When this was on the ballot, the majority of the people rejected it - twice in California. People do not like to be forced, so this will not go as planned, legal or not. A handful of judges and politicians are much easier targets than millions of people.
Ed thank you for responding. As noted previously, the removal of homosexuality from the DSM resulted from an activist cohort with a particular agenda. Homosexuality was only a disorder to the extent the person believed it caused him or her problems. Then it was removed completely as I understand. I fully expect “transgender” will be completely scrubbed from the ranks of the DSM as well.
Another bit of irony is that when gay activists are challenged on the slippery slope theory that opening up the term “marriage” to same sex couples renders objections to plural marriage or incest meaningless, they claim that “of COURSE this will not happen” although as you said, it already has happened. Further the complete detachment of the term ‘marriage’ from its natural and unique state means that any couple (or group) can be “married” for any reason whatsoever. Gay activists were apparently outraged when a pair of platonic male friends “married” for the purpose of entering some contest limited to “married” couples (gay or straight). Did they truly think that rendering marriage meaningless would have no consequences?
False. As discussed numerous times before, all sorts of cultures throughout history have had family groupings other that 1 man and 1 woman. Including same sex marriages.
And yet same sex couples, now and throughout history, have had children. With outside help, sure, but why should the state care about that?
But individuals do. And these days they mainly feel disgust towards those they perceive as ‘homophobes’, not homosexuals. So this is a catastrophically bad time for you to be pushing the ‘EWWWWW factor’ as an excuse for legal discrimination.
Have you not read my posts, or are you having trouble understanding them? :ehh:Presumably you are down with incest, polygymy, polyandry, and removing all other impediments to sanctioning a sex life and calling it “marrige.” We must be consistent after all…or is it all relative
So… no evidence, no proof, just more unsupported assertions?
Paternalism in parenting is a huge topic, requiring at least a thread to itself - or even better that you go read a textbook on moral philosophy including a chapter at least on this. Why is this relevant?
I have made the assertion, and you have agreed with it. Indeed, you phrased it as “Well, duh” implying that you felt the assertion to be self evident.That those who survive such relationships often report that they were, in fact, being abused against their will?
But I have yet to provide specific evidence for this claim - although unlike you I have referenced a number of my claims - as you have shown no interest. Despite the title of this thread, so far you seem more interested in attacking gays and their marriages than understanding secular arguments against incest.
In what way do I ‘criticise the existence’ of God, apart from not being convinced of it? How is this relevant? Why push for rights to incestuous marriage if you cannot find any incestuous couples who want to marry?
In any case, the point is that lacking any incestuous couples who want to marry we have no way to evaluate the health of their relationship. So your argument lacks yet another keystone.
Well, it is the only one you have presented so far. If you have another one, maybe you should shift to that?
You don’t see a secular argument, which is a massive lacuna in your education in my opinion. I’ve outlined a couple here already.
In other words it is a personal subjective view you want to impose on society. Yet you would object to others imposing their subjective views on you.
You made a specific, very explicit claim - that homosexual relationships never last long. I provided a concrete, referenced example of a homosexual relationship that has lasted 72 years!. How many counter-examples do you think are required to disprove an unsupported assertion?
That is not a link - you are just ignoring my point that banning same sex marriage imposes a greater burden on far more people than does banning incestuous marriage. For less reason.
“Two or more people coming together to form a new family unit, or the social, legal or religious recognition of that union.”
‘Marriage’ again coming from a term originally coined by the state long before christianity, so if anyone has first dibs on the word it is not you lot!
I have, and you agreed with at least one! Namely that incestuous relationshps tend to be abusive. Is that not a good reason to discriminate against them?
As originally defined, which was done by the state, it is both of those.
You do realise that the Bible was originally written in neither english nor latin, so used neither the word ‘marriage’ nor its root?
