Donna Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 (edited) Sir mystic: But they [i]aren't[/i] equal; that is, the same. Two male or female parents isn't the same as mother/father. Look, whether ppl intend this or not, departing from the natural law is misogynistic. That is one result. Do I like the law of God? Sometimes, NO! Is it true and good and beautiful? Yes. Is it difficult? Yes... and no. Divorce, contraception, in-vitro, gay marriage. [i]Phhht.[/i] Thses dumb down the woman's unique ability to co-create physically the child, and care for the child. This is a direct attack on Our Lady, the true model of womanhood, and all daughters in this world (everywoman). Haven't we been thoroughly catechized, bit by bit, of how mother is not needed? How it demeans her to be [i]that.[/i] And look what ravages upon females continue to worsen, and how females themselves continue to get worse, not better, w/ each generation. If Our Lady were held by nations and hearts as Queen that she is, these things would not be so. Sure, there are exceptions as regards marraiges and the children of those (orphans, infertility, etc;). There are exceptions, too, in children having no other relative noble enough to raise them than a homosexual one. Tangent o' topic over. Edited November 23, 2004 by Donna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donna Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 Some of us have been around those who've had an incestuous backround. It is completely wicked and devistating, the results. Doesn't what happens to people's hearts/minds/psyches/souls matter anymore? Maybe not since Christ has been un-crowned, and Science has been crowned in His place, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dreamweaver Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 [quote name='Donna' date='Nov 22 2004, 10:09 PM'] Maybe not since Christ has been un-crowned, and Science has been crowned in His place, [/quote] I wish that society would (could) realize that science and religion cannot contradict each other. Science itself would say that incest is wrong. Animals mate to increase genetic diversity. Is science to blame, or secularism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 [quote]Dairy, your posts are always entertaining. [/quote] Well a few things. One, to set the record straight. That was not my um yea thread. Two, I had a feeling you might point that out as you pointed it out in the last.. or that someone else might. If it causes genetic problems, I'm against it. If it does not, then I'm not. [quote]If the incest an the polygamy are between consenting adults I'm all for it. Just as long as it doesn't cause harm to anyone else, and that means genetic concerns which it soudns like incest would cause bad so I'm against it. [/quote] I knew I should have made this just one sentence or structure it differently. You have to note the "just as long as" section. Besides, you know what I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CreepyCrawler Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 why should the children be of concern to the government? if siblings want to marry, they can just contracept and not have any children if they want, right? the government can't assume that adults will have children and it's discrimination anyway to try and keep some people from having kids.... (i am being sarcastic). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mateo el Feo Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Nov 22 2004, 11:34 PM'] One, to set the record straight. That was not my um yea thread.[/quote] I figured it wasn't...if you share your computer, I would recommend that you log out to avoid that kinda stuff. [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Nov 22 2004, 11:34 PM']Two, I had a feeling you might point that out as you pointed it out in the last.. or that someone else might. If it causes genetic problems, I'm against it. If it does not, then I'm not.[/quote] The threshhold of "if it causes genetic problems" is nebulous. On a bit of a tangent, "genetic problems" was one of the reasons for neutering handicapped people and others in the first half of the 20th century. [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Nov 22 2004, 11:34 PM']I knew I should have made this just one sentence or structure it differently. You have to note the "just as long as" section. Besides, you know what I mean. [/quote] I appreciate you clarifying your earlier post. I don't want to infer too much into what you write...you know what they say about people who assume... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilroy the Ninja Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Nov 22 2004, 10:34 PM'] One, to set the record straight. That was not my um yea thread. [/quote] VINDICATION!!!!!! WOOT!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 [quote]I wish that society would (could) realize that science and religion cannot contradict each other. Science itself would say that incest is wrong. Animals mate to increase genetic diversity. Is science to blame, or secularism?[/quote] Dreamweaver animals mate to eliminate genetic diversity animals breed to procreate their own genetic code. That is why male lions kill the cubs of prides they take over, they eliminate another males genome and bring the females into heat to procreate their own. Genetic diversity is not only not the goal of animals but the opponant of the entire instinct to reproduce. the biological drive is to eleminate all other competing genomes and relplace them with ones own. The expantion of mine into ours where the goal becomes "my pack/troops" genome or even the intellectualization of it into "my people/tribe/ nations"genome should survive and every one elses should either be exterminated or subjected.... why do you think in ancient times when one people conquered another they killed the men to the women as slaves and concubines and castrated the little boys-- that is mans instinct just like it is any creatures instinct to propetuate ones own line. No agian the only reason incest should be prohibited is on religious grounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JP2Iloveyou Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 I think I can prove that incest and homosexuality, pretty much any sexual relationship other than that between a man and a woman, should be prohibited without appealing to God or to religion. First though, I want to know from those who think it should be OK, is your only reason for allowing sexual relationships consent, or is it just the primary reason? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krush2k2 Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 How come incest worked fine with Adam and Eve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aluigi Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 St. Augustine had the same problem which is why he was a Manichean for a while, but God applies morality differently in different ages. We are in the final age, the age of the new covenant, God is not going to change His application anymore. But for the propagation of the species in the very beginning God did not strictly enforce the objective morality that says incest is wrong and that says polygamy is wrong, but He did enforce strict obdience-centered laws upon the Jews in the age of the Old Covenant (not evening it out, but you could kindof think of it like that). God did not enforce morality regarding this because of His plan for the multiplication of mankind. as to the biological way it worked, i'm pretty sure there is a scientific at least theory that shows something about primitive man's DNA that made it compatible between any man and any woman because the gene pool had not gotten so mixed up. at some point through history the gene pool became so adapted that within immediate family such a close coorelation of DNA would make it clash more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aluigi Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 it's like, as the line of the human race goes down, the dna gets more complicated, but in one line it is more and more complicated in a similar patern so that a mix of that would clash easier. i'm starting to remember reading this somewhere so my explanation might be becoming clearer now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krush2k2 Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 [quote name='Aluigi' date='Nov 23 2004, 01:33 AM'] St. Augustine had the same problem which is why he was a Manichean for a while, but God applies morality differently in different ages. We are in the final age, the age of the new covenant, God is not going to change His application anymore. But for the propagation of the species in the very beginning God did not strictly enforce the objective morality that says incest is wrong and that says polygamy is wrong, but He did enforce strict obdience-centered laws upon the Jews in the age of the Old Covenant (not evening it out, but you could kindof think of it like that). God did not enforce morality regarding this because of His plan for the multiplication of mankind. as to the biological way it worked, i'm pretty sure there is a scientific at least theory that shows something about primitive man's DNA that made it compatible between any man and any woman because the gene pool had not gotten so mixed up. at some point through history the gene pool became so adapted that within immediate family such a close coorelation of DNA would make it clash more. [/quote] Props. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aluigi Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 no prob. God blessed me with this memory of issues in the lives of saints that seemingly will never be applicable but i've had to use that issue Augustine dealt with actually numerous times. I either learned it from EWTN or reading New Advent, so give props to them and to God. alright, now that that intraChristian issue has been resolved, back to the topic at hand about incest and homosexuality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JP2Iloveyou Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 My question still is out there for someone to answer. Is mutual consent between the two parties the only requirement for if a sexual relationship should be permitted or is it just one of many? If it is one of many, is it primary? Basicly, is consent necessary or sufficient? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now