New York's highest court OK's marriages between half-uncles and half-nieces

[musiclady]

That was common with my grandparents too.  They basically lived in isolation for generations up in the Kentucky hills.  So yeah, my family tree is pretty much a sweet potato vine.

I'm pretty sure Adam and Eve's grandkids married their cousins too. 

[olde north church]

Your responses only indicate that you misunderstood what was being said on those threads.

I stand by everything I actually said regarding the coming efforts to legalize other forms of aberrant behavior, and the gate's having been opened by normalizing and legalizing homosexual 'marriage.'

There was a societal understanding that marriage was between a man and woman.  There was a societal more against having children without marriage.  There was a societal understanding that polygamy and incest of close family members (not cousins) was wrong.

That has been shattered now.

That doesn't mean that everyone behaved morally before the sexual revolution, and it would be stupid to even posit such a point of view.  Especially for one who believes in original sin, and that Scripture, including the Old Testament is God's inspired word.

So any time you try to mock the idea that American society once stood for sexual morality and now does not (regardless of the behavior of individuals), remember that you are once again, missing the entire point.

Do you think Rock Hudson, Liberace and Sal Mineo weren't homosexual before the "Gay Agenda" existed?

[olde north church]

Do you think Rock Hudson, Liberace and Sal Mineo weren't homosexual before the "Gay Agenda" existed?

Also, recognizing people homosexuals exist and agreeing with what they do are two separate things.

[alicewonders]

Also, recognizing people homosexuals exist and agreeing with what they do are two separate things.

That's the way I feel.  I have several homosexual friends and they are among my dearest friends, but I don't like discussing either my sex life    or theirs.  Period.  Politics and religion are other things we don't talk about - but I love them dearly.  I won't exclude them from my friendship AND I certainly wouldn't drop a friend because they were a sinner!  Why - I wouldn't have any friends left!

 

[musiclady]

Do you think Rock Hudson, Liberace and Sal Mineo weren't homosexual before the "Gay Agenda" existed?

I'm sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever based on what I posted.

[musiclady]

Also, recognizing people homosexuals exist and agreeing with what they do are two separate things.

Of course.

Who ever suggested that homosexuals didn't exist? 

[MACVSOG68]

Musiclady wrote:  So any time you try to mock the idea that American society once stood for sexual morality and now does not (regardless of the behavior of individuals), remember that you are once again, missing the entire point.

Problem was, as long as it was kept out of the spotlight, it was okay.  I grew up in those times, and everyone knew about the back alley abortions, young girls being married, gays (we had other words for them at that time).  The attitude was "I know it's going on out there but I don't want to hear about it"  Such morality!

Back then, people joked about "jailbait", and it was very frequently overlooked.  Laws today are far stronger than they were then on such issues.  Cop stopped you for driving drunk, he'd more often than not ask if you needed a ride home or could you make it.  It's not unlike what we see in the Muslim community today.  They're just peace loving worshippers of Allah.  They aren't terrorists.  But in fact, they ignore what's going on by making believe it isn't...not in their mosque; not in their community.

Is it immoral to provide homosexuals with basic protections available to straights?  The answer will depend on how one views our secular Constitution versus their religious views.  Bottom line is that in many respects the laws back then were much looser than today.  But as you say, once again I'm missing the point.  ^-^

[musiclady]

Problem was, as long as it was kept out of the spotlight, it was okay.  I grew up in those times, and everyone knew about the back alley abortions, young girls being married, gays (we had other words for them at that time).  The attitude was "I know it's going on out there but I don't want to hear about it"  Such morality!

Back then, people joked about "jailbait", and it was very frequently overlooked.  Laws today are far stronger than they were then on such issues.  Cop stopped you for driving drunk, he'd more often than not ask if you needed a ride home or could you make it.  It's not unlike what we see in the Muslim community today.  They're just peace loving worshippers of Allah.  They aren't terrorists.  But in fact, they ignore what's going on by making believe it isn't...not in their mosque; not in their community.

Is it immoral to provide homosexuals with basic protections available to straights?  The answer will depend on how one views our secular Constitution versus their religious views.  Bottom line is that in many respects the laws back then were much looser than today.  But as you say, once again I'm missing the point.  ^-^

Actually, you ARE missing the point.