Oh I understand you perfectly. I simply disagree with you. Don’t mistake opposing arguments for confusion. You are very clear as to your agenda. The problem with your argument is that you don’t provide any compelling evidence, just your opinion. Toss in a strawman or two, an ad hominem and voila…it must be ME who doesn’t understand. Interesting twisting of the issue but an oft used tactic by gay activists. Hint: we’re on to you and that dog don’t hunt.False. As discussed numerous times before, all sorts of cultures throughout history have had family groupings other that 1 man and 1 woman. Including same sex marriages.
And yet same sex couples, now and throughout history, have had children. With outside help, sure, but why should the state care about that?
But individuals do. And these days they mainly feel disgust towards those they perceive as ‘homophobes’, not homosexuals. So this is a catastrophically bad time for you to be pushing the ‘EWWWWW factor’ as an excuse for legal discrimination.
Have you not read my posts, or are you having trouble understanding them? :ehh:
As I said, a hat tip to your side, your arguments have gained traction with the secular public even as they fail utterly to those who accept the Church and Natural LawI think you are getting close to the reason why you are fighting a losing battle.
Actually I have no interest in others’ sex lives and that’s my objection to gay activism, gay “pride” parades, the demands that this be taught at the grade school level, or the claims that gays/Lesbians receive state sanction for their non-procreative sex lives. It’s the disordered desire to make public their private life, demanding that we not only accept gays/Lesbians’ sex lives but in fact we are to celebrate them and place them on par with Natural Marriage.
Beats me. And it beats me why you are so very much interested in other people’s sex lives as well. You don’t care about bank accounts or chores but you are constantly, and I mean constantly, referring to sex in all your posts.
This shows why you really don’t understand the situation you are finding yourself in. Like the song says, love and marriage go together. To have you write that basing marriage on love is ‘frivolous’ is an eye opener. Here are some synonyms for the word: inane, fatuous, shallow, thoughtless, superficial, non-serious.
The THREAD is about sex and thus the posts reflect it. Were the thread about people demanding public acclaim for their bank account choices perhaps the posts would discuss bank accounts. I suggest if you don’t want to address the topic of the thread or read other on topic posts, find another thread.
The relevance is in that, I assume, you and I both think human sexuality serves a purpose. I want to see where you and I diverge, and if, by any chance it might have some relevance to the topic at hand.
Do not confuse me with Lisa and cena. I’m not attacking same-sex marriage only. In case you haven’t noticed, there’s a lot more discrepancy between modern culture and Catholic teaching than just incest and gay marriage. Gay marriage, and the lack of arguments against incest, are just two manifestations of this among many.… so far you seem more interested in attacking gays and their marriages than understanding secular arguments against incest.
I repeat, again, I’m not. I’m trying to find arguments against such a movement should it ever come up. Even if it never practically does.
If you could please repeat them, clearly and succinctly? I’m sorry, I’m a bit thick.You don’t see a secular argument, which is a massive lacuna in your education in my opinion. I’ve outlined a couple here already.
It may not be true for you. But it’s true for me that, objectively speaking, Christ rose from the dead.
It’s a topic for another thread, Doc.Alright. Because I should know better than to expect you to have common sense, let me rephrase that:
And I could accuse you of refusing to acknowledge the feelings of both presently infatuated incestuous couples and of presently infatuated homosexual couples. In fact, you’re not even considering the feelings of presently-infatuated heterosexual couples. Should two straight people be allowed to marry each other just because they have an emotional and sexual “chemistry”, or attraction?you are just ignoring my point that banning same sex marriage imposes a greater burden on far more people than does banning incestuous marriage. For less reason.
OK. Thank you for the clear, concise answer.
I mean that, now.Al Borland says: I don’t think so, Tim.
Yes, but we have not defined what “abusive” means. We have in some cases, such as the parent forcing itself on a child. And that’s because it does psychological violence to a child, which is bad. But we have not established what that violence is, or whether any other activities that we would otherwise consider acceptable lead to that kind of violence. (For example, is precocious puberty a violence against a child?)I have, and you agreed with at least one! Namely that incestuous relationshps tend to be abusive. Is that not a good reason to discriminate against them?
