Posts by Timothy Martinez6

Sam Alvarez4 said:And this whole current talk about incest in the gay community is just a total coincidence. Oh, please!

It still feels so hypocritical to me that none of you stepped up for the actual incest thread. But when it comes to the gay community, oops, suddenly incest is pulled out of thin air...
How hypocritical!

If you’re looking at me, there is a perfectly logical reason why I haven't weighed in on the incest thread. My decision to start this topic and bring up incest isn't actually about the act itself; it's about testing whether people stay consistent when using a specific argument to support legalizing same-sex unions. Discussing this on the actual incest thread makes zero sense right now (at least not until someone starts using that exact logic to push for same-sex marriage over there).

Furthermore, my decision to bring up incest within the homosexuality debate isn't accidental at all. 🙂 I am doing this specifically because I stumbled upon a particular argument used to justify legalizing same-sex unions that seems "suspicious" to me, and I want to put it to the test to see if anyone actually applies it consistently...

Christian Torres3 said:Take a break from the forums and go read a book for once. Seriously. Read up on the Habsburg dynasty and then maybe you'll realize why bringing up incest is such a weak argument. Hopefully.

Thanks for the advice. Honestly, I don't see how reading whatever you're suggesting has anything to do with my mention of incest back in my original post.

Anyway, what exactly do you think I'm trying to prove by mentioning incest?

Christian Torres3 said:Honestly, I think any further discussion here is just a waste of time.

The discussion became pointless a long time ago, and my points regarding testing that argument from the original post haven't been refuted. My apologies if I misunderstood you, but the fact that there isn't a case where siblings want to enter a civil marriage doesn't change the core of my argument one bit...

Christian Torres3 said:Man, I'd love to see a link to some actual news story about a brother/brother or sister/sister wanting to get married. You claim they exist, so go ahead—show me.

If you were strictly talking about brother/brother or sister/sister, I haven't seen any links like that. I was referring to siblings in general—two people sharing the same mother and/or father, regardless of gender. I specifically know of stories regarding a brother and sister wanting to marry (link)...

Christian Torres3 said:How many real-life examples do you actually have of brothers or sisters wanting to legalize their living situation?

What a f***ing garbage argument.

Personally, I don't know a single couple like that. You might find news stories online about them, sure. But honestly, the number of real-world examples is completely irrelevant. Even if there weren't a single case, we could still debate the principle (like asking, "how would we handle it if such a pair did show up").

Anthony Perez9 said:The only reason people keep whining about how same-sex relationships are basically incest is because they’re desperately trying to manufacture some kind of fake disgust toward it. It’s just that tired "it's all the same" logic, along with those other even grosser "comparisons" people try to pull... ☕

Your explanation doesn't fly with me. I'm not interested in appeals to emotion, like disgust; I care about pure logic and consistency.

dustyranger64 said:Look, setting aside my own weak logic in that last bit of the first point—where I was basically trying to pivot toward how people might twist it against gay marriage—I was just pointing out the main reason incest is banned in most places. It's not always about the act itself. The real kicker is that repeated incestuous relationships spike the inbreeding coefficient, making the long-term genetic fallout way bigger than it looks on the surface.

If you step outside the whole "kids" conversation, there isn't anything inherently wrong with incest. Most people aren't attracted to close relatives not because of shared DNA, but simply because they grew up in such close quarters.
Case in point 1: A brother and sister get separated at birth, grow up totally unaware of each other, meet later, fall in love, and then find out they're siblings. Sick? Yeah. Tough.
Case in point 2: A boy and girl who aren't related grow up in the same house. They see each other like siblings and stay completely asexual toward one another their whole lives; honestly, the mere thought is repulsive to them.

So, there's no double standard per se. But the foundation for making a decision is totally different, and it should be.

I wasn't talking about incest itself and its prohibition, but rather the possibility of entering a civil union for people in close blood relation—let's call it an "incestuous marriage." Is there any state that allows that?

