If its just love, why shouldnt incest be ok?

[MrDante]

They are both sexual sins and both harmful to others. There is no such thing as sin that doesnt hurt anyone.

Now how about answering my questions, i did ask them first and all.

Perhaps you should consider the harm you do when you sin and present false witness by saying both are harmful to others.

 

[MrDante]

Incorrect, the purpose and intent of something doesnt change just because something isnt working as intended/designed.

Your poor argument is the same as saying that someone without legs for whatever reason, should also not be able to be mobile in any form.

And you expose your own double standard and show that it isn't about children or the ability to reproduce at all.

 

[ok doser]

Perhaps you should consider the harm you do when you sin and present false witness by saying both are harmful to others.

traci! :wave2:

 

[MrDante]

it isn't

we've allowed non-Christians to marry, so, as Christians, we have no call to say that others can't marry willy-nilly, any way they want



or at least that's how town's argument for gay marriage shakes out when you run it through the "pompous jerk to regular english" translator

But since that isn't his point at all you must have been pointing your translator in the wrong direction.

 

[Town Heretic]

What makes the sin that you've defended for years here on TOL (homosexuality) superior to theirs (incest)?

What makes you think lying and defaming someone is justified because you disagree with them?

I've never defended sin. You know this, because I've explained it to you more than once, made certain by using an illustration even someone with a real impairment of their mental faculties could appreciate.

For anyone new to the program, I believe in the 1st Amendment within the bounds of rational restraint tied to significant societal interests. But being in support of your right to assemble, or speak doesn't mean I support what you assemble for or the words you speak.

Similarly, so far as the state goes, marriage is a right to contract between two people who enter into it with capacity and giving consent. It can be performed without any religious trappings or oaths. It routinely is and has been performed as such for generations. People have married in the eyes of the state without so much as a nod to the God I worship, the God most people in this country still profess belief in. It's their right.

The exclusion of homosexuals from that secular institution was founded against our guiding principle of separation of church and state and wholly a matter of insinuating into secular legal cannon the strictures of a particular religious understanding. That never should have happened and I noted that as a matter of law it would and should be undone. The Amish don't get to decide if we can have an army and as Christians we don't get to exclude homosexuals from a secular contract because their participation offends our moral understanding.

They have the right to contract, to marry and offend whoever finds that exercise offensive, as surely as you have a right to print Mein Kampf if you want. Simple as that.

You almost sound like a moral crusader, except for the fact that you've been a strong supporter of homosexual marriage.

Rather, I've stated my position on the law and how it should function in reflection of its guiding principles. I've never been less than clear on my moral position about the choice.

I guess as long as the word "marriage" is involved, it doesn't matter who the participants are?

Only if you're an imbecile. Are you an imbecile?

And? So what if there is the "potential" for a handicapped child. It's their lives, how dare you tell them what they can and cannot do with their bodies.

Take it up with the court. It's a rational objection for the state that may bear the cost of it. But it's one of several objections, as I noted.

I find it humorous that you seem to think that a 36 year old woman somehow "coerced" her 19 year old son into a sexual relationship.

I think you have a twisted sense of humor, but the second paragraph was largely about the rule, the issue, not the particular expression, which I think would be an exceptional circumstance, though not one that should lead to an exception at law.

 

[Town Heretic]

And why's that our business?

Because there are rational objections to it, objections that support a legitimate government interest. We can talk about that if you like.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

What makes you think lying and defaming someone is justified because you disagree with them?

I've never defended sin. You know this, because I've explained it to you more than once, made certain by using an illustration even someone with a real impairment of their mental faculties could appreciate.

For anyone new to the program, I believe in the 1st Amendment within the bounds of rational restraint tied to significant societal interests. But being in support of your right to assemble, or speak doesn't mean I support what you assemble for or the words you speak.

Similarly, so far as the state goes, marriage is a right to contract between two people who enter into it with capacity and giving consent. It can be performed without any religious trappings or oaths. It routinely is and has been performed as such for generations. People have married in the eyes of the state without so much as a nod to the God I worship, the God most people in this country still profess belief in. It's their right.

The exclusion of homosexuals from that secular institution was founded against our guiding principle of separation of church and state and wholly a matter of insinuating into secular legal cannon the strictures of a particular religious understanding. That never should have happened and I noted that as a matter of law it would and should be undone. The Amish don't get to decide if we can have an army and as Christians we don't get to exclude homosexuals from a secular contract because their participation offends our moral understanding.

They have the right to contract, to marry and offend whoever finds that exercise offensive, as surely as you have a right to print Mein Kampf if you want. Simple as that.


