Why do those who favor "gay marriage" limit the number to two? What about homosexual incest?

  • Thread starter Thread starter livingwordunity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

livingwordunity

Guest
Heterosexuals marry in pairs because every child is the product of one biological mother and one biological father. Why do those who favor “gay marriage” limit the number to two, or do they? What is their number limit, if any, and by what criteria do they assign this limit? Also, would those who favor “gay marriage” be for or against X number of brothers or X number of sisters in a homosexual incestuous relationship being declared by the state as being “married”? If not, on what moral grounds would they be against this? If you say you are against it because it’s currently against the law, on what moral grounds would you be against someone who wants to change the law to have the state declare 13 homosexually incestuous brothers as all being “married” to each other, for example?
 
livingwordunity said:
Heterosexuals marry in pairs because every child is the product of one biological mother and one biological father. Why do those who favor “gay marriage” limit the number to two, or do they? What is their number limit, if any, and by what criteria do they assign this limit? Also, would those who favor “gay marriage” be for or against X number of brothers or X number of sisters in a homosexual incestuous relationship being declared by the state as being “married”? If not, on what moral grounds would they be against this? If you say you are against it because it’s currently against the law, on what moral grounds would you be against someone who wants to change the law to have the state declare 13 homosexually incestuous brothers as all being “married” to each other, for example?
Click to expand...
This question seems rather irrelevant to anything. I mean, what exactly are you asking? If you are asking if it will be morally wrong of course it will be.
 
dshix said:
This question seems rather irrelevant to anything. I mean, what exactly are you asking? If you are asking if it will be morally wrong of course it will be.
Click to expand...
Read the question again.
 
livingwordunity said:
Heterosexuals marry in pairs because every child is the product of one biological mother and one biological father. Why do those who favor “gay marriage” limit the number to two, or do they? What is their number limit, if any, and by what criteria do they assign this limit?
Click to expand...
The limit is two, because the heterosexual limit is two.
Also, would those who favor “gay marriage” be for or against X number of brothers or X number of sisters in a homosexual incestuous relationship being declared by the state as being “married”? If not, on what moral grounds would they be against this? If you say you are against it because it’s currently against the law, on what moral grounds would you be against someone who wants to change the law to have the state declare 13 homosexually incestuous brothers as all being “married” to each other, for example?
Click to expand...
I have no particular moral argument against incest marriage, or polygamous marriage, or homosexual polygamous incestuous marriage. I have a moral argument against heterosexual incest relationships, but as I never tire of pointing out to people - if you have to reduce an argument against a particular type of marriage to a particular type of sex (that the principles will be having whether they get married or not), then it suggests that you don’t have particularly good argument in the first place.
 
Because incrementalism is the method in political advancement. Asking for unlimited marriages or incest at this juncture probably would not draw much of a following. Homosexual “marriage” for two is a “next step.”

Incidentally, there are small movements with little traction who are in favor of pedophiliac relationships and probably poly-marriages. Future generations may well argue for these once heterosexual “marriages” have been long recognized by the state. I think the trajectory leads to that point.
 
Giants said:
The limit is two, because the heterosexual limit is two.
Click to expand...
Why?
Giants said:
I have no particular moral argument against incest marriage, or polygamous marriage, or homosexual polygamous incestuous marriage. I have a moral argument against heterosexual incest relationships
Click to expand...
What is your moral argument against heterosexual incest relationships? Is it pregnancy? If so, remember that we live in a culture where people choose contraception and abortion. Plus, as the “gay” activists like to point out, there are some heterosexual couples who are sterile.

**Disclaimer: I am not in favor of homosexual behavior, same-sex “marriage”, or incest. **
 
MarcoPolo said:
Because incrementalism is the method in political advancement. Asking for unlimited marriages or incest at this juncture probably would not draw much of a following. Homosexual “marriage” for two is a “next step.”

Incidentally, there are small movements with little traction who are in favor of pedophiliac relationships and probably poly-marriages. Future generations may well argue for these once heterosexual “marriages” have been long recognized by the state. I think the trajectory leads to that point.
Click to expand...
You’ve made a typo there, buddy. You put ‘heterosexual’ instead of ‘homosexual’.

Oh, and I can’t wait for those polygamous unions. I want to marry a herd of goats!
 
Eventually I will not be surprised at all if polygamous homosexual unions are pushed forward, but it doesn’t look like it at the moment.
 
