Why I think most people who accepts homosexuality are hypocrites

[Corki]

Houguy, you are my hero. I completely, 100% agree with you. These homophobic threads that keep popping up here are base and dehumanizing. I see very little in the way of Christian charity.

I rarely see a post, let alone a whole thread on CAF that is homophobic. It isn’t homophobic to disagree with a homosexual lifestyle, to agree with Church teaching that homosexuality is disordered or to defend marriage as only between one man and one woman.

I live my life by two commandments: Love the lord your God will all of your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself, as dictated by Christ.

Part of loving your neighbor is to be willing to charitably point out sin and to teach, with charity, about areas where he/she is misinformed or misguided.

 

[John21652]

My regrets if I’m off base on this reply; I may not have followed you as well as I would’ve liked. If I understand your point of if a person is willing to accept homosexuality, they should also be willing to accept other forms of sexual relashionships ?

Yeah, If that’s what you were getting after, I agree with you completely in regards to acceptance of others. There’s a quote I try to remind myself of “different strokes, for different folks.” … Everyone is different, and what is good for you, may be contrary to another. Basically if you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything atall… I aree with you there

That’s probably my single biggest complaint about this forum site as a whole… People sometimes forget that just because their opinion matters to them, doesn’t necessarilly mean it is worthwhile to others. And sometimes our thoughts are better left off of the paper. (My own included ! )

I take it you know how to differentiate between an opinion and objectively arrived at moral considerations? Right?

There are folks who come onto CAF who wouldn’t know a moral edict if it fell out of the sky and hit them on the head. Are you one of those?

I ask, because a whole lot of posters on CAF are actually giving out the reasons the catholic Church makes the stand it does on moral, issues. In other words, a whole lot of what you might be taking as ‘personal opinion’ is actually Church doctrine. Of course, being a good Catholic boy, you come here to soak it all up. Right?

So, when the Church says homosexuality is wrong and that it represents a disordered use of human sexuality, being a good Catholic boy, who is here for all the right reasons, you soak it all up. Right?

 

[Conor7]

Why I think most people who don’t accept homosexuality are hypocrites.

1. You acknowledge that Christ is the new covenant and can now each shrimp and ham, and women who are menstruating are no longer unclean, but homosexuals need not apply - you’re still filthy.
2. You stringently adhere to a couple words in Romans to thinly veil your bigotry, despite the fact that this particular verse in Romans is extremely suspect.

Exhibit A: Discovery: Apostle Paul accepted Christian homosexuals

 

[Nate13]

From catholic.com/tracts/early-teachings-on-homosexuality

Some argue that neither the Bible nor apostolic tradition condemns the practice of homosexuality. Passages such as Leviticus 18:22–30, Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and Jude 7 serve as ample proof that Scripture indeed condemns homosexuality. Below is ample proof from tradition. The Fathers are especially harsh against the practice of pederasty, the homosexual corruption of boys by men.

The Didache

“You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill one that has been born” (Didache 2:2 [A.D. 70]).

Justin Martyr

“[W]e have been taught that to expose newly-born children is the part of wicked men; and this we have been taught lest we should do anyone harm and lest we should sin against God, first, because we see that almost all so exposed (not only the girls, but also the males) are brought up to prostitution. And for this pollution a multitude of females and hermaphrodites, and those who commit unmentionable iniquities, are found in every nation. And you receive the hire of these, and duty and taxes from them, whom you ought to exterminate from your realm. And anyone who uses such persons, besides the godless and infamous and impure intercourse, may possibly be having intercourse with his own child, or relative, or brother. And there are some who prostitute even their own children and wives, and some are openly mutilated for the purpose of sodomy; and they refer these mysteries to the mother of the gods” (First Apology 27 [A.D. 151]).

Clement of Alexandria

“All honor to that king of the Scythians, whoever Anacharsis was, who shot with an arrow one of his subjects who imitated among the Scythians the mystery of the mother of the gods . . . condemning him as having become effeminate among the Greeks, and a teacher of the disease of effeminacy to the rest of the Scythians” (Exhortation to the Greeks 2 [A.D. 190]).