But at least you're doing it politely.  (That can't be said for everyone).  Therefore, I'll assume your intelligence and thoughtfulness  trumps your desire to argue, and that you eventually absorb the things I've already said.

I stand by them, because they are the truth.

[MACVSOG68]

Actually, you ARE missing the point.

But at least you're doing it politely.  (That can't be said for everyone).  Therefore, I'll assume your intelligence and thoughtfulness  trumps your desire to argue, and that you eventually absorb the things I've already said.

I stand by them, because they are the truth.

You started by referring to Pandora's Box, which is in line with your earlier arguments that same-sex marriage will lead to more and more such "abominations", and that morality will suffer as it was much better in earlier times.  I simply pointed out that such things as close relative marriages have been going on for a long time, as have abortions forced marriages even when openly shunned by the Moral Majority, but frequently with a wink and nod.

And I do try to be reasonably polite, but one can argue politely.  If not for the argument, why post on a debate forum?  And I also consider my various positions as the truth, as I recognize others' positions are truth to them. 

[olde north church]

I'm sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever based on what I posted.

Queers were there.

[musiclady]

You started by referring to Pandora's Box, which is in line with your earlier arguments that same-sex marriage will lead to more and more such "abominations", and that morality will suffer as it was much better in earlier times.  I simply pointed out that such things as close relative marriages have been going on for a long time, as have abortions forced marriages even when openly shunned by the Moral Majority, but frequently with a wink and nod.

And I do try to be reasonably polite, but one can argue politely.  If not for the argument, why post on a debate forum?  And I also consider my various positions as the truth, as I recognize others' positions are truth to them.

  I realized I shouldn't have used the word " truth" after I typed it but got tied up before I could edit my post.  I'm not interested in continuing this particular discussion with you as I believe I have made myself quite clear and am not interested in efforts to distort or avoid the actual words I have said rather than address the many things I have actually said.  Thanks for understanding.

[mountaineer]

Do you think Rock Hudson, Liberace and Sal Mineo weren't homosexual before the "Gay Agenda" existed?

Considering God saw fit to condemn homosexual behavior in Old Testament times, it's highly unlikely that any of us believes there were no homosexuals until recently. We acknowledge that.   Homosexual (so-called) marriage, on the other hand, was not considered until just the last few years.

[musiclady]

One last point to clarify. When a culture disapproves of a behavior and it is mutually agreed upon that such behavior is wrong, then there will be less of that behavior.  It is ridiculous to distort that statement into meaning that such behavior didn't exist. That is what I'm referring to as distortion, and it has occurred multiple times on this and similar threads.

[Bigun]

"•   Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
•   Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current communist propaganda. Get control of the teachers associations.
•   Gain control of all student newspapers.
•   Infiltrate the press. Get control of book review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.
•   Gain control of key positions in radio, TV and motion pictures.
•   Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them censorship and a violation of free speech and free press.
•   Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures and TV.
•   Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as normal, natural and healthy.
•   Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with social religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a religious crutch. "


Exerted from Cleon Skousen’s   “The Naked Communist” published in 1957


He was precedent and  EXACTLY on target it seems to me!

[olde north church]

Considering God saw fit to condemn homosexual behavior in Old Testament times, it's highly unlikely that any of us believes there were no homosexuals until recently. We acknowledge that.   Homosexual (so-called) marriage, on the other hand, was not considered until just the last few years.

I don't believe the term "marriage" should be used what homosexuals want BUT I do believe they should be allowed to enter into "spousal contracts".  Something that would allow them to make hospital visits, enter contracts as a couple, things like that.
When the Christians allowed the use of the "marriage" they lost the cause, as usual.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I don't believe the term "marriage" should be used what homosexuals want BUT I do believe they should be allowed to enter into "spousal contracts".  Something that would allow them to make hospital visits, enter contracts as a couple, things like that.
When the Christians allowed the use of the "marriage" they lost the cause, as usual.

Here's the problem with that.

If we get to that point where a same sex couple can go to the Court House, stand next to a heterosexual couple and be married by the same magistrate, using the same documents and end up in an identical legal union, how could the notion that the hetero couple entered into a union called a marriage and the same sex couple ended up with something completely different be defensible in a court of law?

[olde north church]

Here's the problem with that.

