Separation of religious and civil marriage

[PRmerger]

Let them stand on their own merits. Because someone wants something doesn’t mean it will happen. The marriage paradigm shifted when friends and families of gays realized their loved ones were being deprived of civil rights. Gays are a small minority and the paradigm would not have shifted without a groundswell of support. Do you see or predict a groundswell of support happening for incest and polygamy movements? Do you see APA and other professional mental health associations putting their stamp of approval on incest and saying it does not cause damage in its victims?

They love each other. They are adults.

The APA was against homosexuality also. So I’m sure they can be persuaded to change their views.

So what is your rationale for saying they can’t have their love recognized as a marriage?

 

[frobert]

I think that the point being missed is that the definition of marriage that you provided cannot be used to deny any of the arrangements that you declared unacceptable. Why? Because those other arrangements can meet the definition provided.

It is a stretch to say because gay marriage therefore incest and polygamy marriages will occur, but you are entitled to your opinion while gays enjoy the same civil rights you enjoy.

 

[frobert]

The APA was against homosexuality also. So I’m sure they can be persuaded to change their views.

That is where we differ you are sure of your suppositions and I am highly doubtful.

 

[Rau]

Let them stand on their own merits. Because someone wants something doesn’t mean it will happen. The marriage paradigm shifted when friends and families of gays realized their loved ones were being deprived of civil rights. Gays are a small minority and the paradigm would not have shifted without a groundswell of support. Do you see or predict a groundswell of support happening for incest and polygamy movements? Do you see APA and other professional mental health associations putting their stamp of approval on incest and saying it does not cause damage in its victims?

So you are happy to deny 2 sisters the opportunity to share assets, file joint tax returns, and all that other stuff that goes with civil marriage, because …why??

 

[frobert]

So you are happy to deny 2 sisters the opportunity to share assets, file joint tax returns, and all that other stuff that goes with civil marriage, because …why??

I don’t have the authority to deny the sisters civil marriage, that authority belongs to the state.

If you read my previous posts you would know that I believe the state makes the correct decision because I believe, like most mental health professionals do, that incest is damaging to the participants.

 

[DrTaffy]

Ah. So you don’t have any sources as I requested.

You are demanding that I support a position that I do not assert. If you want to defend the case for gay incestuous marriage do so. The fact that you cannot defend your case against gay marriage does not mean that I have to defend a strawman of your choosing.

This sounds suspiciously like an argument that was given 100 years ago. Imagine someone saying, “You might want to start by identifying these homosexual men that you claim should be allowed to marry. If there are no cases of homosexual men wishing to marry, it is a non-issue.”

Then I would identify those homosexual men. There were plenty around then, as at any time in history.

And why are catholics so obsessed with homosexual men? Or, for that matter, anal sex? Even gay fora are less obsessed with anal sex than you lot!

And yet, if you had been there 100 years ago, you would have said…“It’s irrelevant whether they exist or not. They should be given the right to marry because that’s what’s fair.”

If they don’t exist, of course it doesn’t matter if the nonexistent figments of your imagination are given any rights. Homosexuals (of both sexes) do exist.

You are in the minority here,

Positions that are true might seem ‘peculiar’ to you, but are considered common elsewhere. And I explain “so what?” in the next sentence. When you lot were in absolute power you may have been able to simply sneer at and oppress those who disagreed with you. Now, you need to provide rational arguments, not just sneer.

And the definition of sex does not exclude rape.

Excellent. We agree that the definition of ‘marriage’ does not exclude same sex (or underage or incestuous) marriage, and that you must provide rational arguments if you want to ban any of these.

There is no such entity as same sex “marriage”.

There is indeed such an entity. All over the world. That, of course, is why you are spitting blood. Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi are married, and happily so, and you just hate that, don’t you?

But the blunt fact is that you lot did not coin the word “marriage” and do not get to prevent the State, who did coin it, from using it as it will.

Now this other thing mentioned in the old Testament by a completely different term is another matter - but you would not be happy with using a different term if you cannot prevent Ellen and Portia from calling themselves married, will you? At which point you need to ask yourself why not?

LOL!!!

Those are the same arguments that were used to assert that homosexual unions are harmful to society!!

You contradict yourself. You assert that there have never been societies with gay marriage before now, so there could be no evidence that societies with gay marriage suffer (for example) more vilent crime. Logic, baby!

 

[PRmerger]

It is a stretch to say because gay marriage therefore incest and polygamy marriages will occur,

Whether it “will occur” or not is irrelevant to this discussion.

