Pro-Gays, is incest immoral?

[glassjester]

No. But then as you know, I already told you that.

You're going back over ground we already covered. (Integrity of the immediate family unit, etc.)

I agree with your reason. But I don't think the integrity of the family is protected by law (though it should be). After all, adultery is not a crime. Divorce is not a crime. "Open marriages" are not a crime. Yet these all work actively against the integrity of the immediate family.

Why should incest between two consenting adults be the one exception?

If you want to back over ground already covered, you could go back to Cain...

Alright. You're asking me if he was incestuous? I don't know.
And if he was, was God happy about it? I would guess not.

And you wanted to know if incest was "part of God's design?"
No more (and no less) than Judas' betrayal of Christ.

 

[annabenedetti]

I agree with your reason. But I don't think the integrity of the family is protected by law (though it should be). After all, adultery is not a crime. Divorce is not a crime. "Open marriages" are not a crime. Yet these all work actively against the integrity of the immediate family.

Why should incest between two consenting adults be the one exception?

I don't know. Have you researched civil law on this? I'm interested in your level of interest in pursuing understanding.

Alright. You're asking me if he was incestuous? I don't know.

Give me your best guess, from a literal Biblical interpretation of two originating humans.

And if he was, was God happy about it? I would guess not.

And you wanted to know if incest was "part of God's design?"
No more (and no less) than Judas' betrayal of Christ.

So you're saying that a literal interpretation of two originating humans was part of his design and there would be, by necessity, incestuous relationships in order to propagate the human species.

 

[glassjester]

I don't know. Have you researched civil law on this? I'm interested in your level of interest in pursuing understanding.

In most of the country it's not. In the 20 (or so) states where adultery laws are still on the books, they are simply not enforced.

Give me your best guess, from a literal Biblical interpretation of two originating humans.

I don't even know if there was a literal Cain. Do you?

So you're saying that a literal interpretation of two originating humans was part of his design and there would be, by necessity, incestuous relationships in order to propagate the human species.

I really think you're confusing me with a fundamentalist.
Do you think that I think the Earth is only 6,000 years old?

 

[PureX]

This is a concern among the anti-homosexual crowd, as well. "If we make it ok for consenting adults, the children will think it's ok, too!"

They are wrong. Same sex attraction is not the same as an incestuous attraction. Children who experience sam-sex attractions will do so regardless of any perceived "acceptability", for the most part. This is not so of children experiencing an incestuous attraction. In fact. incestuous attraction is unlikely to occur at all unless the idea is implanted and encouraged.

To which the pro-homosexual replies, "But if there's nothing wrong with an adult being gay, why should you be allowed to discourage your kid from being gay?"

There is nothing wrong with being attracted to one's own gender. So there is no need to "discourage" anyone from it.

Do you want to discuss homosexuality, or incest? I thought this thread was about incest. Which has little in common with homosexuality.

 

[annabenedetti]

In most of the country it's not. In the 20 (or so) states where adultery laws are still on the books, they are simply not enforced.

That doesn't answer my question regarding yours. I asked you if you'd researched civil law for yourself as to: "Why should incest between two consenting adults be the one exception?

I don't even know if there was a literal Cain. Do you?

You thought there was a literal Cain three days ago.

I don't know that Cain married an immediate relative, do you?
And if he did, I don't know that God was particularly happy about it.

You know, I've heard that Cain didn't always act morally...

I really think you're confusing me with a fundamentalist.
Do you think that I think the Earth is only 6,000 years old?

Did you or did you not say that we descend from two original humans?

Why yes... yes you did...

Yes. I do believe that there were, at one time, only two individuals that could truly be considered "human," in the sense that they had rational faculties, and were true persons, in the image and likeness of God. And that these two original humans, being aware of themselves, and of right and wrong, willingly chose to do wrong.

You've got one foot in the literal camp and one foot in the evolutionary camp. And I think I know why.

 

[glassjester]

That doesn't answer my question regarding yours. I asked you if you'd researched civil law for yourself as to: "Why should incest between two consenting adults be the one exception?

I thought you were asking about adultery laws.

Did you or did you not say that we descend from two original humans?

Why yes... yes you did...

You've got one foot in the literal camp and one foot in the evolutionary camp. And I think I know why.

Yes. I do not know their names, or exactly where, or when they lived.
I do not think they were the only hominid creatures, but the only two that could be considered truly human (by the Church's definition, cited earlier).

Here's what I do know about them.
They were the first earthly creatures to have a conscience.
And they acted against it.


And the "evolutionary camp," by the way, is in agreement with me.
All people do indeed share two direct ancestors - a man and a woman.
This is not fundamentalism. This is scientific fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

 

[annabenedetti]

I thought you were asking about adultery laws.

How could you possibly think that?!

I agree with your reason. But I don't think the integrity of the family is protected by law (though it should be). After all, adultery is not a crime. Divorce is not a crime. "Open marriages" are not a crime. Yet these all work actively against the integrity of the immediate family.

Why should incest between two consenting adults be the one exception?

I don't know. Have you researched civil law on this? I'm interested in your level of interest in pursuing understanding.

Yes. I do not know their names, or exactly where, or when they lived.
I do not think they were the only hominid creatures, but the only two that could be considered truly human (by the Church's definition, cited earlier).

Here's what I do know about them.
They were the first earthly creatures to have a conscience.
And they acted against it.

And the offspring of those "only two," with whom did they procreate?