Rather, I've stated my position on the law and how it should function in reflection of its guiding principles. I've never been less than clear on my moral position about the choice.


Only if you're an imbecile. Are you an imbecile?


Take it up with the court. It's a rational objection for the state that may bear the cost of it. But it's one of several objections, as I noted.


I think you have a twisted sense of humor, but the second paragraph was largely about the rule, the issue, not the particular expression, which I think would be an exceptional circumstance, though not one that should lead to an exception at law.

Note that Town Heretic, who is an avid defender of homosexual 'marriage', is not a defender of sin.

Uh huh.

 

[Town Heretic]

Note that Town Heretic, who is an avid defender of homosexual 'marriage', is not a defender of sin.

Uh huh.

Note what someone who can't address a reasoned rejection does. He throws up a singular block quote then repeats the lie that illustrated his lack of either character or understanding.

Push away from the table then. You pretended to engage. You're not up for it.

From my last, again, from the rebuttal he failed at any point to address:

"I've never defended sin. You know this, because I've explained it to you more than once, made certain by using an illustration even someone with a real impairment of their mental faculties could appreciate.

For anyone new to the program, I believe in the 1st Amendment within the bounds of rational restraint tied to significant societal interests. But being in support of your right to assemble, or speak doesn't mean I support what you assemble for or the words you speak.

Similarly, so far as the state goes, marriage is a right to contract between two people who enter into it with capacity and giving consent. It can be performed without any religious trappings or oaths. It routinely is and has been performed as such for generations. People have married in the eyes of the state without so much as a nod to the God I worship, the God most people in this country still profess belief in. It's their right.

...They have the right to contract, to marry and offend whoever finds that exercise offensive, as surely as you have a right to print Mein Kampf if you want. Simple as that."

 

[ok doser]

I've never defended sin.

you've defended societal acceptance of sin

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

Note that Town Heretic, who is an avid defender of homosexual 'marriage', is not a defender of sin.

Uh huh.

Note what someone who can't address a reasoned rejection does. He throws up a singular block quote then repeats the lie that illustrated his lack of either character or understanding.

Push away from the table then. You pretended to engage. You're not up for it.

From my last, again, from the rebuttal he failed at any point to address:

"I've never defended sin. You know this, because I've explained it to you more than once, made certain by using an illustration even someone with a real impairment of their mental faculties could appreciate.

For anyone new to the program, I believe in the 1st Amendment within the bounds of rational restraint tied to significant societal interests. But being in support of your right to assemble, or speak doesn't mean I support what you assemble for or the words you speak.

Similarly, so far as the state goes, marriage is a right to contract between two people who enter into it with capacity and giving consent. It can be performed without any religious trappings or oaths. It routinely is and has been performed as such for generations. People have married in the eyes of the state without so much as a nod to the God I worship, the God most people in this country still profess belief in. It's their right.

...They have the right to contract, to marry and offend whoever finds that exercise offensive, as surely as you have a right to print Mein Kampf if you want. Simple as that."

A sin is a sin, no matter if civil government embraces it or not. You seem to think that the sin of incest is detestable and government should continue to punish those that engage in it. Yet at the same time you embrace homosexuality (no speculation need be done on my part) by stating that government has no interest in recriminalizing it.

 

[Angel4Truth]

They are both sexual sins and both harmful to others. There is no such thing as sin that doesnt hurt anyone.

Now how about answering my questions, i did ask them first and all.

Perhaps you should consider the harm you do when you sin and present false witness by saying both are harmful to others.

I have and do consider it. (what my sin choices do to others) as far as false witness, thats what people do who try to claim its ok. Its not.

And you expose your own double standard and show that it isn't about children or the ability to reproduce at all.

And you expose that you have no clue what you are talking about and cant even keep your conversations straight, another member, not me, is who has that stance. Im not catholic. I have no double standard in any form on this issue.

Now how about answering the questions ive asked, if you can that is.

 

[Angel4Truth]

They are both sexual sins and both harmful to others. There is no such thing as sin that doesnt hurt anyone.

Now how about answering my questions, i did ask them first and all.

Perhaps you should consider the harm you do when you sin and present false witness by saying both are harmful to others.

What makes you think lying and defaming someone is justified because you disagree with them?

I've never defended sin. You know this, because I've explained it to you more than once, made certain by using an illustration even someone with a real impairment of their mental faculties could appreciate.

For anyone new to the program, I believe in the 1st Amendment within the bounds of rational restraint tied to significant societal interests. But being in support of your right to assemble, or speak doesn't mean I support what you assemble for or the words you speak.

