The next step after gay marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter on_the_hill
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Condemning the supreme court is not a productive course of action. I have heard plenty of talk from our bishops about the sanctity of marriage. Our bishops do not rule civil society, they lead the Church.

Everyone wants separation between church and state, and we have it. (to the detriment of all).
The idea that bishops are not to express condemnation of any political action is absurd.

All the more so is condemnation required when the people to be condemned (Catholic Justices) vote for an abomination.

The bishops do not rule the country. But they should be concerned that Catholic votes on the Supreme Court made this abomination possible. Are Catholic Justices supposed to abandon their moral responsibilities because immoral lunatics demand they do so? Are bishops supposed to just shut up when Catholics disgrace themselves?

Didn’t we get enough of that with the pedophilia cover-ups by Catholic bishops?
 
Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t sodomy legalized by the Supreme Court in 2003…isn’t that what has led up to the present situation where we now have same sex marriage…
Im not sure on that, I just saw few days ago, a man in my county was arrested, one of his charges was sodomy, he had some other charges too.
 
Im not sure on that, I just saw few days ago, a man in my county was arrested, one of his charges was sodomy, he had some other charges too.
Forcible sodomy is still illegal, and usually goes hand in hand with rape and other violent sex offenses.
 
Forcible sodomy is still illegal, and usually goes hand in hand with rape and other violent sex offenses.
Youd think they would come up with another term though…to continue to call it sodomy, that is keeping the religious reference/implication, imo,it should really just be called rape and leave it at that, since that is basically what it is.
 
Im not sure on that, I just saw few days ago, a man in my county was arrested, one of his charges was sodomy, he had some other charges too.
What the…? Where on earth do you live? The 1950’s?
 
Youd think they would come up with another term though…to continue to call it sodomy, that is keeping the religious reference/implication, imo,it should really just be called rape and leave it at that, since that is basically what it is.
Indeed; some states–such as the one I currently live in–recently redefined the state statues to clarify the issue.

The problem is that redefining sodomy would mean actually mean taking pre-Lawrence v. Texas sodomy laws off the books. Some people were reluctant to do so, hoping that the homosexual genie would be put back in the bottle, so to speak. With the SSM decision, however, that hope is gone, forever.
 
I WAS WRONG

I originally posted that pedophilia would be the next step after gay marriage…but it looks like the polygamist are making the first move…

krtv.com/story/29450937/m…rriage-license

It seems that I remember a very ardent gay supporter here on the forum assuring me that this would “never happen”. 😉
Certainly, this would seem to be the most likely next cab of the rank. How common are such relationships? If there are no votes in it, don’t expect much legislative response.

Logically, given that the law saw fit to redefine marriage to ignore the sex of the participants, why should it hold to the old idea of there being only 2 participants? I expect those wanting more than 2 participants will find no difficulty in recycling and adapting many of the SSM arguments.
 
Ive been in other similar discussions on this topic in the past, before SSM was passed, Ive always thought legalized pedophilia was going to be a reality here eventually, still do, I did not see polygamy coming first though, that was a bit of a surprise to me, although I do agree the two go hand in hand to some degree, maybe thats why they feel polygamy must go first, then it will allow more time for people to become accepting to more extremes (like pedophilia).
The cause of sexual attraction to young children is not understood and believed to be not “curable”. Wiki tells us that:

“Pedophilia emerges before or during puberty, and is stable over time. It is self-discovered, not chosen. For these reasons, pedophilia has been described as a disorder of sexual preference, phenomenologically similar to a heterosexual or homosexual sexual orientation.These observations, however, do not exclude pedophilia from the group of mental disorders because pedophilic acts cause harm, and pedophiles can sometimes be helped by mental health professionals to refrain from acting on their impulses which cause harm to children…”

“[Studies] suggest that there are one or more neurological characteristics present at birth that cause or increase the likelihood of being pedophilic.”

So, presumably this would open an argument that the condition is “natural” (in the sense that some use that term), and this may be advanced as creating certain rights or at least a certain tolerance.

However, for so long as we hold that children have limited capacity to decide what is good for themselves, it is difficult to see how pedophilia could ever be legalised. It would put at great risk one set of people in order to meet the desires of another. No, I think Pedophilia would seem to be a cross that those who experience it are really just going to have to bear.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#Causes
 
Maybe there will be a move to drop the age whereby you can marry (and hence have sex) year by year.

So what do you think, personally, that age should be? We can then compare that to various religions and see how it all stacks up. Or maybe you think it should depend on the maturity of the person in question. In which case…who decides on the difference between an imature eighteen year old and a very mature fourteen year old?
With a view to adopting a cautious position, probably not the fourteen year old!

The Catholic Church takes no view on what is a proper age for marriage - it does have a universal lower limit (14/girls & 16/boys) under which it holds the marriage (if involving a Catholic) to be invalid/null. Nearly all national Bishops’ conferences set a higher minimum than these.
 
The cause of sexual attraction to young children is not understood and believed to be not “curable”. Wiki tells us that:

“Pedophilia emerges before or during puberty, and is stable over time. It is self-discovered, not chosen. For these reasons, pedophilia has been described as a disorder of sexual preference, phenomenologically similar to a heterosexual or homosexual sexual orientation.These observations, however, do not exclude pedophilia from the group of mental disorders because pedophilic acts cause harm, and pedophiles can sometimes be helped by mental health professionals to refrain from acting on their impulses which cause harm to children…”

“[Studies] suggest that there are one or more neurological characteristics present at birth that cause or increase the likelihood of being pedophilic.”

