If its just love, why shouldnt incest be ok?

[Crucible]

You were raised by a proud and unrepentant homosexual and he had quite an influence on your life. You're mentally ill and need spiritual and psychological help.

He was a friend who helped me out off and on for a good while. I am perfectly fine and normal- in fact, you'd be the weirdo in my circle if you actually are the kind of moron you make yourself out to be on here

Your nonsense has you targeting homeless people and charities. Who's mental :idunno:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

You were raised by a proud and unrepentant homosexual and he had quite an influence on your life. You're mentally ill and need spiritual and psychological help.

He was a friend who helped me out off and on for a good while.

He was a sexual deviant that amongst other things introduced you to the homosexual lifesltyle (taking you to 'gay' bars, etc.).

I am perfectly fine and normal- in fact, you'd be the weirdo in my circle if you actually are the kind of moron you make yourself out to be on here

Christians obviously don't belong in your circle of friends.

Your nonsense has you targeting homeless people and charities. Who's mental :idunno:

If you want to go back to the Salvation Army thread and continue to defend the pro LGBTQ Salvation Army, then do so.

 

[Crucible]

aCrazyWingbat thinks mental illness is contagious now :chuckle:

 

[Crucible]

aCrazyWingbat thinks mental illness is contagious now :chuckle:

Get back to me if there's a zombie apocalypse.

 

[Nihilo]

The same Church that

The same Church that teaches and believes that, "Homosexuality . . . has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved," and, "This inclination, which is objectively disordered," and, "These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition," and, "Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection."

So your stance is solely based on if having same sex desires and acting on them "is a bona fide mental disorder", not the fact that it's an extremely harmful and unnatural act that God abhors?

No, having the proclivity is disordered. SSB, as mentioned above, are, "acts of grave depravity," and, "Under no circumstances can they be approved."

 

[Angel4Truth]

aCrazyWingbat thinks mental illness is contagious now :chuckle:

Some kinds certainly can be.

Depressive thinking can be contagious

While mental illnesses are not contagious in the same sense as the flu or a cold, a person's environment and experience can surely shape and/or influence their mental state, which can in turn trigger symptoms such as anxiety or depression.

Are Mental Health Issues “Contagious”?

 

[ok doser]

good to see ya back angel! :wave:

 

[Angel4Truth]

good to see ya back angel! :wave:

Thanks

 

[Angel4Truth]

I believe the proclivity for SSB is disordered, just as the Church teaches and believes.
If it is a bona fide mental disorder, then it is unconscionable to continue to deny these victims of this affliction subsidized professional medical treatment, just as everybody else with a bona fide mental disorder deserves and can receive.

Do you believe that legitimate treatment includes indulging fantasies?

 

[Nihilo]

Do you believe that legitimate treatment includes indulging fantasies?

I can only guess that medical professionals providing care for patients suffering with this affliction, would not counsel them to "indulge their fantasies," since that doesn't sound to me like something a medical professional would ever seriously prescribe a patient, but I am not a medical professional myself.

 

[patrick jane]

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

Go back to your 'gay' bathhouses and leave American history to those of us that know something about it.

Do you miss the bathhouses?

 

[Angel4Truth]

Now, tell me if you agree that they should be allowed to do this, and why.

Also if you agree with homosexual relationships but NOT incest, and why one is then ok and not the other, thanks.

I do want to note this sick woman in this article would give up her other kids for this relationship. What happened to mothers?

How are the two even comparable?

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.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Now, tell me if you agree that they should be allowed to do this, and why.

Also if you agree with homosexual relationships but NOT incest, and why one is then ok and not the other, thanks.

I do want to note this sick woman in this article would give up her other kids for this relationship. What happened to mothers?

BUMP




How are the two even comparable?

They both concern sexual conduct. Society has moral judgements about both. Angel merely is asking for the foundation upon which these judgements are made.

Correct! Thanks

 

[Angel4Truth]

So a heterosexual couple unable to have children could not be a loving committed relations as they are interested in physical gratification.

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.

 

[Town Heretic]

Just read the OP...good grief. I'd have some sympathy for them if they'd met without knowing about the biological foundation and discovered it afterward. But there's something fundamentally wrong with them to understand and then consider each other outside of that. Of course, there's something wrong with their having relations outside of a marital union too...that something is sin and it's at the root of the problem.

Now we don't legislate morality absent an objectively definable interest on the part of the secular state, but I'd say a couple exist here. The first is the offspring/genetic potential. The second is the inherently coercive nature of the relationship and the disproportionate power within it, the invitation to abuse beyond the problem of breaking down the stability of the family structure by introducing the potential for the dynamic to move from protector/provider, to something more predatory. I have to call it that, can't see or label it as a romantic attachment given that prior dynamic.

 

[fool]

I don't see the problem.

 

[Town Heretic]

I don't see the problem.

I'll try to nutshell it.

:think:

Some dude wants to marry his mom.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Just read the OP...good grief. I'd have some sympathy for them if they'd met without knowing about the biological foundation and discovered it afterward. But there's something fundamentally wrong with them to understand and then consider each other outside of that.

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

Of course, there's something wrong with their having relations outside of a marital union too...that something is sin and it's at the root of the problem.

You almost sound like a moral crusader, except for the fact that you've been a strong supporter of homosexual marriage. I guess as long as the word "marriage" is involved, it doesn't matter who the participants are?

Now we don't legislate morality absent an objectively definable interest on the part of the secular state, but I'd say a couple exist here. The first is the offspring/genetic potential.

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.

The second is the inherently coercive nature of the relationship and the disproportionate power within it, the invitation to abuse beyond the problem of breaking down the stability of the family structure by introducing the potential for the dynamic to move from protector/provider, to something more predatory. I have to call it that, can't see or label it as a romantic attachment given that prior dynamic.

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. The lad knows what he wants, and mommy is evidently it.

 

[fool]

I'll try to nutshell it.

:think:

Some dude wants to marry his mom.

And why's that our business?

 

[ok doser]

And why's that our business?

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