“[According to Greek myth] Baubo [a female native of Eleusis] having received [the goddess] Demeter hospitably, reached to her a refreshing draught; and on her refusing it, not having any inclination to drink (for she was very sad), and Baubo having become annoyed, thinking herself slighted, uncovered her shame, and exhibited her nudity to the goddess. Demeter is delighted with the sight—pleased, I repeat, at the spectacle. These are the secret mysteries of the Athenians; these Orpheus records” (ibid.).

“It is not, then, without reason that the poets call him [Hercules] a cruel wretch and a nefarious scoundrel. It were tedious to recount his adulteries of all sorts, and debauching of boys. For your gods did not even abstain from boys, one having loved Hylas, another Hyacinthus, another Pelops, another Chrysippus, another Ganymede. Let such gods as these be worshipped by your wives, and let them pray that their husbands be such as these—so temperate; that, emulating them in the same practices, they may be like the gods. Such gods let your boys be trained to worship, that they may grow up to be men with the accursed likeness of fornication on them received from the gods” (ibid.).

…

“In accordance with these remarks, conversation about deeds of wickedness is appropriately termed filthy [shameful] speaking, as talk about adultery and pederasty and the like” (The Instructor6, ca. A.D. 193).

“The fate of the Sodomites was judgment to those who had done wrong, instruction to those who hear. The Sodomites having, through much luxury, fallen into uncleanness, practicing adultery shamelessly, and burning with insane love for boys; the All-seeing Word, whose notice those who commit impieties cannot escape, cast his eye on them. Nor did the sleepless guard of humanity observe their licentiousness in silence; but dissuading us from the imitation of them, and training us up to his own temperance, and falling on some sinners, lest lust being unavenged, should break loose from all the restraints of fear, ordered Sodom to be burned,
pouring forth a little of the sagacious fire on licentiousness; lest lust, through want of punishment, should throw wide the gates to those that were rushing into voluptuousness. Accordingly, the just punishment of the Sodomites became to men an image of the salvation which is well calculated for men. For those who have not committed like sins with those who are punished, will never receive a like punishment” (ibid., 8).

Tertullian

“[A]ll other frenzies of the lusts which exceed the laws of nature, and are impious toward both [human] bodies and the sexes, we banish, not only from the threshold but also from all shelter of the Church, for they are not sins so much as monstrosities” (Modesty 4 [A.D. 220]).

 

[Nate13]

Novatian

“[God forbade the Jews to eat certain foods for symbolic reasons:] For that in fishes the roughness of scales is regarded as constituting their cleanness; rough, and rugged, and unpolished, and substantial, and grave manners are approved in men; while those that are without scales are unclean, because trifling, and fickle, and faithless, and effeminate manners are disapproved. Moreover, what does the law mean when it . . . forbids the swine to be taken for food? It assuredly reproves a life filthy and dirty, and delighting in the garbage of vice. . . . Or when it forbids the hare? It rebukes men deformed into women” (The Jewish Foods 3 [A.D. 250]).

Cyprian of Carthage

“[T]urn your looks to the abominations, not less to be deplored, of another kind of spectacle. . . . Men are emasculated, and all the pride and vigor of their sex is effeminated in the disgrace of their enervated body; and he is more pleasing there who has most completely broken down the man into the woman. He grows into praise by virtue of his crime; and the more he is degraded, the more skillful he is considered to be. Such a one is looked upon—oh shame!—and looked upon with pleasure. . . . Nor is there wanting authority for the enticing abomination . . . that Jupiter of theirs [is] not more supreme in dominion than in vice, inflamed with earthly love in the midst of his own thunders . . . now breaking forth by the help of birds to violate the purity of boys. And now put the question: Can he who looks upon such things be healthy-minded or modest? Men imitate the gods whom they adore, and to such miserable beings their crimes become their religion” (Letters 1:8 [A.D. 253]).