As for that main argument against incest or "incestuous marriage," it doesn't even apply to people who physically cannot conceive a child together, so it would be interesting to see what argument is used to prevent marriage in those cases. 🤷

I'll stop here, because this isn't really a discussion about incest. What I'm interested in is testing the consistency of using a specific argument that occasionally surfaces in favor of legalizing same-sex unions. Incest is merely my litmus test for that argument...🙂

rustydrifter10 said:Comparing homosexuality to incest isn't a valid argument because the two things have absolutely nothing to do with one another.

It's pretty hard to see how an incest example could serve as a way to argue for the legalization of same-sex unions, since they are two completely different issues, and even the law treats them in totally different ways.

But it absolutely works as a way to debunk certain arguments used to legalize same-sex marriage. Both scenarios fall under the exact same logical trap: "if people live together and love one another, we should allow them to marry." If someone relies on that logic to support same-sex marriage, then their consistency—and the actual validity of their argument—is called into question when it comes to the legalization of incest...

dustyranger64 said:Even if you could somehow use that logic just to test consistency, it still doesn't hold water. Incest is banned because of the high inbreeding coefficient—basically, the massive risk of developmental issues or birth defects in kids. That's a factor that just doesn't apply to same-sex couples.

This opens up a whole mess of questions. Here are a few that are currently stuck in my head:

1) Is the mere possibility of something happening—like developmental issues in a child—enough justification to ban incest and the ability to marry? Should the "right to marriage" be tied to the potential for offspring, or should it be treated as entirely independent of those biological concerns?

2) Following that logic, should we ban marriages between men and women who aren't related by blood if genetic testing shows a high risk of their children having developmental disabilities? Isn't that kind of thing already prohibited in California?

3) What about relatives who are sterile and can't have children? Should they be allowed to marry since there's zero risk of any developmental complications from offspring? And what about incestuous relationships between people of the same sex (like a father and son, or grandmother and grandson)? They can't conceive together either...

rustydrifter10 said:Can we have an actual, reasoned debate here? Of course we can! As long as we stick to the topic at hand, follow the PDF guidelines, and respect the rules of the forum, there's absolutely no reason why we can't dive deep into a real discussion.

Look, I really need to get this off my chest because I can't stop thinking about it. We need to talk about the whole issue surrounding how certain social shifts will Encourage incest. It’s one of those topics that just hits a nerve, you know? It feels like we're heading down a path where the traditional boundaries that hold a society together are being completely ignored. Honestly, it's unsettling to think about how much things are changing. Look, there's already a dedicated thread under the Religion section for this kind of thing, so honestly, it feels pretty out of place to shove it into a discussion about homosexuality.

But what happens when you use an example like incest just to test a specific argument being used to support legalizing same-sex unions, exactly like I laid out in my opening post? In that case, it makes zero sense to debate this under the topic of incest... it only belongs where that specific argument is actually being used to push for same-sex marriage...

If that's the rule, then fine, it’s the rule. I just wish someone would provide a single shred of a logical explanation for it...

Peter Phillips32 said:Look, individual arguments don't really work in a vacuum; you need a whole bunch of them working together to build a coherent case for any thesis.

Tearing an argument out of its context like that is a textbook way to trigger a slippery slope.
Plus, all the actual arguments against incest completely dismantle the very premise you're latching onto, so you can't even use it to push for incest.

Basically, I just want to know if we're being consistent with this logic or if we're just dealing with a double standard.

Consistency isn't the only yardstick used to measure if an argument holds water, and when you rip a single point out of its original setting, you really ought to handle it with some care—you shouldn't just recklessly shrink the entire criteria down to one solitary metric, especially one that obviously makes the argument fall apart.

I only saw that one specific argument—the one I actually responded to—not the other points you're bringing up. That’s exactly why I answered the way I did. If those other arguments actually surface, I’d be more than happy to debate them too, provided we're still allowed to...

Peter Phillips32 said:Look, individual arguments don't really work in a vacuum; you need a whole bunch of them working together to build a coherent case for any thesis.

Tearing an argument out of its context like that is a textbook way to trigger a slippery slope.
Plus, all the actual arguments against incest completely dismantle the very premise you're latching onto, so you can't even use it to push for incest.

Basically, I just want to know if we're being consistent with this logic or if we're just dealing with a double standard.