So, presumably this would open an argument that the condition is “natural” (in the sense that some use that term), and this may be advanced as creating certain rights or at least a certain tolerance.

However, for so long as we hold that children have limited capacity to decide what is good for themselves, it is difficult to see how pedophilia could ever be legalised. It would put at great risk one set of people in order to meet the desires of another. No, I think Pedophilia would seem to be a cross that those who experience it are really just going to have to bear.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#Causes
Yes, but you have to keep in mind, we are living in a world where the ‘instant gratification’ lifestyle is encouraged and even celebrated, especially when it comes to sex, people are encouraged to do whatever feels good to them, and if they feel a certain way, its all perfectly normal and fine, plus Satan is ruling over all this right now, so I highly doubt he will let morals get in the way of the type of world he wants, he will find some way to make people feel its all well and good, should be accepted, basically he is trying to push people towards more and more extreme sins, in doing so, he wants them to view it as normal, nothing to be concerned about, after all, Im only doing what feels good to me, why should anyone else try to tell me what I should and should not do to feel good… That is how satan works.
 
Slippery slope arguments about the “danger” of gay marriage just make me laugh. The last few pages of this thread have been marvellously entertaining and I’m very glad for that. Thank you.

All social life takes place on a slippery slope.

Once we have banned walking across the street when a red man or the DON’T WALK sign is lit, what is there to prevent the state from imprisoning all pedestrians?

When we have a speed limit for cars, what is to prevent us from also enforcing a rule of absolute stasis for every Toyota?

Nothing whatsoever.

Except, of course, one thing. All that protects us from any descent down the slippery slope is common sense and the experience of mankind.

A law lowering the drinking age to 18 or 16 would not mean that some day soon all babies will have bourbon in their bottles.

And marriage equality for homosexual couples no more implies polygamy and bestiality and incest or some guy marrying his piano, than does a law against breaking and entering implies the abolition of windows and doors.

The Supreme Court blesses gay marriage now, in any case, because it was already blessed by our entertainments, and more importantly by its own peaceful existence.

Manners are what make laws, and manners alone can repeal them.
 
…[SSM] no more implies polygamy and bestiality and incest or some guy marrying his piano, than does a law against breaking and entering implies the abolition of windows and doors.

The Supreme Court blesses gay marriage now, in any case, because it was already blessed by our entertainments, and more importantly by its own peaceful existence.
I don’t disagree. But slippery slope is not what’s being argued. What is being observed is that the hurdle involved in deeming that the sex of the parties to the sexual institution of marriage does not “matter” is a far higher hurdle than that involved in extending marriage to incorporate, say, polygamy. Therefore, given that there are polygamists desiring marriage, isn’t it reasonable to anticipate a serious call for polygamous marriage in due course? And, other than lack of votes in the issue, what would be the reason to deny 3-way love relationships the dignity of marriage?
 
I don’t disagree. But slippery slope is not what’s being argued. What is being observed is that the hurdle involved in deeming that the sex of the parties to the sexual institution of marriage does not “matter” is a far higher hurdle than that involved in extending marriage to incorporate, say, polygamy. Therefore, given that there are polygamists desiring marriage, isn’t it reasonable to anticipate a serious call for polygamous marriage in due course? And, other than lack of votes in the issue, what would be the reason to deny 3-way love relationships the dignity of marriage?
Personally I don’t think there is one, although I hope that inheritance/family law/etc is sorted out to accommodate a polygamous marriage before it’s made legal. As it’s consenting, and rightly or wrongly the customary definition of marriage as one man & one woman has gone out the window (legally), there’s no real grounds for denying polygamy any more, in time. (As I said, manners make laws, and if there’s a sufficient demand for it, the law will change accordingly, because it can’t harm anyone - even if you and I and others may think it extraordinarily ill-advised).

This isn’t the same with incest, bestiality, etc, because issues of harm (to any offspring in the former case, as no contraception is actually 100% effective, regardless of the morality of using it), and consent (in the latter case); ditto laws about child-marriage
 
the next step after gay marriage…
Fresh off the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage, Democrats in California have introduced a bill that would ban the words “husband” and “wife” from being used in federal law because they are “gendered terms” and discriminate against gay people.
 
the next step after gay marriage.

"
Fresh off the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage, Democrats in California have introduced a bill that would ban the words “husband” and “wife” from being used in federal law because they are “gendered terms” and discriminate against gay people."
Well that’s a logical extension isn’t it! The law can’t, in one place, bake in an expectation that marriage is with the opposite sex when elsewhere it declares sex does not matter!
 
Well that’s a logical extension isn’t it! The law can’t, in one place, bake in an expectation that marriage is with the opposite sex when elsewhere it declares sex does not matter!
But what about all the existing husbands and wives??? Why should their status change?
I like being a husband and many young men aspire to be husbands…rather than mere “spouses”.
 
But what about all the existing husbands and wives??? Why should their status change?
I like being a husband and many young men aspire to be husbands…rather than mere “spouses”.
Exactly so. Being a husband is a calling. I always desired to be the best husband possible to my wife. Being a “spouse” is sort of like referring to pineapple upside down cake as a “foodstuff.”
 
But what about all the existing husbands and wives??? Why should their status change?
I like being a husband and many young men aspire to be husbands…rather than mere “spouses”.
Yep, an understandable personal sentiment. But the State has determined that things are now otherwise!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top