“Oh, if placed on that lofty watchtower, you could gaze into the secret places—if you could open the closed doors of sleeping chambers and recall their dark recesses to the perception of sight—you would behold things done by immodest persons which no chaste eye could look upon; you would see what even to see is a crime; you would see what people embruted with the madness of vice deny that they have done, and yet hasten to do—men with frenzied lusts rushing upon men, doing things which afford no gratification even to those who do them” (ibid., 1:9).

Arnobius

“[T]he mother of the gods loved [the boy Attis] exceedingly, because he was of most surpassing beauty; and Acdestis [the son of Jupiter] who was his companion, as he grew up fondling him, and bound to him by wicked compliance with his lust. . . . Afterwards, under the influence of wine, he [Attis] admits that he is . . . loved by Acdestis. . . . Then Midas, king of Pessinus, wishing to withdraw the youth from so disgraceful an intimacy, resolves to give him his own daughter in marriage. . . . Acdestis, bursting with rage because of the boy’s being torn from himself and brought to seek a wife, fills all the guests with frenzied madness; the Phrygians shriek, panic-stricken at the appearance of the gods. . . . [Attis] too, now filled with furious passion, raving frantically and tossed about, throws himself down at last, and under a pine tree mutilates himself, saying, ‘Take these, Acdestis, for which you have stirred up so great and terribly perilous commotions’” (Against the Pagans 5:6–7 [A.D. 305]).

Eusebius of Caesarea

“[H]aving forbidden all unlawful marriage, and all unseemly practice, and the union of women with women and men with men, he [God] adds: ‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for in all these things the nations were defiled, which I will drive out before you. And the land was polluted, and I have recompensed [their] iniquity upon it, and the land is grieved with them that dwell upon it’ [Lev. 18:24–25]” (Proof of the Gospel 4:10 [A.D. 319]).

Basil the Great

“He who is guilty of unseemliness with males will be under discipline for the same time as adulterers” (Letters 217:62 [A.D. 367]).

“If you [O, monk] are young in either body or mind, shun the companionship of other young men and avoid them as you would a flame. For through them the enemy has kindled the desires of many and then handed them over to eternal fire, hurling them into the vile pit of the five cities under the pretense of spiritual love. . . . At meals take a seat far from other young men. In lying down to sleep let not their clothes be near yours, but rather have an old man between you. When a young man converses with you, or sings psalms facing you, answer him with eyes cast down, lest perhaps by gazing at his face you receive a seed of desire sown by the enemy and reap sheaves of corruption and ruin. Whether in the house or in a place where there is no one to see your actions, be not found in his company under the pretense either of studying the divine oracles or of any other business whatsoever, however necessary” (The Renunciation of the World [A.D. 373]).

 

[Nate13]

John Chrysostom

“[The pagans] were addicted to the love of boys, and one of their wise men made a law that pederasty . . . should not be allowed to slaves, as if it was an honorable thing; and they had houses for this purpose, in which it was openly practiced. And if all that was done among them was related, it would be seen that they openly outraged nature, and there was none to restrain them. . . . As for their passion for boys, whom they called their paedica, it is not fit to be named” (Homilies on Titus 5 [A.D. 390]).

“[Certain men in church] come in gazing about at the beauty of women; others curious about the blooming youth of boys. After this, do you not marvel that [lightning] bolts are not launched [from heaven], and all these things are not plucked up from their foundations? For worthy both of thunderbolts and hell are the things that are done; but God, who is long-suffering, and of great mercy, forbears awhile his wrath, calling you to repentance and amendment” (Homilies on Matthew 3:3 [A.D. 391]).

“All of these affections [in Rom. 1:26–27] . . . were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males; for the soul is more the sufferer in sins, and more dishonored than the body in diseases” (Homilies on Romans 4 [A.D. 391]).

“[The men] have done an insult to nature itself. And a yet more disgraceful thing than these is it, when even the women seek after these intercourses, who ought to have more shame than men” (ibid.).

