tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post986155483154762359..comments2024-03-21T04:02:46.799-07:00Comments on Little Catholic Bubble: Quote of the day! Chesterton makes me giddy!Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comBlogger85125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-31164929599349246932010-11-24T11:22:46.704-07:002010-11-24T11:22:46.704-07:00Mai,
The thing is we already see gay "marria...Mai,<br /><br />The thing is we already see gay "marriage" paving the way for other types of "marriage." <br /><br />For example, polygamy. Canada legalized gay "marriage" some time ago, and now the illegality of polygamy <a href="http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2010/11/21/Trial-puts-spotlight-on-polygamy-in-Canada/UPI-20041290387332/" rel="nofollow">is being challenged</a> in Canadian courts.<br /><br />I remember back when gay "marriage" began to be debated as a social issue, and the concern was raised by many that it would pave the way toward legalizing other types of "marriage" such as polygamy and incestuous relationships. The gay "marriage" advocates pooh-poohed this notion and swore it would never happen. That's being proved wrong every day, so I don't see how you can say that changing the definition of marriage from "an unrelated man and an unrelated woman" to "two (or more) consenting adults" won't help make this change.<br /><br />I sincerely doubt it'll be very widespread, granted, but the quantity of sibling marriages isn't what concerns me; rather, it's the acceptance of sibling marriage as a valid "alternative lifestyle." It's hard enough to raise kids in this world without also trying to explain that despite what society tells you, it's not acceptable or laudable to be married to your siblings, or your <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article3697361.ece" rel="nofollow">parent</a>, or to <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20040406093707/http://www.cincypost.com/living/1998/spring052198.html" rel="nofollow">animals</a>, or to <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101107/od_afp/taiwanmarriageoffbeat" rel="nofollow">yourself</a>, and that as long as everyone's an adult and they all consent it's just hunky-dory.<br /><br />Moreover, the definition and criteria for consent has changed over time. Girls as young as 12 (or even younger) used to be married off with nary a thought about it. How do we know consent might not take a similar turn, especially if the NAMBLA lobby gets more powerful (as it will if we, as a society, keep spreading the lie that anything goes "as long as it's TWU WUV.")<br /><br />Mark Shea talks about two phases of history, the "What will it hurt?" phase and the "How were we supposed to know?" phase. With marriage, I think we're in the first phase now, but the second phase will come eventually as society crumbles along with the traditional family.JoAnna Wahlundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09942928659520676271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-87982361369325055342010-11-24T10:48:54.794-07:002010-11-24T10:48:54.794-07:00Mai, humor me. I've got a lot of conversation...Mai, humor me. I've got a lot of conversations going, so maybe I am missing something. What was your objection to sibling marriage? Was it the "birth defects" issue? <br /><br />Because if it was the "It will never happen anyway" argument, that seems weak considering that was said about gay marriage, too.<br /><br />What is "marriage" to you? What is the definition? <br /><br />Maybe I'm slow. But, just one more time?Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-59482553575053665132010-11-24T08:04:09.587-07:002010-11-24T08:04:09.587-07:00I would like to make one followup from Joanna'...I would like to make one followup from Joanna's comment: <br /><br /><i>Mai, the problem with your red shirt logic above is that it implies a causative relationship when, at best, only a correlative relationship exists. </i><br /><br />This is my point, Joanna. The problem with your gay marriage will bring on sibling marriage "logic" is that you are implying a causative relationship when only a correlative relationship exists. <br /><br />Marc states correctly that lawyers may eventually argue that there is a precedent for sibling marriage based on gay marriage (if it ever passes). This is similar to lawyers currently arguing that there is a precedent for gay marriage based on allowing interracial marriage. I think you would agree that interracial marriage is not causing gay marriage - the difference is that even the interracial couples are man and woman. In the same way, I will argue that the difference between gay and sibling marriage is that siblings are related to each other.<br /><br />I am happy to have Leila ask me again and again for my philosophy (even after i've explained it and she doesn't like my explanation). What I am NOT happy about is people like Monica saying that this leap of Leila's is pure logic, and that people like me are not of the group that "believe logic exists". <br /><br />I was just being nice before, and I'll stop. That is not LOGIC. That is a leap. I was only being nice when I allowed you all to call that "Leila's logic".MaiZekehttp://hameno.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-74398427748119324392010-11-23T21:37:27.204-07:002010-11-23T21:37:27.204-07:00Paul, I'm pretty sure he was okay with keeping...Paul, I'm pretty sure he was okay with keeping those on the side.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-24816073278267135772010-11-23T21:21:43.569-07:002010-11-23T21:21:43.569-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Paul Rimmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11212220645183007323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-45109335870574201042010-11-23T17:04:45.877-07:002010-11-23T17:04:45.877-07:00HMU,