If we get to that point where a same sex couple can go to the Court House, stand next to a heterosexual couple and be married by the same magistrate, using the same documents and end up in an identical legal union, how could the notion that the hetero couple entered into a union called a marriage and the same sex couple ended up with something completely different be defensible in a court of law?

You can't.  But you can limit the word "marriage" to religious bonds.

[musiclady]

I don't believe the term "marriage" should be used what homosexuals want BUT I do believe they should be allowed to enter into "spousal contracts".  Something that would allow them to make hospital visits, enter contracts as a couple, things like that.
When the Christians allowed the use of the "marriage" they lost the cause, as usual.

Just to set the record straight.....  hospitals have allowed hospital visits for homosexual mates for a very, very long time.

That's one lie the left has continued to tell to make people think things aren't 'fair.'

With the left, everything is about fairness, and next to nothing is about telling the truth.

[MACVSOG68]

" It is ridiculous to distort that statement into meaning that such behavior didn't exist"

...or was even worse than today and was quietly accepted.

[MACVSOG68]

Considering God saw fit to condemn homosexual behavior in Old Testament times, it's highly unlikely that any of us believes there were no homosexuals until recently. We acknowledge that.   Homosexual (so-called) marriage, on the other hand, was not considered until just the last few years.

Until relatively recent times in our history, birth control, interracial marriages and even privacy in the bedroom were  in many jurisdictions. 

[musiclady]

...or was even worse than today and was quietly accepted.

I don't know what world you lived in, MAC, but the idea that morality was "worse" in the 1950's and early 60's and "quietly accepted" is a remarkable stretch from the reality of American life 60 years ago.  (Sounds kinda like a Hollywood revisionist perspective to me).

As much as I may regret it, I'm going to continue with another question for you....

Have you ever been to a country with either no traffic laws, or unenforced traffic laws?  (like, say, India where people drive on the wrong side of the road at full speed because they feel like it??)

Is traffic the same as, or better there than it is in, let's say, America, where traffic laws are stricter? 

The truth is, that when society agrees upon and enforces standards, behavior overall is BETTER.  That is not to say that in America no one speeds or runs stoplights, or even drives drunk, but to say that a country with legal and societal standards makes behavior WORSE, is nearly an absurdity.

When American culture expected sexual standards to be upheld, many, many people avoided bad behavior because of the shame of a society that, as a whole, agreed on those standards.  That is not to say that adultery didn't exist, that sexual abuse of children didn't exist, that children engaging in oral sex didn't exist, that illegitimate births never happened, that rampant promiscuity in some individuals didn't exist, but to say that American sexual morality was WORSE in the 1950's than it is now, when many people think that absolutely nothing is wrong if you 'feel like it', is, frankly, ludicrous.

[musiclady]

...or was even worse than today and was quietly accepted.

Upon reflection, I think you made this statement merely to provoke, and not to stimulate rational discussion, and I'm sorry I fell for it.

On the other hand, I thank you for providing me yet another opportunity to speak some common sense in response to your provocation.

[Cyber Liberty]

Here's the problem with that.

If we get to that point where a same sex couple can go to the Court House, stand next to a heterosexual couple and be married by the same magistrate, using the same documents and end up in an identical legal union, how could the notion that the hetero couple entered into a union called a marriage and the same sex couple ended up with something completely different be defensible in a court of law?

Ultimately, I see the word "marriage" falling into legal non-use for both hetero- and homosexual marriages.

This original story seems to be a look at the "slippery slope" argument.  A moot point if the word "marriage" goes away

(I'm still digesting Bastiat.  I'm taking my time on that!)

[Luis Gonzalez]

You can't.  But you can limit the word "marriage" to religious bonds.

OK.

That's the point then.

The sacrament of  "marriage" is something that should only be dispensed by a clergyman, so anyone who wishes to enter into the sacrament, then needs to have their union presided over by a member of the clergy and in the Lord's house.

This does bring up a second point.

SOME churches will be willing to conduct the ceremony, and they would have every right to do so under Constitutional protection, so we will end up in the same place any way.

[truth_seeker]

This Victorian portrayal omits the common practice of spiriting the pregnant young thing away, so as to take this situation out of sight. Control the optics. Be dishonest and mislead.

Hiding the "mistakes" creates the illusion that the "moral leaders" are getting positive results.