“And sundry other books of the philosophers one may see full of this disease. But we do not therefore say that the thing was made lawful, but that they who received this law were pitiable, and objects for many tears. For these are treated in the same way as women that play the whore. Or rather their plight is more miserable. For in the case of the one the intercourse, even if lawless, is yet according to nature; but this is contrary both to law and nature. For even if there were no hell, and no punishment had been threatened, this would be worse than any punishment” (ibid.).

Augustine

“[T]hose shameful acts against nature, such as were committed in Sodom, ought everywhere and always to be detested and punished. If all nations were to do such things, they would be held guilty of the same crime by the law of God, which has not made men so that they should use one another in this way” (Confessions 3:8:15 [A.D. 400]).

The Apostolic Constitutions

“[Christians] abhor all unlawful mixtures, and that which is practiced by some contrary to nature, as wicked and impious” (Apostolic Constitutions 6:11 [A.D. 400]).

 

[Corki]

Why I think most people who don’t accept homosexuality are hypocrites.

1. You acknowledge that Christ is the new covenant and can now each shrimp and ham, and women who are menstruating are no longer unclean, but homosexuals need not apply - you’re still filthy.

You need to study little bit about the differences between discipline and doctrine. OT rules about everyday behavior have nothing to do with the constant teaching about marriage.

2

. You stringently adhere to a couple words in Romans to thinly veil your bigotry, despite the fact that this particular verse in Romans is extremely suspect.

Exhibit A: Discovery: Apostle Paul accepted Christian homosexuals

That link was hysterical. It this some knock-off of the Onion?

 

[Conor7]

That link was hysterical. It this some knock-off of the Onion?

You win and I quit. I sincerely don’t understand the cheap shots. You already have the home-field advantage and there 75 of you to every 1 of us.

I try my best to ensure that I am always respectful when I post something, but am rarely afforded the same courtesy in return. I don’t understand why a disagreement has to turn to condescension. I know this is not characteristic of all Catholics, but it certainly seems so at times on this forum.

God bless you.

 

[Corki]

You win and I quit. I sincerely don’t understand the cheap shots. You already have the home-field advantage and there 75 of you to every 1 of us.

I try my best to ensure that I am always respectful when I post something, but am rarely afforded the same courtesy in return. I don’t understand why a disagreement has to turn to condescension. I know this is not characteristic of all Catholics, but it certainly seems so at times on this forum.

God bless you.

I wasn’t taking a shot. Who is the “us” and “you” here? I really thought you posted that link as a tongue-in-cheek addition to this thread. The comments in the link after the article further convinced me that it wasn’t meant to be taken seriously. If you meant it seriously, I apologize.

 

[Dawnia]

Why I think most people who don’t accept homosexuality are hypocrites.

1. You acknowledge that Christ is the new covenant and can now each shrimp and ham, and women who are menstruating are no longer unclean, but homosexuals need not apply - you’re still filthy.
2. You stringently adhere to a couple words in Romans to thinly veil your bigotry, despite the fact that this particular verse in Romans is extremely suspect.

Exhibit A: Discovery: Apostle Paul accepted Christian homosexuals

That’s all you have? In all of human history, with its vast array of cultures and religions, nearly all of which have not accepted homosexuality, that is the best you can come up with as “proof” that everyone against homosexuality is a hypocrite?

 

[John21652]

I rarely see a post, let alone a whole thread on CAF that is homophobic. It isn’t homophobic to disagree with a homosexual lifestyle, to agree with Church teaching that homosexuality is disordered or to defend marriage as only between one man and one woman.

Well stated Corki.

The term “homophobic” is an epithet the pro-gay groups have been throwing around for a long time now, directing it at anyone who so much as voices an opinion that is against the homosexual lifestyle. That’s all it is, really, an apithet that has been done to death and which has virtually lost all its meaning. That is, if it ever had any meaning. After all, its use assumes that anyone who voices an opinion against the gay lifestyle is frightened of homosexuality. That assumption, in the main, is frightfully wrong.
Although, I must admit, I do fear for the long term damage that will be done to society if the gay protagonists achieve their aim of normalising that which has been considered as abnormal for millenia.