What is being argued is that YOU, as an advocate for gay “marriage”, have no rationale for denying incestuous “marriages” and polyamorous “marriages”.

In any discussion with advocates of incestuous “marriages”, all they have to do is say, “Well, how can you be against what we want to do when you are for gay ‘marriage’? We fit all the criteria you have defined as being a 'marriage.”

 

[DrTaffy]

I think that the point being missed is that the definition of marriage that you provided cannot be used to deny any of the arrangements that you declared unacceptable. Why? Because those other arrangements can meet the definition provided.

And according to you , ‘meeting the definition’ is the only factor deciding if something is moral?

So if rape, incest or child abuse meet the definition of ‘sex’, they should be allowed?

 

[Rau]

I don’t have the authority to deny the sisters civil marriage, that authority belongs to the state.

If you read my previous posts you would know that I believe the state makes the correct decision because I believe, like most mental health professionals do, that incest is damaging to the participants.

I didn’t say you were denying anyone anything, just that you were OK with the State doing so. Tell me again why 2 (adult) sisters can’t access the legal framework provided by civil marriage. I cannot tell you how many threads I have seen railing against the civil rights injustice of denying a same sex pair access to the legal rights that Married people could access. And explain why allowing access to these rights might be injurious to their health.

And note: I make no assumption that the sisters intend sexual activities (should the State care one way or the other?), but since you raise it, why do you think the law forbids incest, and in some jurisdictions imposes lengthy prison sentences for it, even when no minor children are involved? What prompted that?

And for interest, see this article about a German move to repeal incest laws…
dailytelegraph.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/german-ethics-council-votes-in-favour-of-allowing-incest-between-siblings/story-fni0dpm5-1227069702897?nk=337a4e8da8cf3cc5b3e210fe5508e968

You may be interested to google the term (use the quotes too) **“full marriage equality”. ** On the site you see at the top of the search results, you will find a passionate, “reasoned” argument for why all incest laws should be repealed.

The idea that Marriage could and should be extended a bit, but no further, is illogical.

 

[PRmerger]

I didn’t say you were denying anyone anything, just that you were OK with the State doing so. Tell me again why 2 (adult) sisters can’t access the legal framework provided by civil marriage.

Yes. I’d like to know, too.

Please provide an answer that is not a tautology, ok?

“It’s illegal for 2 sisters to be married because…it’s against the law.”

That won’t work, frobert.

 

[PRmerger]

You may be interested to google the term (use the quotes too) **“full marriage equality”. ** On the site you see at the top of the search results, you will find a passionate, “reasoned” argument for why all incest laws should be repealed.

Indeed. When one argues for “marriage equality” one MUST, by logic and reason, include incestuous relationships in this equality circle. And polyamorous ones.

The idea that Marriage could and should be extended a bit, but no further, is illogical.

Egg-zactly.

 

[PRmerger]

You contradict yourself. You assert that there have never been societies with gay marriage before now, so there could be no evidence that societies with gay marriage suffer (for example) more vilent crime.

Please try and understand the analogs, Taffy.

What is being compared is polyamorous relationships with homosexual relationships.

Logic, baby!

Amen!

 

[PRmerger]

You are demanding that I support a position that I do not assert.

Well, you don’t assert it because you’re being inconsistent.

It’s like your saying, “I believe that human life begins at conception and all human life has the right to life!”

And I say, “So you’re against abortion in the first trimester?”

And you respond with: “That’s not a position I support nor assert.”

Well, while you didn’t actually say you’re against abortion in the first trimester, the logical conclusion is you are. Or should be.

If you believe all human life has the right to live, and that human life begins at conception, you would be inconsistent if you said, “I believe abortions are the moral thing to do in the first trimester!”

See?

If you’re for gay “marriage”, then the consistent position is to be for incestuous “marriage”.

 

[frobert]

Whether it “will occur” or not is irrelevant to this discussion.

What is being argued is that YOU, as an advocate for gay “marriage”, have no rationale for denying incestuous “marriages” and polyamorous “marriages”.

It is irrelevant to you not to me. Why should I expend time, effort and money in a pursuit to stop something that I believe is highly doubtful? I have no objection to you spending your time, effort and money on anything that you want even it is highly doubtful.

I don’t consider myself an advocate in the sense of being politically or actively involved but perhaps I am an advocate, it is obvious that I support gay marriage as a civil right. Committed same sex couples should be an integral part of their communities and churches/temples/synagogues (if they have an affiliation) as a married couple. You may have a problem with that, but no one I have come in contact with in my small conservative country community seems to mind.