“Health of their relationship” I don’t know what that means. How do homosexual couples check the health of their relationships?Paternalism in parenting is a huge topic, requiring at least a thread to itself - or even better that you go read a textbook on moral philosophy including a chapter at least on this. Why is this relevant?
I have made the assertion, and you have agreed with it. Indeed, you phrased it as “Well, duh” implying that you felt the assertion to be self evident.
But I have yet to provide specific evidence for this claim - although unlike you I have referenced a number of my claims - as you have shown no interest. Despite the title of this thread, so far you seem more interested in attacking gays and their marriages than understanding secular arguments against incest.
In what way do I ‘criticise the existence’ of God, apart from not being convinced of it? How is this relevant? Why push for rights to incestuous marriage if you cannot find any incestuous couples who want to marry?
In any case, the point is that lacking any incestuous couples who want to marry we have no way to evaluate the health of their relationship. So your argument lacks yet another keystone.
Well, it is the only one you have presented so far. If you have another one, maybe you should shift to that?
You don’t see a secular argument, which is a massive lacuna in your education in my opinion. I’ve outlined a couple here already.
In other words it is a personal subjective view you want to impose on society. Yet you would object to others imposing their subjective views on you.
You made a specific, very explicit claim - that homosexual relationships never last long. I provided a concrete, referenced example of a homosexual relationship that has lasted 72 years!. How many counter-examples do you think are required to disprove an unsupported assertion?
That is not a link - you are just ignoring my point that banning same sex marriage imposes a greater burden on far more people than does banning incestuous marriage. For less reason.
“Two or more people coming together to form a new family unit, or the social, legal or religious recognition of that union.”
‘Marriage’ again coming from a term originally coined by the state long before christianity, so if anyone has first dibs on the word it is not you lot!
I have, and you agreed with at least one! Namely that incestuous relationshps tend to be abusive. Is that not a good reason to discriminate against them?
As originally defined, which was done by the state, it is both of those.
You do realise that the Bible was originally written in neither english nor latin, so used neither the word ‘marriage’ nor its root?
It will still have a unique meaning. Except it won’t be the one that you want. And it won’t be the one that your church recognises (although it will be, as it is now, recognised by a majority of its members).
I agree that love isn’t a shallow reason to get married, but I would say it seems insuficient. What I don’t understand is why everyone is so insistent on getting married. There is no difference between before and after marriage, atleast in the way most people live. They don’t see it as a necessary prerequisite for having kids. It seems like a legal trap to me, in which a man is forced to give up half his wages if things don’t work out (which is the case about half the time).
Little of this is consistent and most of it is irrelevant. You say marriage will be a “lifetime committment between two people.” From your non-religious perspective, that’s just so much baloney. The state doesn’t make any reference to lifetime commitment. Nor does the state require love. Nor does the state require the marriage to be consummated or the parties to be physically able to consummate the marriage… For the state, “marriage” is basically you will share your stuff and support your children (if any). Some states have community property statutes, others do not. But for the state terms like “love” are irrelevant. You simply become one economic unit that lasts until the parties decide otherwise. Apparently you are unaware of the lack of a lifetime bond requirement in state marriages. Nothing about love either. Check your state statutes.
It hasn’t always been the motivation behind a marriage. In times past people got married for other motivations including status, money, to avoid being single, … (and that could be found to occur in the present day too).
I asked the same thing. Depending on one’s position in life it may be advantageous to the two people to get married because of the legal and financial benefits. For some it is disadvantageous to get married. Some have no immediate interest in becoming married but would like to have the unencumbered option should their minds change later. Some have been trained to see marriage as the highest declaration of a commitment that another can make. But not everyone shares this view.
More specifically the higher wage earner may end up with higher financial liability. A previous manager of mine refused to marry her boyfriend because she was still paying alimony to her previous husband.