 

[Conor7]

I wasn’t taking a shot. Who is the “us” and “you” here? I really thought you posted that link as a tongue-in-cheek addition to this thread. The comments in the link after the article further convinced me that it wasn’t meant to be taken seriously. If you meant it seriously, I apologize.

What I mean by “us” and “you” is non-Catholics and Catholics, dissenters and proponents. Look, perhaps the link was no good, but it is a press release regarding a recently released book proposing alternative interpretation to Paul’s writings.

Am I being overly-sensitive? Probably. But instead of being lambasted, I wish once someone would reply, “that’s interesting, I haven’t thought of it that way.” Sure, occasionally I get some words of encouragement, but those posters are typically flagged and banned within a few days. I think I’ve lasted this long because I make a cognizant effort to remain kind and respectful as much as I can. It’s saddening and lonely. It feels a little like a mob mentality.

As for:

That’s all you have? In all of human history, with its vast array of cultures and religions, nearly all of which have not accepted homosexuality, that is the best you can come up with as “proof” that everyone against homosexuality is a hypocrite?

Yes, that’s all I got. High-fives all around. I can’t argue with all of you - you’ve got me cornered and you can have your forum and your religion all to yourselves again.

 

[John21652]

From here -

Sources of pro homosexual interpretations are abundant…The revisionist scholar who is primarily noted for first (1955) advancing their novel view was the Anglican priest Derrick Sherwin Bailey. In addition to him, perhaps the basic primary source for most of the main pro-homosexual arguments represented here is John Eastburn Boswell. Born in Boston in 1947, and educated at Harvard, he was later made a full professor at Yale, where he founded the Lesbian and Gay Studies Center. Described as a devout Roman Catholic, Boswell was yet an openly announced homosexual. He wrote a number of books seeking to negate Biblical injunctions against homosexuality and to justify it. One of his last books was, “Dante and the Sodomites” (1994). After that Boswell died of complications from AIDS on December 24, 1994, at age 47.

All rather ironic, one tends to think!

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

From here -

All rather ironic, one tends to think!

Perhaps it was something about Boswell going to Mass every day, I think the two best rebuttals to Boswell’s book are Robin Darling’s review and Alan Bray’s book The Friend

 

[John21652]

Perhaps it was something about Boswell going to Mass every day, I think the two best rebuttals to Boswell’s book are Robin Darling’s review and Alan Bray’s book The Friend

Well, Dakota, that link you gave does indeed provide a withering refutation of Boswell’s claims.

I particularly liked these points -

And Boswell’s insouciance about historical accuracy would be unacceptable in an undergraduate paper…Professor Boswell has set out to create a usable past.

 

[Andromedus]

My regrets if I’m off base on this reply; I may not have followed you as well as I would’ve liked. If I understand your point of if a person is willing to accept homosexuality, they should also be willing to accept other forms of sexual relashionships ?

You are kind of right. What I meant was that if a person thinks that a homosexual relationship is ok then there is no reason to not accept an incestuous relationship either. A common thing to say is that if two adults love each other and both are willing to have a relationship then you have no right to say something about. But I think that most people don’t realize that the same thing could be said about an incestuous relationship which you can defend in the same manner as people usually defend a homosexual one. No one is hurt by it and so on and if they make a different judgment on a incestuous relationship then they are not consistent in their thinking and its obvious that they are not as enlightened as they think they are.

I assume you only mean consensual incest? Which is often not the case.

I think the problem with allowing even consensual incest (apart from a general feeling of disgust I have of it…) is that it cannot be easily regulated. If incest were allowed, then it would be easy for parents to sexually groom their children.

Families live together and your relatives are considered appropriate adults to be around you as a kid, and what’s more, safe adults. If incest were allowed, there would not be that non-sexual, unconditionally loving safe base within the family. Everything would break down.

I don’t think the same can be said about homosexuality because the only difference between it and accepted heterosexual relationships is gender. I understand why Catholicism rejects homosexuality, but I don’t think it would cause the same societal breakdown and potential for abuse as allowing incest.

