Incest

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='Balthazor' date='Nov 22 2004, 06:42 PM'] Apparently legislating on morality IS okay for some issues just not others. [/quote]
Legislating morality is not only okay but NECESSARY for not only some but ALL issues.

[Guest Aluigi]

to an extent I have to agree with Catholic Crusader. the idea that we should keep morals out of government is wrong. every single policy the government ever does is somebody's morals, the democrat's morality says the goverment can justly take money from the rich citizen and give it to the poor; the liberal morality is that everyone must have a secured ability to do whatever they want; someone might have a moral value that America ought to spread its government throughout the world while another might have a moral value that America ought to leave everyone alone.

in short: every policy issue on some level is the politicians personal decision, or his personal attempt to follow the morals of his constituents.

legislation is always morality based on some level. why shouldn't we work to make our government better follow Catholic Teaching?

[JP2Iloveyou]

Here's the thing guys. Sex has a two-fold purpose. These two purposes are equal in importance. The first purpose is for pro-creation. Every sexual act to be considered moral must be open to pro-creation. The second purpose is for union between the spouses. Every sexual act must have union as its aim.

When you guys say that all that matters is consent, you are denying the very real biological aspect of sex, which is pro-creation. You also deny the unitive aspect because I could consent to having sex with a prostitute. Sadly, many people do this on a regular basis. There is no love in that action, only abuse. There might be a "union" between the two people, but it is not a real and lasting union. You cannot separate anything from its nature. The nature of sex is for pro-creation and for union. By separating sex from these two aspects, you essentially deny what sex IS.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='JP2Iloveyou' date='Nov 25 2004, 12:35 PM']

When you guys say that all that matters is consent, you are denying the very real biological aspect of sex, which is pro-creation. You also deny the unitive aspect because I could consent to having sex with a prostitute. Sadly, many people do this on a regular basis. There is no love in that action, only abuse. There might be a "union" between the two people, but it is not a real and lasting union. You cannot separate anything from its nature. The nature of sex is for pro-creation and for union. By separating sex from these two aspects, you essentially deny what sex IS. [/quote]
There is only one person who thinks all you need is consent.

[JP2Iloveyou]

sorry cmom. I know there is only one. I just misspoke, err, mistyped.

[Dreamweaver]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Nov 23 2004, 12:24 AM']
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. [/quote]
Ooo, sociology stuff! I'll admit that I forgot about all the viciousness that goes on in nature, male lions killing cubs and that stuff. I like kitties.

In the cases of humans extingushing the losers in war, its more of a sociological/psychological dilemma than a scientific one. I will admit that I'm not well versed in theories of society. War will often psychologically make people do crazy things.

Survival of the fittest, instincts and drives...this post reeks of Freudism and Darwinism!

[Dreamweaver]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Nov 24 2004, 11:21 AM'] This is defined by the state, though I'm not sure that there shouldn't be a federal age of consent of 18. *shrug* [/quote]
At what age is a person mature enough to make a decision and live with the consequences? A pedophilic man could bribe a 2 year old to come to his house, promising the child a candy bar and an ice cream sundae.

In many places, children can't make a contract or have any legal rights until they are 18. Yes, people mature at different rates, but there has to be some set standard as to when someone is an "adult." I feel that it is better to err on the side of older age than to lower it to 14 for example, when obviously not everyone is mature enough. Would a 14 year-old be able to cope with adult responsibilites?

[cmotherofpirl]

In some states the age of consent is 14.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]In the cases of humans extingushing the losers in war, its more of a sociological/psychological dilemma than a scientific one. I will admit that I'm not well versed in theories of society. War will often psychologically make people do crazy things.
[/quote]

Sociology is driven by biology, man in a State of Nature is man without Grace, man in Original Sin driven by that tendency for Evil. But that tendency is not even required all that is required is instinct withot Grace to counter in, Kill the men, make sslaves and concubines of the women and turn the prepubescent boys in to Eunuchs, that sounds about is biologically driven as any action that Man asa species has ever taken, it is extremely scientific.

[quote]Survival of the fittest, instincts and drives...this post reeks of Freudism and Darwinism![/quote]

How about Realism.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Dreamweaver' date='Nov 25 2004, 08:58 PM'] At what age is a person mature enough to make a decision and live with the consequences? A pedophilic man could bribe a 2 year old to come to his house, promising the child a candy bar and an ice cream sundae.