Similarly, so far as the state goes, marriage is a right to contract between two people who enter into it with capacity and giving consent. It can be performed without any religious trappings or oaths. It routinely is and has been performed as such for generations. People have married in the eyes of the state without so much as a nod to the God I worship, the God most people in this country still profess belief in. It's their right.

The exclusion of homosexuals from that secular institution was founded against our guiding principle of separation of church and state and wholly a matter of insinuating into secular legal cannon the strictures of a particular religious understanding. That never should have happened and I noted that as a matter of law it would and should be undone. The Amish don't get to decide if we can have an army and as Christians we don't get to exclude homosexuals from a secular contract because their participation offends our moral understanding.

They have the right to contract, to marry and offend whoever finds that exercise offensive, as surely as you have a right to print Mein Kampf if you want. Simple as that.


Rather, I've stated my position on the law and how it should function in reflection of its guiding principles. I've never been less than clear on my moral position about the choice.


Only if you're an imbecile. Are you an imbecile?


Take it up with the court. It's a rational objection for the state that may bear the cost of it. But it's one of several objections, as I noted.


I think you have a twisted sense of humor, but the second paragraph was largely about the rule, the issue, not the particular expression, which I think would be an exceptional circumstance, though not one that should lead to an exception at law.

Which takes precedent, the laws of man or the edicts of God?

 

[ok doser]

Which takes precedent, the laws of man or the edicts of God?

i believe we keep coming back to this with town :idunno:

 

[Angel4Truth]

More incest news:

Oklahoma Woman, Adult Daughter Charged With Incest After Authorities Learn of ‘Marriage’

DUNCAN, Okla. — An Oklahoma woman and her adult daughter are behind bars after authorities discovered that they were involved in an incestuous relationship in “marrying” each other earlier this year.

According to reports, the Department of Human Services (DHS) contacted the Duncan Police Department after visiting the home of Patricia Spann, 43, for a child welfare investigation. It found that Spann was living with three of her children, who had been previously taken from her custody and adopted by their paternal grandmother.

Spann reportedly had no contact with her children for years, but when she met her daughter Misty, now 25, the two “hit it off,” she told DHS officials. She also said that she looked into the ramifications of marrying her biological daughter, but determined “that because her name was no longer listed on Misty’s birth certificate, she felt no laws had been violated.”

The Duncan Banner confirmed that the two tied the knot in Comanche County on March 25. Spann had previously been “married” to her son Jody, but he annulled the relationship, citing incest. Spann had said that she wed her son to help him avoid being deployed into the military.

Under Oklahoma law, marrying one’s relative is considered felony incest whether or not a sexual relationship exists. Therefore, a warrant was issued for the arrest of both Patricia Spann and Misty Spann, and they were booked in the Stephens County Jail.

On Wednesday, mother and daughter appeared before Judge Ken Graham, who entered a not guilty plea on their behalf. They are being held on $10,000 bond and have been ordered not to have contact with any government witnesses.

Misty’s brother, Cody Spann, told local television station KSWO that he believed his mother had forced his sister into the “marriage.”

“For you to want to put your own daughter through this, what kind of person are you? If that’s what you want, that’s on you, but none of us kids want that,” he said. “And now you got my sister behind bars because of your choices. Why don’t you let that sit on you as a mom.”

Just weeks ago, headlines focused on 19-year-old Caleb Peterson and his 36-year-old mother, Monica Mares, who were was arrested in New Mexico earlier this year for having an incestuous relationship. They told the Daily Mail that they wanted to fight the charges but were willing to go to prison as society “can’t tell me who to love, who not to love.”

“The first time we were physical, [we] ended up holding hands and then we ended up kissing, and the kissing led to other things,” Mares told the outlet. “I felt comfortable with him and we fell even more deeply in love.”

“Honestly, I never thought we would get into trouble for our relationship,” Peterson also stated. “We were both consenting adults—when it comes down to it. She’s adult, I’m adult. I can make my own decisions.”

But some have spoken out against the slippery slope that occurs when God’s word is discarded for man’s opinion.

Last year, Dr. Michael Brown explained in an article for Charisma News that he had been asked to participate in a debate surrounding whether consensual adult incest should be legalized. Brown recalled that he was the only one on the panel that said that such relationships are never okay in the eyes of God.

“All the other participants, including a professor and a psychoanalyst, advocated for removing the laws against consensual adult incest,” he stated. “Are you surprised? But what’s the problem? Love is love [according to society], right? As long it’s consensual, who can say no to love?”

Brown stated that these developments are demonstrating the domino effect that results when the world rebels against God and His Master design for mankind.