Yes, consensual, if it was not you could equate it with rape which is worse since you are using violence and you hurt another human being both physically and psychologically. And most people would probably not think it to be alright if a man rapes another man, even if they accepts homosexuality.

But why would it not still be there? Thats just an assumption, in ancient Egypt they actually used incest as a way to make society stable. Well, perhaps only up high in the hierarchy but still, don’t you think that you are reacting the way you do because of your cultural background?

My non-hypocritical response:

I support gay marriage and so you would likely ask: Where do you draw the line? Polygamy? Incest? Animal-human marriage? These tend to be the normal questions.

The fact is, I have no problem with two consenting adults who love each other getting married. No matter which side you fall on this debate, nearly everyone can see the logic behind this. Sure there are opponents of same-sex marriage, but these opponents understand why supporters of gay marriage feel they way they do. So no problem there - we agree to disagree, but we have an understanding.

As for polygamy, I don’t have much of a problem with this either. The things is, were polygamy to become legal, polygamists are so-far-and-few-between that the average person is extremely unlikely to meet any. The difference between gay marriage and polygamy is that homosexuals make up a large minority in this country. Who doesn’t know a gay couple? Additionally. the majority of polygamists practice plural marriage on the basis of religiosity. Freedom of religion in this great country of ours is A-OK with me.

Admittedly, incest has a major creep factor. But, essentially the creep factor and the confusing familial relationships incest creates is why it is illegal. Siblings are not that much more likely than unrelated couples to have a baby born with birth defects. Sure the rates increase as each generation continues to couple with their siblings, but how many of us know a child of 10 generations of incest? Perhaps we’ll just let gay brothers marry and we won’t worry about deformed children.

Finally animal-human relationships. Well, animals are not consenting adults - case closed.

Fair enough?

I did not say anything about polygamy or zoophilia though. While I suppose you could argue for why polygamy should be accepted it is different with zoophilia, as you said, animals are not consenting adults. And if they are, how are you supposed to prove it? Except if a parrot or a turtle tries to rape you of course, but then you are not consenting so that would not the be same either.

However, should I take this as you don’t have anything against incest and that it should be legal?

 

[Andromedus]

Equating it with incest is the opinion ONLY of the original poster, and not within Church teachings. The Church does not work this way.

The letter to the Bishops cautions us against making assumptions of this kind as they are demeaning. The letter also cautions against those with agendas who promote the lifestyle or practice within the Church. But that does not negate the fact that the argument was an unfounded comparison. I found it offensive to compare it with incest.

I won’t speak for the poster with whom you disagree, but that was what bothered me about the argument. The only thing that matters is what the Church teaches.

Well, I would say that you found it offensive because of the cultural context you live in, and I understands that, I kind of feels the same. Sure, for us Catholics its true what you say about what the Church teaches but non-Catholics don’t care about that. But for people outside the Church, and perhaps people in her but disagree, I would like to know why they think that incest is not morally acceptable if homosexuality is, of course only if its between two consenting adults. About homosexuality they would say that it is two adults who love each other and no one is hurt by their actions and therefore it is ok. The thing is, the same could be said about people in incestuous relationships. But still they only accepts the former of those two relationships. And I don’t think that they have any reasons for this, the former one just feels better for them. I am just speculating and therefore if someone thinks that I am wrong I would like to hear why and perhaps I should not have used the word ‘‘hypocrite’’, its a bit harsh.

Well, it certainly is the case that when you separate marriage from its procreative context, there is no real reason to prohibit any other sexual obscenity or perversion. This is why the widespread acceptance of contraception precipitated an unprecedented collapse in sexual morality. So even though the acts themselves are qualitatively different, they certainly can be said to share a metaphysical common ground.

Well, if someone thinks that homosexuality should be accepted you can actually exclude necrophilia, zoophilia, pedophilia unt so weiter. But I don’t think you actually can do the same with incest as long as it is consensual between two adults, it is practically the same thing. And if someone brings up the inbreeding thing, then lets say that one of them is infertile or they are of the same sex. If they think I am wrong then I would like to hear why.