In many places, children can't make a contract or have any legal rights until they are 18. Yes, people mature at different rates, but there has to be some set standard as to when someone is an "adult." I feel that it is better to err on the side of older age than to lower it to 14 for example, when obviously not everyone is mature enough. Would a 14 year-old be able to cope with adult responsibilites? [/quote]
Agreed, hence why I'm marginally for a unilateral age of consent of 18.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Carrie' date='Nov 24 2004, 02:55 PM'] You're treating your (sexual) love as a "free for all" since it seems anyone could be eligible to receive it, instead of just your spouse as it should be. [/quote]
Ah, I see -- it isn't about love, it's about sex. *shrug* It is not mine to judge others and if they wish to have sex with 9 other people at once I have nothing to say on the issue as long as they are all consenting adults.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Balthazor' date='Nov 24 2004, 03:03 PM'] I just want to clarify something, Burnsprivey...
do you basically feel that as long as the parties involved are both of age and consenting that anything goes? Regardless of realtionship or any other factors?

I am not debating here I just want to clarify you position for myself. [/quote]
I can't see any reason why that wouldn't be true and I can't see what other factors there would be. Let me put it plainly: I'm not nosy. If a grown woman wants to have sex with her grown brother I have nothing to say on the matter. Does it make me a bit squicky? Yeah, but it simply isn't my business. The only time I have anything to say about what goes on in a person's bedroom is when I'm in it myself. Frankly, I think the law should reflect this attitude as well.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='JP2Iloveyou' date='Nov 25 2004, 10:35 AM'] Here's the thing guys. Sex has a two-fold purpose. These two purposes are equal in importance. The first purpose is for pro-creation. Every sexual act to be considered moral must be open to pro-creation. The second purpose is for union between the spouses. Every sexual act must have union as its aim.

[/quote]
You are speaking from your idea of what sex is. This idea of sex was handed to you from someone else who had it handed to him from someone else (etc.) who was trying to control your sexuality. If you wish to accept that as truth that's fine, but it isn't the only way to look at sex.

Sex [i]can be[/i] procreative (that's one, non-hyphenated word, by the way) but the majority of times that any given male and female have sex no egg is fertilized. Even when the egg [i]is[/i] fertilized a majority of the time the zygote does not implant. Even after implantation there is a change of spontaneous abortion.

Sex [i]can be[/i] unitive and it is a noble goal to make all sex unitive. However, even sex that is procreative can be non-unitive.

As I said, sex can be these things, but ultimately sex is an act of pleasure -- whether it's done as dictated by the catholic church or not. You cannot separate anything from its nature, after all.

[quote]When you guys say that all that matters is consent, you are denying the very real biological aspect of sex, which is pro-creation.  You also deny the unitive aspect because I could consent to having sex with a prostitute.  Sadly, many people do this on a regular basis.  There is no love in that action, only abuse.  There might be a "union" between the two people, but it is not a real and lasting union.  You cannot separate anything from its nature.  The nature of sex is for pro-creation and for union.  By separating sex from these two aspects, you essentially deny what sex IS.[/quote]

I should expect that what I'm saying would be boiled down to the wrong sentiment. [b][i][u]Legally[/u][/i][/b] all that matters is consent. Since this was posed as a question of law, I've interjected my opinion of the legal aspects of incest. It would be a great thing if all sex could be unitive, but we can't make a law that guarantees it.

I would also like to note here that sex with multiple people can be unitive and/or procreative. It's unfortunate that it is generally not seen as such.

[Brother Adam]

Yes, in a depraved and fallen world-view such conclusions could be drawn. Your idea of "control" though lacks fundamental understanding of Church teachings. I suggest, if you choose to be an honest scholar, to read "Theology of the Body" by Pope John Paul II before claiming that the Christian worldview is one of controling people. Indeed, it frees people to truly love.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Nov 30 2004, 10:11 AM'] Yes, in a depraved and fallen world-view such conclusions could be drawn. Your idea of "control" though lacks fundamental understanding of Church teachings. I suggest, if you choose to be an honest scholar, to read "Theology of the Body" by Pope John Paul II before claiming that the Christian worldview is one of controling people. Indeed, it frees people to truly love. [/quote]
Sure, if by "truly love" you mean "love the way I tell you to". I'm sure the catholic view of polyamory is a dim one. If you choose not to see it as a method of control, that's fine, but it does control your behavior. As for the book you mention, no decent leader would [i]ever[/i] admit that he/she is trying to control his/her followers.