It sounds like you either have not been reading my posts on incest or have misinterpreted them.

Another statement of mine that you overlooked (2 times) is that I do not have the authority to deny or grant civil rights, that authority belongs to the states and I do not have any influence on what the states or courts determine.

I have a question for you. Why should I be concerned with that you think my reasoning is faulty on incest or polygamy?

 

[PRmerger]

And why are catholics so obsessed with homosexual men? Or, for that matter, anal sex? Even gay fora are less obsessed with anal sex than you lot!

Well, Catholicism uses “men” to mean: human person.

As we say in the Creed at every regular Sunday liturgy:

For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,

But only someone wishing to pick a fight thinks it literally means only those with a Y chromosome.

As for an alleged obsession with anal sex–well, I for one have never–not even once–in my over 27000 post history–brought that up.
forums.catholic-questions.org/search.php?searchid=22372458

And, incidentally, what would be wrong with an obsession with anal sex? What a peculiar point to make.

If it’s just another way to give someone pleasure, why point it out? It would be like saying, “Why are you guys so obsessed with giving people flowers! All you talk about is flowers, flowers, flowers!”

So…what. What’s wrong with being obsessed with flowers?

 

[PRmerger]

It is irrelevant to you not to me. Why should I expend time, effort and money in a pursuit to stop something that I believe is highly doubtful?

Well, it’s just amusing to me that you can’t offer a single reason incestuous marriages that are loving can’t be legal.

Not a single reason.

Why should I be concerned with that you think my reasoning is faulty on incest or polygamy?

If one’s reasoning is faulty, one should be verrrry concerned.

That would mean that one is not consonant with reality.

Would you want your adult daughter to live her life believing in Santa Claus? Her reasoning is faulty–she actually believes there’s a jolly old elf who lives in the North Pole and delivers gifts to her on Dec 24. How does she know this? Because she saw Rudolph on TV.

Would you encourage her in this faulty reasoning?

No?

What if it made her happy and good to believe in this fat guy who lives in the North Pole? You still wouldn’t let her continue in her faulty belief?

QED

Then you can see why it’s so very important to have a fully functioning reasoning ability.

 

[frobert]

If one’s reasoning is faulty, one should be verrrry concerned.

Well what do you know. I have a similar impression especially when one continuously assumes she knows better, misinterprets responses and doesn’t pay attention or ignores responses.

 

[frobert]

You are demanding that I support a position that I do not assert. If you want to defend the case for gay incestuous marriage do so. The fact that you cannot defend your case against gay marriage does not mean that I have to defend a strawman of your choosing.

Excellent points. Unfortunately they will be overlooked and disregarded.

And why are catholics so obsessed with homosexual men? Or, for that matter, anal sex?

That’s an easy one. It is not all Catholics. Latest polls show 54-60 percent of Catholics support gay marriage. I am involved with a feeding ministry sponsored at the Catholic church in my community and no one there seem to be obsessed. Certainly not the pastor whom I know fairly well or the sisters that assist there.

 

[frobert]

I didn’t say you were denying anyone anything, just that you were OK with the State doing so. Tell me again why 2 (adult) sisters can’t access the legal framework provided by civil marriage. I cannot tell you how many threads I have seen railing against the civil rights injustice of denying a same sex pair access to the legal rights that Married people could access. And explain why allowing access to these rights might be injurious to their health.led.

The idea that Marriage could and should be extended a bit, but no further, is illogical.

I am aware of the arguments for legalizing incest which do not change the experience of mental health professionals who witness and work with the damaged incest participants. We see it as a tragic and that is why I believe the the state has it right and will keep it that way.

There is no need for me or anyone else to defend civil marriage. Its already a reality. I am sorry that you and others feel offended by it.

If you read my previous posts you will know that I said that for other groups to be included they need to present a convincing case on their own merits. Perhaps you genuinely think incest and polygamy groups can present a convincing case I don’t.

 

[Rau]

I am aware of the arguments for legalizing incest which do not change the experience of mental health professionals who witness and work with the damaged incest participants. We see it as a tragic and that is why I believe the the state has it right and will keep it that way.

There is no need for me or anyone else to defend civil marriage. Its already a reality. I am sorry that you and others feel offended by it.

If you read my previous posts you will know that I said that for other groups to be included they need to present a convincing case on their own merits. Perhaps you genuinely think incest and polygamy groups can present a convincing case I don’t.

I refer you back to post #286. You’ve not responded to most of it.