 

[Conor7]

I did not say anything about polygamy or zoophilia though. While I suppose you could argue for why polygamy should be accepted it is different with zoophilia, as you said, animals are not consenting adults. And if they are, how are you supposed to prove it? Except if a parrot or a turtle tries to rape you of course, but then you are not consenting so that would not the be same either.

However, should I take this as you don’t have anything against incest and that it should be legal?

I realize you didn’t mention polygamy or zoophilia, (thanks for using that word, I was trying to think of it last night) but that tends to be the natural progression of conversations like this.

Yes, I have issues with incest, but when I ask myself why, the only real answer I can give myself is because it’s creepy. That hardly seems like a logical argument to outlaw something. As I wrote before, it’s illegal because we as a society are grossed out by it and it blurs familial relationships. Step-siblings partnering blurs familial relationships.

To my knowledge, there is nothing biblical citing incest. Admittedly, I’m not well-versed on biblical references on such relationships. Hopefully someone who knows better than I will give their (name removed by moderator)ut.

So in short, because I think it’s creepy is not a solid reason to make something illegal. Do you think the instances of siblings coupling is so frequent that we need concern ourselves with it?

 

[Andromedus]

I realize you didn’t mention polygamy or zoophilia, (thanks for using that word, I was trying to think of it last night) but that tends to be the natural progression of conversations like this.

Yes, I have issues with incest, but when I ask myself why, the only real answer I can give myself is because it’s creepy. That hardly seems like a logical argument to outlaw something. As I wrote before, it’s illegal because we as a society are grossed out by it and it blurs familial relationships. Step-siblings partnering blurs familial relationships.

To my knowledge, there is nothing biblical citing incest. Admittedly, I’m not well-versed on biblical references on such relationships. Hopefully someone who knows better than I will give their (name removed by moderator)ut.

So in short, because I think it’s creepy is not a solid reason to make something illegal. Do you think the instances of siblings coupling is so frequent that we need concern ourselves with it?

It is prohibited in the Bible, but they don’t use the word but it gives some examples that are forbidden, like, father-daughter relationships etc. And no, we probably don’t need to feel so concerned about it, it is probably very uncommon for relationships like this one to exist.

They mention it in chapter 15 in Leviticus, and it seems I was wrong, in my English Bible they use the word incest. The subject of incest is also touched in the Book of Genesis when Lot sleeps with his daughters and it is probably mentioned elsewhere to.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Well, Dakota, that link you gave does indeed provide a withering refutation of Boswell’s claims.

I particularly liked these points -

Robin Darling Young’s review rips Boswell apart and Alan Bray’s The Friend illustrates what Boswell actually found, great book if you have the time to read it. (IIRC it’s around four hundred pages, but around a quarter is his bibliography).

Well, I would say that you found it offensive because of the cultural context you live in, and I understands that, I kind of feels the same. Sure, for us Catholics its true what you say about what the Church teaches but non-Catholics don’t care about that. But for people outside the Church, and perhaps people in her but disagree, I would like to know why they think that incest is not morally acceptable if homosexuality is, of course only if its between two consenting adults. About homosexuality they would say that it is two adults who love each other and no one is hurt by their actions and therefore it is ok. The thing is, the same could be said about people in incestuous relationships. But still they only accepts the former of those two relationships. And I don’t think that they have any reasons for this, the former one just feels better for them. I am just speculating and therefore if someone thinks that I am wrong I would like to hear why and perhaps I should not have used the word ‘‘hypocrite’’, its a bit harsh.

Well, if someone thinks that homosexuality should be accepted you can actually exclude necrophilia, zoophilia, pedophilia unt so weiter. But I don’t think you actually can do the same with incest as long as it is consensual between two adults, it is practically the same thing. And if someone brings up the inbreeding thing, then lets say that one of them is infertile or they are of the same sex. If they think I am wrong then I would like to hear why.

The mind actually imprints on those around them as it’s growing up to prevent one from becoming attracted to our family, this is why most people are incapable of thinking about their family sexually. The Westermarck effect as it’s known shows that the taboo is actually rooted in biology.