The next step after gay marriage

[pensmama87]

It seems, though that polygamous marriages are prone to abusive relationships. The polygamous sects in the western U.S. tend to develop into underage women (girls) being betrothed and married to much older men, with no choice in who or how or when, there’s abuse, etc.

So you could argue from a civil perspective that our practical experience with polygamy is that most of it ( in the U.S.) is bad.

Some people say that’s the entire history of marriage until very recently. So really, we should thank the advent of birth control, no fault divorce, and SSM because those things have saved us from that horrid old imposition of religious folks. (I’ve seen the “marriage as historical institution is about exchange of property, so it’s really good we’re getting away from that” argument a ton over the past few days.)

“Polyamory” is actually very trendy in some circles (swinging or affairs with the approval of the other spouse). I don’t know that it’ll be the “Mormon fundamentalists” who push legal recognition of polygamy so much as these folks, who are already solidly in lefty territory as far as sexual morality goes.

But then again, who knows?

(And maybe the Mormons will be openly polygamist again, since right now in the more mainstream LDS churches it’s just reserved until after death.)

 

[Eddie_Mac]

Marriage has its legal downsides as well. For example, in my state, one is not liable for the debts incurred by his spouse, as a general matter. But there is an exception for “necessities”. Most of the time the “necessity” is a killer medical bill.

Also, any property obtained during the marriage is “marital property” here, and subject to division. Then there is “maintenance”, what used to be called “alimony”.

But, but, who is the "wife?

 

[Eddie_Mac]

Not that I condone, support, or otherwise agree to SSM–but I don’t think pedophilia will be ‘legalized.’ The argument supporting ‘alternative’ lifestyles has always rested on the ideas of consenting adults, and ‘no one gets harmed.’ Neither of those is true with pedophilia.

You underestimate the tenacity of the pedophiles and other individuals who want their form of deviant behavior normalized. It wasn’t that long ago that homosexuality was classified as a mental illness.

Just to give an example of the tenacity of the deviants, in 1930 no mainstream Christian Church accepted abortion. Now look at the non-Catholic denominations. For that meatier look at Catholics too.

Evil knows no boundaries.

 

[jc4751]

The next step is already out there – “fluid sexuality.” For a generation, the gay mafia “party line” has been that “homosexuality is not a choice, but determined by nature.” Now, the exact opposite is being preached, that people are able to determine their own sexuality. Whatever sexual roles and barriers exist are gone, and it seems likely that the age of consent will soon be under attack, because if a seven year old is allowed to choose their gender role, the warped minds who dominate the culture these days will argue they should also be allowed to choose when to become sexually active.

After that, who knows. We’ve really entered a point where the stampede is not to get into the Kingdom of Heaven, but to find the most degenerate party in the Empire of Hell.

 

[Kelfa28]

I don’t think that pedophilia will be next…or anytime close in the future.

I do think that polygamy and/or polyamory will be far more acceptable though.

Just ask around any secular circles you might encounter.

I go to a state school in a very liberal state…one of the most liberal in the country and I’ve had discussion about SSM and polygamy.

While it seems to be universal that the average secularist finds pedophilia abhorrent…they fail to say the same about polygamy or polyamory.

Most will say that they don’t think there is anything wrong with it…it’s just not for them.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

In all this discussion I am baffled by the fact that no one, not even members of the Supreme Court, ever take into consideration that same-sex marriage inevitably is followed by adoption of children. What rights are violated when same-sex marriage partners adopt and deprive their children of the male/female role models that all heterosexual children ought by nature to be allowed for the sake of forming their own sexuality. How many heterosexual children will live and be reared in a confused state of mind about male/female relations because their is neither a primary male or a primary female involved with their upbringing?

Pity the child who is denied the presence of a true mother figure.

Apparently the right of adults are the only rights that count in this sordid world.

 

[Bradski]

In 1998 The American Psychiatric Association issued a report claiming “that the ‘negative potential’ of adult sex with children was ‘overstated’ and that ‘the vast majority of both men and women reported no negative sexual effects from childhood sexual abuse experiences.”

Maybe you should read it to get some context. That is, rather than pull a quote from a quite detailed scientific paper (or rather, cut and paste a quote from other web sites) and expect everyone to assume that it is proposing that there is nothing wrong with CSA.

When you have read it, let me know and we can discuss the last few sentences, which include this comment:

‘…it is also true that lack of harmfulness does not imply lack of wrongfulness’.

In other words, if a scientific study discovers that people who have experienced CSA (and that phrase encompasses both willing as well as unwilling participants) report no negative effects, it doesn’t mean that that, in itself, is justification for whatever took place.

Let me know when you’ve finished reading it…

scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=A+Meta-analytic+Examination+of+Assumed+Properties+of+Child+Sexual+Abuse+Using+College+Samples&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=lVWTVfXmIKOwmAWV5byoAw&ved=0CBoQgQMwAA

 

[Bradski]

In all this discussion I am baffled by the fact that no one, not even members of the Supreme Court, ever take into consideration that same-sex marriage inevitably is followed by adoption of children.

It formed no part of the Court’s decision because they weren’t obliged to consider it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It formed no part of the Court’s decision because they weren’t obliged to consider it.