I doubt that anyone who supports same-sex “marriage” will be able to answer all the questions in the OP.
 
livingwordunity said:
Heterosexuals marry in pairs because every child is the product of one biological mother and one biological father. Why do those who favor “gay marriage” limit the number to two, or do they? What is their number limit, if any, and by what criteria do they assign this limit? Also, would those who favor “gay marriage” be for or against X number of brothers or X number of sisters in a homosexual incestuous relationship being declared by the state as being “married”? If not, on what moral grounds would they be against this? If you say you are against it because it’s currently against the law, on what moral grounds would you be against someone who wants to change the law to have the state declare 13 homosexually incestuous brothers as all being “married” to each other, for example?
Click to expand...
As a Gay man I sick to my stomach as to what you wrote and the title of your posting. Its Christmas, a wonderful time of the year and you post this tripe… I (a gay man) will pray for you… your sick…😦
 
fissionu235 said:
As a Gay man I sick to my stomach as to what you wrote and the title of your posting. Its Christmas, a wonderful time of the year and you post this tripe… I (a gay man) will pray for you… your sick…😦
Click to expand...
What? I don’t get it.
 
fissionu235 said:
As a Gay man I sick to my stomach as to what you wrote and the title of your posting. Its Christmas, a wonderful time of the year and you post this tripe… I (a gay man) will pray for you… your sick…😦
Click to expand...
"Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.

A. The personal attack is also often termed an “ad personem argument”: the statement or argument at issue is dropped from consideration or is ignored, and the locutor’s character or circumstances are used to influence opinion.

B. The fallacy draws its appeal from the technique of “getting personal.” The assumption is that what the locutor is saying is entirely or partially dictated by his character or special circumstances and so should be disregarded." Source
 
Perhaps some homosexuals really believe that if they “marry” just one other person, said “marriage” will have more than mere legal equivalency to marriage between one man and one woman. If the “marriage” only involves two homosexuals, this may aid the delusion that their unholy matrimony is morally legitimate.

Of course, the “right” to a piece of paper from the state which says, “you are married” hasn’t been seriously tested yet for arrangements involving more than two people. The primary basis for prohibition of marriage between near relations- that it greatly increases the risk of catastrophic birth defects- obviously doesn’t apply to same sex “marriages.”

Same sex “marriage” can never being more than a legally-sanctioned parody of holy matrimony. We must pray for these lost souls. As Catholics, we are obliged to oppose these arrangements resolutely, but with charity, and should pray for an end to homosexual activity everywhere.
 
livingwordunity said:
Why?
Click to expand...
Why what?
What is your moral argument against heterosexual incest relationships? Is it pregnancy? If so, remember that we live in a culture where people choose contraception and abortion. Plus, as the “gay” activists like to point out, there are some heterosexual couples who are sterile.
Click to expand...
If we can know in advance that the couple won’t ever conceive and carry the child to term, then I wouldn’t care. Obviously, we can’t ever know that.
 
Faithdancer said:
Perhaps some homosexuals really believe that if they “marry” just one other person, said “marriage” will have more than mere legal equivalency to marriage between one man and one woman. If the “marriage” only involves two homosexuals, this may aid the delusion that their unholy matrimony is morally legitimate.
Click to expand...
Most don’t consider homosexuality to be immoral, so I doubt it. Most would probably be comfortable in a relationship with one person. It’d be easier, for a start. I must admit that sometimes the prospect of polygamy sounds attractive, but not very realistic. I can’t imagine any such relationship working out.
Faithdancer said:
Same sex “marriage” can never being more than a legally-sanctioned parody of holy matrimony. We must pray for these lost souls. As Catholics, we are obliged to oppose these arrangements resolutely, but with charity, and should pray for an end to homosexual activity everywhere.
Click to expand...
Oh, right, yeah. Because that’ll happen. :rolleyes:
 
Giants said:
Why what?

If we can know in advance that the couple won’t ever conceive and carry the child to term, then I wouldn’t care. Obviously, we can’t ever know that.
Click to expand...
Glad you realize that. thats why its ok for infertile couples to get married, because we cant ever know for sure. Homosexual couples are intrinsically sterile.
 
It’s really all a matter of time. These things have to be introduced into societies by degrees. In Amsterdam, in the Netherlands (the first country to legalize gay marriage), having sex in the open in public parks is now legal and there is a growing movement pushing to legalize pedophilia. I think we can expect to see similar things happening throughout Europe soon and, if we continue on the path we’ve been travelling for the past several decades, we won’t be far behind. Heck, the ACLU has already made several attempts to legalize child pornography.

Those who think gay marriage is an isolated issue are wearing blinders. It is a “wedge strategy” (to borrow some ID terminology) for moral decadence. The more you divorce marriage (and thus sex) from the family, the easier it is to keep lowering the standards. It’s dark days we’re living in. 😦
 
CrimsonThorn said:
Glad you realize that. thats why its ok for infertile couples to get married, because we cant ever know for sure. Homosexual couples are intrinsically sterile.
Click to expand...
They’re not sterile. They’re just incapable of procreating with each other. Just like octogenarian couples. Yet, what is the Catholic Church’s position on them getting married?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top