And the "evolutionary camp," by the way, is in agreement with me.
All people do indeed share two direct ancestors - a man and a woman.
This is not fundamentalism. This is scientific fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

Should I be surprised? I already know what you've said in your past posts. And yet - you believe in a historical Cain. You said so, in your own words.

 

[annabenedetti]

Do you want to discuss homosexuality, or incest? I thought this thread was about incest. Which has little in common with homosexuality.

:up:

 

[glassjester]

How could you possibly think that?!

Sorry, I misunderstood. :idunno:

What, specifically, are you hoping to find out?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_incest_in_the_United_States

And the offspring of those "only two," with whom did they procreate?

Oh, goodness.

At least read the first paragraphs of those wiki articles.

 

[annabenedetti]

Sorry, I misunderstood. :idunno:

What, specifically, are you hoping to find out?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_incest_in_the_United_States

lain: I'm hoping to find out what I asked earlier. Perhaps you could go back over the conversation.

Oh, goodness.

At least read the first paragraphs of those wiki articles.

I can't even get you to read and respond to my posts.

Anyway. I read the first two paragraphs and beyond.

Not necessarily a contemporary of "Y-chromosomal Adam"[edit]

Sometimes mitochondrial Eve is assumed to have lived at the same time as Y-chromosomal Adam, from whom all living people are descended patrilineally, perhaps even meeting and mating with him. Even if this were true, which is currently regarded as highly unlikely, this would only be a coincidence. Like mitochondrial "Eve", Y-chromosomal "Adam" probably lived in Africa. A recent study (March 2013) concluded however that "Eve" lived much later than "Adam" – some 140,000 years later.^[10] (Earlier studies considered, conversely, that "Eve" lived earlier than "Adam".)^[34] More recent studies indicate that mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam may indeed have lived around the same time.^[35]

​

Now what?

And whatever happened to poor Cain and his siblings, anyway? You keep locking them in the basement

 

[glassjester]

lain: I'm hoping to find out what I asked earlier. Perhaps you could go back over the conversation.

You mean this question?

Why should incest between two consenting adults be the one exception?

I don't know. Have you researched civil law on this?

Well here's my state's law regarding incestuous marriage:

N.J. STAT. ANN. § 37:1-1 (2013). CERTAIN MARRIAGES OR CIVIL UNIONS PROHIBITED
a. A man shall not marry or enter into a civil union with any of his ancestors or descendants, or his sister
or brother, or the daughter or son of his brother or sister, or the sister or brother of his father or mother,
whether such collateral kindred be of the whole or half blood.
b. A woman shall not marry or enter into a civil union with any of her ancestors or descendants, or her
sister or brother, or the daughter or son of her brother or sister, or the sister or brother of her father or
mother, whether such collateral kindred be of the whole or half blood.
c. A marriage or civil union in violation of any of the foregoing provisions shall be absolutely void.

You can see, reading a statute doesn't get us very far with "why" questions.

I can't even get you to read and respond to my posts.

That's definitely not true. :sigh:

Anyway. I read the first two paragraphs and beyond.

Not necessarily a contemporary of "Y-chromosomal Adam"[edit]

Sometimes mitochondrial Eve is assumed to have lived at the same time as Y-chromosomal Adam, from whom all living people are descended patrilineally, perhaps even meeting and mating with him. Even if this were true, which is currently regarded as highly unlikely, this would only be a coincidence. Like mitochondrial "Eve", Y-chromosomal "Adam" probably lived in Africa. A recent study (March 2013) concluded however that "Eve" lived much later than "Adam" – some 140,000 years later.^[10] (Earlier studies considered, conversely, that "Eve" lived earlier than "Adam".)^[34] More recent studies indicate that mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam may indeed have lived around the same time.^[35]

​

Now what?

Could you clarify specifically where the text you quoted contradicts Church teaching?

And whatever happened to poor Cain and his siblings, anyway? You keep locking them in the basement

Again, I don't know. And that's ok.
I don't even know if there was a literal Cain.

I know the first two earthly creatures with a conscience, acted unconscionably.
Is that really so radical a belief?
We all still do that today.

I know that every human being on Earth descends from a common male and female ancestor.


Now please, point out how either of those beliefs contradicts Church teaching, or modern science.

 

[ok doser]

There is nothing wrong with being attracted to one's own gender.

on what moral basis do you make this claim?



would you recognize that there might be a problem if every person was sexually attracted to one's own gender?

 

[MrDante]

on what moral basis do you make this claim?



would you recognize that there might be a problem if every person was sexually attracted to one's own gender?

If every person became a doctor there would defiantly be problems, Does that make being a doctor a bad thing?

 

[ok doser]

If every person became a doctor there would defiantly be problems, Does that make being a doctor a bad thing?

i dunno :idunno:

does being a doctor mean you can't (or won't) do other things?

my neighbor's a doctor, but i see him rake his lawn, wash his car, change the lower unit oil in his boat





if every person's sexual attraction was towards their own gender, do you think that might cause one specific problem?

 

[MrDante]

i dunno :idunno:

does being a doctor mean you can't (or won't) do other things?

my neighbor's a doctor, but i see him rake his lawn, wash his car, change the lower unit oil in his boat





if every person's sexual attraction was towards their own gender, do you think that might cause one specific problem?

If every person chose to be celibate that would be the end of the human race. Is being celibate bad?

 

[ok doser]

If every person chose to be celibate that would be the end of the human race. Is being celibate bad?

yes, being celibate is bad

now, can you answer my question?


if every person's sexual attraction was towards their own gender, do you think that might cause one specific problem?