You said: "But I think you forget, we a...HMU,<br /><br />You said: "But I think you forget, we all live in the same society."<br /><br />Yes, and it's a society that is battling between staying with tradition and going to a new paradigm. You said to ask you when it gets to a vote. Well, no one in million years would have thought that gay marriage was a possibility either. I don't know how old you are, but when I was writing an editorial column in my twenties, about fifteen years ago, gay marriage was a very, very, very fringe idea.<br /><br />And if sibling marriage ever did come about, it would happen through the court system initially, not with a popular vote. Just like abortion, just like gay marriage.<br /><br />Bottom line, I keep hearing that the "answer" to my question is, "It's irrelevant because it will never happen." However, no one has told me how their <i>philosophy</i> precludes it, and that's what I am trying to get at. <br /><br />I think sad that no one understands the Socratic Method anymore. Remember poor old Socrates? He was one of those pillars of western thought whose work and legacy is not taught much anymore, and it shows.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-16289006608995138962010-11-23T15:12:41.793-07:002010-11-23T15:12:41.793-07:00"In a relativist society, yes, it absolutely ..."In a relativist society, yes, it absolutely could. But not in a Catholic world. The Church has laws against close relatives marrying."<br /><br />But I think you forget, we all live in the same society. Both of the states we live in probably have laws against close relatives marrying. Whether or not men were marrying men, those laws would still exist. He still wouldn't be able to marry his brother.<br /><br />I guess it boils down to the fact that I don't think something is a valid argument if it's not actually going to happen. Kind of like Mai says, "let me know when it comes up to a vote."<br /><br />I'm sorry if I can't offer you the clarity you're seeking.Help Me Understandnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-56393260560376042912010-11-23T14:25:47.037-07:002010-11-23T14:25:47.037-07:00HMU, But the point is, it's not about us "...HMU, But the point is, it's not about us "worrying" or about our "feelings". That seems to be what liberals think: That we are "worrying" about sibling marriage. Not so. We are trying to challenge you on your philosophy. Maybe sibling marriage will never actually happen, but the liberal philosophy does not rule it out (unless we are talking about birth defects, and then that opens up a whole other topic). My understanding is that liberals think that two consenting adults who "love each other" should be allowed to marry. If so, then why discriminate against siblings?<br /><br />You sort of prove my point here:<br /><br /><i>Men and women have been marrying for thousands of years, and yet there hasn't been an enormous trend of brothers and sisters marrying, so I don't think this is a good argument for why homosexual unions should be outlawed. </i><br /><br />Yes, <i><b>men and women</b></i> have been marrying for thousands of years. And no one ever thought that gay marriage would come along as it has. But it has. So, what does that say? Maybe people fifty years ago would say: "Just because something is possible (gay marriage) doesn't mean it is going to happen." True enough, but the liberal philosophy ushered in gay marriage, and there is nothing in that philosophy which rules out any other kind of "marriage" between consenting adults (incest, polygamy). Will it happen? Who knows! But no one thought gay "marriage" would come, either, and it's coming with a vengeance.<br /><br />I hope you get my point, truly. It's not about "worrying" that sibling marriage would occur. It's a way to illustrate the problem with the liberal philosophy.<br /><br />Okay, my eyes are crossed from being on this computer, so I am not even going to re-read what I wrote. Hoping it makes sense.... yikes!Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-49337499383693944112010-11-23T14:11:28.911-07:002010-11-23T14:11:28.911-07:00Then I guess my only comment about this would be t...Then I guess my only comment about this would be to defend Mai's position:<br />Just because something is possible (anything is possible), doesn't mean it's going to happen, so it shouldn't be a legitimate worry.<br /><br />Men and women have been marrying for thousands of years, and yet there hasn't been an enormous trend of brothers and sisters marrying, so I don't think this is a good argument for why homosexual unions should be outlawed. <br /><br />Although I see your point (where does the line get drawn?), I don't think it's a source for legitimate worry. If gay marriage (or any sort of "equivalent" union) were to ever be legalized, I don't foresee an explosion of brothers marrying brothers and sisters marrying sisters.Help Me Understandnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-85506778211988747552010-11-23T13:02:28.788-07:002010-11-23T13:02:28.788-07:00Joanna,
Okay.