“Those who have taken down the fence of marriage as God intended it have opened up a Pandora’s Box of possibilities,” he said, “none of them good.”

Leviticus 18:6-7 reads, “None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the Lord. The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.”

The floodgates are open.

 

[fool]

Because there are rational objections to it, objections that support a legitimate government interest. We can talk about that if you like.

Right, so first; the Biological Objection.

Stems from a high risk of birth defects in any offspring due to doubling up on bad DNA, this objection could be overcome by one of them being sterilized. OR since it it 2016 we could, I believe, have their DNA examined and weigh the risk using actual accurate numbers. First Cousin Marriage is legal in some states and illegal in others, if they could show that they couldn't have kids or that the kids they would have are no more likely to have health issues than any other legal pairing then I'd say they defeated the Biological Objection.

Also, we don't sterilize adopted kids. There could be all sorts of brothers and sisters married right now who don't know it because they don't know their biological origin. And yet the world keeps spinning.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Right, so first; the Biological Objection.

Stems from a high risk of birth defects in any offspring due to doubling up on bad DNA,...

Incestophobes always use a fertile aged female and her father or brother as the reason for not legalizing incest, claiming that a potential birth defect somehow negates the right to privacy.

They forget that brother/brother, father/son, mother/son, sister/sister, mother/daughter and grandparent/grandson/granddaughter incestuous relationships exist too, where the likihood of pregnancy isn't possible.

When incest is made legal, it will be on the same grounds as Roe v Wade and Obergefell v Hodges:

The right to privacy.

Town Heretic, having a background in law, should know this.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Incestophobes always use a fertile aged female and her father or brother as the reason for not legalizing incest, claiming that a potential birth defect somehow negates the right to privacy.

They forget that brother/brother, father/son, mother/son, sister/sister, mother/daughter and grandparent/grandson/granddaughter incestuous relationships exist too, where the likihood of pregnancy isn't possible.

When incest is made legal, it will be on the same grounds as Roe v Wade and Obergefell v Hodges:

The right to privacy.

Town Heretic, having a background in law, should know this.

Do you support or reject incest (asking since you use the word "incestophobes" and how far out do you define an incestuous relationship? (ie to 2nd cousin, less or farther out for example)

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Do you support or reject incest (asking since you use the word "incestophobes" and how far out do you define an incestuous relationship? (ie to 2nd cousin, less or farther out for example)

Since homosexualists have continually called me a "homophobe", I immensely enjoy mocking them when they try to make a case that their sin is better than someone else's.

Regarding the legality of family sexual relationships:

I'm quite comfortable with current laws:

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

 

[Town Heretic]

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

Note that Town Heretic, who is an avid defender of homosexual 'marriage', is not a defender of sin.

A writer tells stories and can't help himself. There may be some good in it. A liar, which you most certainly and willfully are, tells lies and nothing good will ever come of it, least of all for him.

My particular rebuttal to this lie of yours has been set out twice already in posts prior to this one.

A sin is a sin, no matter if civil government embraces it or not.

A thing of straw is a thing of straw, no matter how you spin it.

You seem to think that the sin of incest is detestable and government should continue to punish those that engage in it.

Rather, I understand that incest is illegal and I believe it to also be immoral. I don't waste my time detesting every foolish thing men do or, having done many a foolish and sinful thing and having been forgiven that through no merit of my own I am moved by another emotion. You would not likely know it.

For everyone else, I don't oppose or approach incest as a matter of law because it is a sin, though I believe it to be. And I don't support homosexuality because I understand men must largely be left to use their own consciences and bear the consequences of their actions absent grace.

Yet at the same time you embrace homosexuality (no speculation need be done on my part) by stating that government has no interest in recriminalizing it.

A lie, no matter how often repeated, remains a lie. It will never be a virtue, even if it pretends to serve one.

 

[Town Heretic]

Right, so first; the Biological Objection.

Stems from a high risk of birth defects in any offspring due to doubling up on bad DNA, this objection could be overcome by one of them being sterilized.

You cannot force people to be sterilized or predicate what must be construed as a right upon an act violative of their right to person. And their agreement, should they and before you raise the point, must be seen as a false consent, given under duress as the object of a coercion.

Also, we don't sterilize adopted kids. There could be all sorts of brothers and sisters married right now who don't know it because they don't know their biological origin. And yet the world keeps spinning.

Not sure what the point of saying any of that. Children are murdered daily and the world "keeps spinning". Does it lessen the ill or evil? Ignorance of a thing can, when reasonable, excuse the action. We cannot make men ignorant by an act of law.