.
D
DrTaffy
Guest
None which address the point highlighted above.
R
Rau
Guest
Please focus on the “binding of procreative potential with other fruits”, not the question of primary and other purposes. The binding together is what is suggestive of the correct object of the act.
R
Rau
Guest
I assume this is a debate about what level of biological risk is acceptable in familial (first cousin) marriage?
C
cena
Guest
Children don’t have a choice with normal schooling, or even classes where they are forced to learn about homosexuality (apparently there are schools teaching little kids about it)Some are, such as those who beat up the two gay guys in Philadelphia. But nothing I said implied or referred to that.
I was just pointing out that it is now discrimination against gays, not homosexuality itself, that evokes a negative visceral reaction. Which highlights the dangers of trying to use visceral reactions as moral guidelines.
Sorry, what ‘personal attacks’? I may have said things you disagreed with, but I made no negative definite statements about you. You, however, have done so about me.
Well, then, your recital of the events may have misled me. Or we have different ideas of what ‘browbeat’ means. Try substituting the phrase that she was pressurised, not persuaded rationally, to change or at least conceal her opinion. What you seemed to say is that you did not persuade any of these girls in the lesson, instead you got the pastor to call and complain to their parents, and as a result only the one girl went through with their planned, peaceful expression of their moral position. And since then even she has given up on her lone stand.
How is that not the exact equivalent of the behaviour this thread allegedly deplores?
Consider the parallel situation where the school and parents were secular, and the girls had Catholic sympathies. The girls initially planned to make a peaceful, non disruptive expression of support for traditional marriage, but the teacher contacted the Principal, who complained to the parents. Only one girl dared go through with the demonstration, and later the teacher posted gloating that even she had now “changed her tune, dramatically” due to peer pressure - would you not see this as a classic example of the kind of behaviour referred to by this thread? For that matter, would you hesitate to call it ‘bullying’?
Yes, I do. And this is a direct, insulting reference to me as a person. Pot, kettle, black.
Do the children have the choice?
Apparently not.
For that matter, it is not that they are taught Catholic views, but whether they are permitted to dissent, or whether that will result in the Pastor complaining to their parents. As a teacher, as long as the students understand the argument, my job is done. They are free to disagree, even encouraged if they do intelligently.
My final point in the last post (which was admittedly poorly worded, it was added hastily as a last minute afterthought, apologies) was that this is arguably not true of a Catechist who must (?) see that they agree - where the phrase ‘by whatever means’ came in. Not implying that you would use drugs and waterboarding, but that making them understand the argument is possibly not the be all and end all that it would be for me.
Shouting down is one thing - although a teacher should be able to deal with that. Wearing a symbol such as rainbow colours is another.
C
cena
Guest
"In a recent study from a major journal conducted on males, it found thatNone which address the point highlighted above.
males in same-sex unions stayed together for an average length of two years,
and would regularly have sex with others outside of the relationship.
In this Amsterdam study, 86% of new HIV infections occurred in men who
considered themselves to be in same-sex unions. "
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
You both seem to propose that a committed, monogamous relationship among homosexuals is possible. I think we should first try to prove that homosexuals do, indeed practice fidelity in any sort of relationship.None which address the point highlighted above.
Currently the studies show otherwise…nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us…etro.html?_r=0
Just because the state allows a homosexual couple to call their relationship a marriage is no guarantee that the couple will treat it as a committed, monogamous relationship. The studies show that the majority of homosexuals keep their relationships “open” and continue to “cruise”…and spread disease.
C
clem456
Guest
I know a gay couple who are committed to one another and faithful, have been together for many years, own a beautiful home, participate in the community etc…
Now that I think about it, I know 3 like that in my community. Good responsible community members.
You can go around all day whether or not gay relationships can be faithful and exclusive or not. Of course they can be.
I’ve seen the statistics that show the elevated rates of promiscuity among gays and it’s hard to argue with those statistics and the harm that promiscuity causes, but I’m not sure what’s accomplished by going round over it. All gay couples who are faithful to one another refute the implications of the statistics.
I believe what the Church observes and teaches about sexuality.
But I have plenty of my own disorders to deal with, so all things being equal (which they aren’t really)…
Faithful relationships are a good thing, committed relationships are a good thing. If a gay couple is together, it is good they are faithful and committed and I am not going to rip on their relationship, cause it serves no purpose.
What’s not good is *to equate *a gay union with the marriage of a man and woman.
Now that I think about it, I know 3 like that in my community. Good responsible community members.
You can go around all day whether or not gay relationships can be faithful and exclusive or not. Of course they can be.
I’ve seen the statistics that show the elevated rates of promiscuity among gays and it’s hard to argue with those statistics and the harm that promiscuity causes, but I’m not sure what’s accomplished by going round over it. All gay couples who are faithful to one another refute the implications of the statistics.
I believe what the Church observes and teaches about sexuality.
But I have plenty of my own disorders to deal with, so all things being equal (which they aren’t really)…
Faithful relationships are a good thing, committed relationships are a good thing. If a gay couple is together, it is good they are faithful and committed and I am not going to rip on their relationship, cause it serves no purpose.
What’s not good is *to equate *a gay union with the marriage of a man and woman.
C
cena
Guest
It’s immoral for them to be in that type of relationship but I agree with you it should not be seen as equal to marriage.
- Status