Mai,
Thank you very much.Joanna,<br />Okay.<br /><br />Mai,<br />Thank you very much.Paul Rimmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11212220645183007323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-42659169647010071392010-11-23T12:32:22.027-07:002010-11-23T12:32:22.027-07:00Mai, since I pretty much agreed with Paul, then ma...Mai, since I pretty much agreed with Paul, then maybe we are closer to understanding each other?<br /><br />Thanks for hanging in. I know it's not easy being the only one trying to defend a position, so I truly sympathize! (Try being a Catholic who doesn't believe in contraception -- even most Catholics attack!! :) )Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-68954484925062842332010-11-23T12:23:40.078-07:002010-11-23T12:23:40.078-07:00Thanks for taking it over, Paul. I'm weary ri...Thanks for taking it over, Paul. I'm weary right now. I guess what I'm against is scope creep, bringing in a bunch of other things that I don't think are related, as evidenced by my little episode about tenuous logic. Which happened again here (Tay Sachs). As of right now, I just don't have the fortitude to continue, when I write an comment and get 8 questions in response. <br /><br />Don't get me wrong, it certainly helps Leila's readership, and I can't fault her for doing it. And it makes for much more interesting comments.MaiZekehttp://hameno.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-70487349670464095222010-11-23T12:09:48.919-07:002010-11-23T12:09:48.919-07:00Paul,
What Leila said.Paul, <br /><br />What Leila said.JoAnna Wahlundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09942928659520676271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-9677500297803020172010-11-23T11:30:56.463-07:002010-11-23T11:30:56.463-07:00HMU, you said:
If marriage between two men leads ...HMU, you said:<br /><br /><i>If marriage between two men leads to marriage between two brothers, then shouldn't marriage between a man and a woman lead to marriage between a brother and a sister?</i><br /><br />In a relativist society, yes, it absolutely could. But not in a Catholic world. The Church has laws against close relatives marrying. It's Canon Law, which is binding on Catholics. A secular, relativistic society certainly could lead to brothers and sisters marrying, but a truly Catholic society never could. <br /><br />And yes, it could be argued that a brother and a sister marrying is more "natural" than two brothers marrying, considering the normal mechanisms of sex.<br /><br />Of course, I'm against both situations.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-76876637526975330152010-11-23T11:15:46.558-07:002010-11-23T11:15:46.558-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Paul Rimmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11212220645183007323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-55505129156255510242010-11-23T11:13:42.330-07:002010-11-23T11:13:42.330-07:00Paul: re marriage in the Old Testament -- this art...Paul: re marriage in the Old Testament -- this article is a good explanation as to why parts of the Mosaic law do not apply to Christianity: http://courageman.blogspot.com/2009/03/god-hates-shrimp-fallacy.html<br /><br />HMU - marriage has always been understood as the union of an unrelated man and an unrelated woman. This is shortened to "one man and one woman" in the context of same-sex marriage. It's when marriage is redefined as "two consenting adults" that the lines get blurred in terms of siblings (or father + daughter, etc).JoAnna Wahlundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09942928659520676271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-90279929807279405222010-11-23T11:00:19.190-07:002010-11-23T11:00:19.190-07:00Leila, I'd love to hear your response to Chris...Leila, I'd love to hear your response to Chrissy's comment:<br /><br />"In all seriousness, I do see the idea behind it, two consenting adults, which is actually a very good argument even if I do think it's a leap. Since it's a "man and a woman" now, siblings already fit in that category, minus the whole legal aspect of course."