Court ruling does support incest, polygamy

[/FONT]Court ruling does
Time admits critics of ‘gay’ rights decision were right

When the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas prohibition on homosexual sodomy, leaders including then-Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., warned the decision would be used in support of incest, adultery and polygamy. While Santorum got “holy hell” for his prediction, a media leader of no less influence than Time magazine now admits that he was right.
“It turns out the critics were right,” the magazine said in a recent article addressing the use of the precedent in a series of other cases. “Plaintiffs have made the decision the centerpiece of attempts to defeat state bans on the sale of sex toys in Alabama, polygamy in Utah and adoptions by gay couples in Florida.”

more…

I would agree with most of the points that the article is making. However, although Time’s most recent article seems to be a change in perspective, it is not necessarily contrary to Time’s earlier position, as WorldNet is trying to frame it.

I wouldn’t mind polygamy being legal. Since some Mormons want to practice it, I think it is a matter of religious freedom that it be allowed. We should permit people to practice their religion as much as possible.

Here is the para cited with the last two sentences included.:

“It turns out the critics were right. Plaintiffs have made the decision the centerpiece of attempts to defeat state bans on the sale of sex toys in Alabama, polygamy in Utah and adoptions by gay couples in Florida. So far the challenges have been unsuccessful. But plaintiffs are still trying, even using Lawrence to challenge laws against incest.”

Is polygamy a sin? If you say yes, then why make it legal?

If it isn’t a sin, then defend your position as to why it isn’t.

[quote=Catechism of the Catholic Church]2400 Adultery, divorce, polygamy, and free union are grave offenses against the dignity of marriage.
[/quote]

Cor, read up some on the REALITY of polygamy. It is inherently exploitive of women and abusive by nature. History provides plenty of exhibits.

Your argument about religious freedom ignore the reality of human rights. Should muslims be allowed to kill relatives who convert to christianity because they have a religious tradition of it? Nope.

Wow. Some religions have required human sacrifice. Of others, or of themselves. Are one, or both, of these the types of religion freedom you suggest should be allowed by our civil society?

Dan

I reply to all three posts here.

Are you saying that all sins should be illegal? Should, masturbation be illegal? Should lying – other than things like perjury or calumny – be illegal? What about non-abortifacient contraception? I don’t think that’s what you mean to be saying but let me know.

If it isn’t a sin, then defend your position as to why it isn’t.

St. Thomas Aquinas taught that polygyny (being married to more than one woman) did not violate the natural law whereas polyandry (being married to more than one man did). He held that the prohibition on polygyny is of what is known as “positive” divine law (“positive” means it was enacted by God as opposed to arising out of the law of nature)

theuniversityconcourse.com/II,3,10-16-1996/cc/Weldon.htm

*Polygamy (in both its forms) is forbidden according to the moral law of the Church. But there is a weak case to be made for polygyny in natural law, which goes as follows: It is critical for a child’s self-identity to know who his parents are. Therefore, the practice of polyandry is unthinkable as “man naturally desires to know his offspring, and this knowledge would be completely destroyed if there were several males for one female. Therefore, that one female is for one male is a consequence of natural instinct.” (Summa Contra Gentiles III. 124.1) In the practice of polyandry there is no certainty of family relations as the woman has sexual relations with numerous men. Simply put, according to Thomas, polygyny does not directly conflict with natural law because in it the child knows who his parents are. However, this is not where Thomas’ discussion of marriage ends.

Relying on Aristotle, Thomas speaks of the need for friendship within the marriage covenant. Polygyny debases women because there is no opportunity for friendship. Friendship demands equality, and “the greater that friendship is, the more long lasting it will be, [and] there seems to be the greatest friendship between husband and wife.” (SCG III. 123.6) An unfortunate type of abandonment takes place in a polygynous environment. A covenant of love is eradicated for the utility of a contract involving the breeding of offspring. If this were the precedent for marriage, then there could be no real friendship, and no effectual love for children coming from a plurality of wives. The wife (wives) would then be relegated to a position of servitude. (SCG III 124.4)*

If St. Thomas is right and polygyny does not violate the natural law, then we cannot expect citizens who do not recognize the revelation that brings with it the positive divine law against it to abide by it.

But even if it were against the natural law, my position would be the same. (Non-abortifacient) contraception, lying and masturbation are all against the natural law yet we do not seek outlaw all those things. How is this any different?