And is that because children have no rights under the law and judges have no obligation to consider those rights?

All humans are obliged to consider common sense when making judgments.

 

[clem456]

I’d still like an answer to why and how any relationship is considered abusive, or simply “bad”.

Please give us the foundational principles that determine what a relationship should be like.
What are the sources of your moral judgments and boundaries?
And who is it that determines those boundaries?
Is all of this written down irrevocably, or is it up to the individual whim, or to the whim of courts?

Are those boundaries set in stone, or can they change over time with “enlightenment”.

 

[Peebo]

Well…if we can believe many of the statistics that show that the younger generation especially supports same sex marriage…if this is true then the future for the Christian church looks bleak…churches will either have to change their views on SSM ( which is happening now in some)…or for the likes of the Catholic Church face a much smaller less influential church that will possibly be seen by many younger Catholics(and others) as being to rigid…lacking compassion…bigoted…personally I think it’s too late to “shut the gate”…the horse has already bolted…all we can do is pray that God will strengthen us as we face a hostile future for our church and maybe ourselves…in the end we already know that the church will prevail…in what form we don’t know…only that God has already won.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

… we face a hostile future for our church and maybe ourselves…in the end we already know that the church will prevail…in what form we don’t know…only that God has already won.

God has won, and those who merrily ride their way to hell have lost.

Always time to pray the Patriotic Rosary for those who have lost their way.

 

[edwest2]

I’d still like an answer to why and how any relationship is considered abusive, or simply “bad”.

Please give us the foundational principles that determine what a relationship should be like.
What are the sources of your moral judgments and boundaries?
And who is it that determines those boundaries?
Is all of this written down irrevocably, or is it up to the individual whim, or to the whim of courts?

Are those boundaries set in stone, or can they change over time with “enlightenment”.

Worshiping the god Change is the issue. William F. Buckley, Jr. “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”

The Church has spoken about this.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Ed

 

[on_the_hill]

I think it’s interesting that, by and large, while so many people are critical of the almost universally misunderstood doctrine of Papal Infalibility, the American citizen has accepted the doctrine of Judicial Infalibility and granted it to Justice Kennedy.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I’d still like an answer to why and how any relationship is considered abusive, or simply “bad”.

A sexual relationship between two people of the same sex is an abuse of nature.

Please give us the foundational principles that determine what a relationship should be like.
What are the sources of your moral judgments and boundaries?

Morals aside…it is unnatural and abnormal.

And who is it that determines those boundaries?

Mother Nature, of course.

Is all of this written down irrevocably, or is it up to the individual whim, or to the whim of courts?

There is a lot written about this…but it remains simply a law of nature.

Are those boundaries set in stone, or can they change over time with “enlightenment”.

I suppose boundaries could change, but it would take more than “enlightenment”.
Human sexuality would have to evolve to a point where reproduction, as we know it, would become unnecessary.

 

[Eddie_Mac]

I think it’s interesting that, by and large, while so many people are critical of the almost universally misunderstood doctrine of Papal Infalibility, the American citizen has accepted the doctrine of Judicial Infalibility and granted it to Justice Kennedy.

Thank you. May I please borrow this?

 

[clem456]

A sexual relationship between two people of the same sex is an abuse of nature.

Morals aside…it is unnatural and abnormal.

Mother Nature, of course.

There is a lot written about this…but it remains simply a law of nature.

I suppose boundaries could change, but it would take more than “enlightenment”.
Human sexuality would have to evolve to a point where reproduction, as we know it, would become unnecessary.

I was interested in how a redefined marriage advocate answers these questions.
And I’m looking for the nuts and bolts explanation of the reasoning.

These questions were in response to someone discussing abusive relationships.

***Please give us the foundational principles that determine what a relationship should be like.
What are the sources of your moral judgments and boundaries?
And who is it that determines those boundaries?
Is all of this written down irrevocably, or is it up to the individual whim, or to the whim of courts?

Are those boundaries set in stone, or can they change over time with “enlightenment”.***

Curious. I’m sure these things have been well thought out by many people. I’m eager to understand and discuss it,

 

[on_the_hill]

Thank you. May I please borrow this?

“All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their property and possessions and divide them among all according to each one’s need.”

It’s been percolating in my brain for a couple days. Go for it.

 

[on_the_hill]

Morals aside…it is unnatural and abnormal.

Abnormal, yes. Unnatural? I’m not sure. If you had a tribe in the Amazon that never had contact with the outside world, I would be willing to wager that there were occasionally SSA activities.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I was interested in how a redefined marriage advocate answers these questions.
And I’m looking for the nuts and bolts explanation of the reasoning.

These questions were in response to someone discussing abusive relationships.

***Please give us the foundational principles that determine what a relationship should be like.
What are the sources of your moral judgments and boundaries?
And who is it that determines those boundaries?
Is all of this written down irrevocably, or is it up to the individual whim, or to the whim of courts?

Are those boundaries set in stone, or can they change over time with “enlightenment”.***

Curious. I’m sure these things have been well thought out by many people. I’m eager to understand and discuss it,

Sorry, Clem. I misunderstood .