<br /><br />If marriage between two men leads to marriage between two brothers, then shouldn't marriage between a man and a woman lead to marriage between a brother and a sister?<br /><br />No?Help Me Understandnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-17710617658023255242010-11-23T10:53:37.974-07:002010-11-23T10:53:37.974-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Paul Rimmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11212220645183007323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-1477101120248401422010-11-23T10:51:12.634-07:002010-11-23T10:51:12.634-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Paul Rimmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11212220645183007323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-61359363679678849712010-11-23T10:47:15.691-07:002010-11-23T10:47:15.691-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Paul Rimmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11212220645183007323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-23543945099968148752010-11-23T10:47:02.820-07:002010-11-23T10:47:02.820-07:00So, I'd have to ask Mai: Is it your reasoning ...So, I'd have to ask Mai: Is it your reasoning that sibling marriage should be forbidden <i>because of the potential of birth defects</i>? And, if that risk is eliminated, would you then <i>still</i> be opposed to sibling marriage? And if so, why?Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-80423055457792605932010-11-23T10:45:27.299-07:002010-11-23T10:45:27.299-07:00Yes, Paul, I agree. If her aim was to reduce the c...Yes, Paul, I agree. If her aim was to reduce the chance of birth defects, then she would have a logical reason to forbid sibling marriage. But she would also have to forbid any two people from marrying who had a high risk of birth defects (and that causes a whole host of other problems, no?). <br /><br />But, we started with the premise of two brothers marrying. So, what is her objection? Or, two opposite sex siblings who voluntarily agree to sterilization. What, then, would her objection to sibling marriage be?Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-85966903443768453422010-11-23T10:33:47.002-07:002010-11-23T10:33:47.002-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Paul Rimmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11212220645183007323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-3296623200217942332010-11-23T10:13:16.943-07:002010-11-23T10:13:16.943-07:00Mai, prove me wrong. Tell me how your philosophy o...Mai, prove me wrong. Tell me how your <i>philosophy</i> of marriage precludes sibling marriage. First, by defining what marriage is. Maybe that is the problem. I am not clear on your definition of marriage. <br /><br />Thanks.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-40225529672723111822010-11-23T10:10:55.893-07:002010-11-23T10:10:55.893-07:00All a logical argument needs is premises and for t...<i>All a logical argument needs is premises and for the conclusion to follow. It doesn't matter if the premises are true. The argument's still logical. It's just wrong.</i><br /><br />Paul, EXACTLY!!! That is what I have said, when I said that Gwen makes sense! I also have a whole post in my head about other times that liberals make sense! Their premises are wrong, but their logic (based on a faulty premise) is excellent!<br /><br />As for sibling and incest in the Bible, I was waiting for someone to bring that up! You are correct! The reason Catholics are against incest and sibling marriage (and even polygamy) is because it is against Church teaching and Canon Law.<br /><br />It is the pagan who has no real reason to oppose it, since they do not have Church law. I don't argue that sibling marriage is against Natural Law, since at one point it was necessary. So, you won't find me disagreeing with you there.<br /><br />And if a pagan is going to forbid sibling marriage based on potential birth defects (which are NOT inevitable), then a pagan should also forbid marriage between two Jewish people who carry the gene for Tay Sachs, right? In fact, secular folk should be testing everyone for potential genetic problems.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.com