Cor, read up some on the REALITY of polygamy. It is inherently exploitive of women and abusive by nature. History provides plenty of exhibits.

We already have laws against abuse. These laws would apply to polygamous families just as they would to monogamous families. I’m not sure what you are saying by “abusive by nature”

Your argument about religious freedom ignore the reality of human rights. Should muslims be allowed to kill relatives who convert to christianity because they have a religious tradition of it? Nope.

Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to do that because that would violate the freedom of those said relatives. But polygamy doesn’t violate anyone’s freedom. Those who enter into polygamy do so freely. Forced marriage should be illegal for polygamy just as it is for monogamy.

Wow. Some religions have required human sacrifice. Of others, or of themselves. Are one, or both, of these the types of religion freedom you suggest should be allowed by our civil society?

If it’s a suicide, who are you going to punish? If it’s a human sacrifice of another person, then that person would be sacrificed unwillingly and so that would violate his freedom. I believe in religious freedom to the extent that it is consistent with freedom.

Sibling sex is also not contrary to Natural Law as defined by its advocates. So, what’s the problem?

Disgusting. Where on earth is this world going? I think we’re going to Hell in a hand basket.

You leave out attempted suicide. Someone is left to punish then.

I tend to agree with your last statement, it is a good clarification of your previous statement. In practice, however, too many times contemporary society ignores the trampling they do on other’s rights in the name of their own freedom. Just two weeks ago a smoker threw his cigarette butt on the ground right in front of me in a parking lot. I matter-of-factly said “Our world is not your ashtray”. His response? “It’s a free country, I can do whatever I want.” He was also walking to his truck that was parked in the fire lane; another example of his beliefs with regard to freedom.

Dan

Source, please?

God Bless,
RyanL

Genesis. Who did Adam’s kids mate with?

Depends…

Are you a fundamentalist? You do realize not all Christians are the same, right?

Do you have a chapter/verse that says incest was (1) what happened or (2) what God desired (i.e., not in violation of the Natural Law)?

Further, since Genesis doesn’t exactly set out the tenets of the Natural Law, I’m not entirely certain why you would point to it when questioned about your statement that Natural Law’s “advocates” don’t define incest as contrary to the Natural Law…unless you’re contending that Moses was a Natural Lawyer…

God Bless,
RyanL

OK. How about this guy? (Not the horse.)

Aquinas Summa - Question #154:
“Reply to Objection 3. There is something essentially unbecoming and contrary to natural reason in sexual intercourse between persons related by blood, for instance between parents and children who are directly and immediately related to one another, since children naturally owe their parents honor. Hence the Philosopher instances a horse (De Animal. ix, 47) which covered its own mother by mistake and threw itself over a precipice as though horrified at what it had done, because some animals even have a natural respect for those that have begotten them. There is not the same essential unbecomingness attaching to other persons who are related to one another not directly but through their parents: and, as to this, becomingness or unbecomingness varies according to custom, and human or Divine law: because, as stated above (2), sexual intercourse, being directed to the common good, is subject to law. Wherefore, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xv, 16), whereas the union of brothers and sisters goes back to olden times, it became all the more worthy of condemnation when religion forbade it.”

What is Catholic teaching on Adam and Eve? Are we all descended from them? Are we at all descended from the neighbors down the road from Adam?

Is the Church an advoate of NL? What does it say about this question of Adam’s kids mating with each other? What did the neighbors think?

You misread Aquinas almost as badly as you misread the Bible. Truly disappointing.

Try actually reading Summa Theologiae II-II, 154, 9. Then try reading what Catholics have to believe about Adam, Eve, and Evolution.

God Bless,
RyanL

Since we’re all decended from Adam and Eve, there were no neighbors :slight_smile:

I was going to leave it at this, but then I saw you post this on another thread:

And also this:

Yours have been some of the most dishonest and misleading posts I’ve seen in my time here; particularly so, since your distortions and misrepresentations are more often than not quite intentional. It’s one thing if you’re just not smart enough to make sense. It’s quite another when you twist what another has said to fit your agenda.

It’s fairly obvious you’re not here to learn anything about Catholicism. Might I please introduce you to the exit door?

God Bless,
RyanL

I applaud your patience and courtesy.

I’m wondering if GreenJeans is perhaps on the side of truth after all, in a devious sort of way. :wink:

There are very few of any persuassion who could follow his posts without concluding his reasonings were totally ridiculous. This would seem to serve the truth.

Dan

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.