Consistency isn't the only yardstick used to measure if an argument holds water, and when you rip a single point out of its original setting, you really ought to handle it with some care—you shouldn't just recklessly shrink the entire criteria down to one solitary metric, especially one that obviously makes the argument fall apart.

Consistency is my absolute first litmus test for any argument. If that falls apart, I'm done with the discussion...

Look, I agree that taking someone's words out of context is wrong. If it happens by accident because we weren't on the same page, I think we should be allowed to clarify our positions and just move on with a civilized debate...

George Sanders37 said:Could someone—clearly more informed than I am—explain why there’s such a persistent attempt to draw parallels between homosexuality and incest?🤷😕

I can only speak for myself, specifically regarding why I drew that "parallel" in the first place. I already laid out my reasoning above. While I certainly see a distinction between those two phenomena, I don't see one when you actually look at the core argument... All that matters is that people live together and love one another; we should simply be making it possible for them to marry...That’s exactly the logic some supporters of legalizing same-sex marriage try to push. I just want to know if they actually stick to that reasoning consistently, or if they only pull it out when it suits their agenda... If they're being selective about it, then the whole argument falls apart and becomes completely pointless...

I have two questions for those in charge who might actually give me an answer.

On the thread "Questions regarding homosexuality from social and religious perspectives" (over on Religion), there’s a recurring argument used to support legalizing same-sex unions that goes something like this: "The fact that people live together and love one another should be enough reason to allow them to enter into civil marriage." To test the logic of that specific argument, I brought up the case of incest and asked if we should also allow such unions since those individuals can also live together and love one another. My goal was simply to see if we are being consistent with this reasoning or if we are applying double standards. My response was that I am forbidden from using an "incest parallel" for same-sex unions—which earned me a ban—yet I am supposedly allowed to use a "polyamory parallel."

Since I haven't received a clear or logical explanation as to why an incest comparison is off-limits while polyamory is acceptable—especially when both serve to test the validity of the same argument supporting same-sex legalization—I would like a more precise clarification...

Furthermore, since I was directed to try this line of questioning over on Politics, I want to know if I am permitted to test arguments there using similar parallels (if they arise)? Or am I just going to get banned there too?

Anthony Perez9 said:You're making a wrong assumption there. Some people truly do want it. You don't think I'm just reciting the Creed when I say "I believe in (...) everlasting life" for no reason...

You're barking up the wrong tree.
Nah.

Some people actually want this.

Who's this?

You think I’m just reciting that line about believing in eternal life for the hell of it? Please.

Yeah.
Nah.

Some people actually want this.

Who's this?

You think I’m just reciting that line about believing in eternal life for the hell of it? Please.

Yeah.
Nah.

Some people actually want this.

Who's this?

You think I’m just reciting that line about believing in eternal life for the hell of it? Please.

Yeah.
Then how about you actually prove your assumption?

Anthony Perez9 said:You're making a wrong assumption there. Some people truly do want it. You don't think I'm just reciting the Creed when I say "I believe in (...) everlasting life" for no reason...

You're barking up the wrong tree.
Nah.

Some people actually want this.

Who's this?

You think I’m just reciting that line about believing in eternal life for the hell of it? Please.

Yeah.
Nah.

Some people actually want this.

Who's this?

You think I’m just reciting that line about believing in eternal life for the hell of it? Please.

Yeah.
Nah.

Some people actually want this.

Who's this?

You think I’m just reciting that line about believing in eternal life for the hell of it? Please.

Yeah.
Well, me for one. 🙂

Anthony Perez9 said:You're making a wrong assumption there. Some people truly do want it. You don't think I'm just reciting the Creed when I say "I believe in (...) everlasting life" for no reason...

You're barking up the wrong tree.
Nah.

Some people actually want this.

Who's this?

You think I’m just reciting that line about believing in eternal life for the hell of it? Please.

Yeah.
Nah.

Some people actually want this.

Who's this?

You think I’m just reciting that line about believing in eternal life for the hell of it? Please.

Yeah.
Nah.

Some people actually want this.

Who's this?

You think I’m just reciting that line about believing in eternal life for the hell of it? Please.

Yeah.
So can I just assume you're saying "yeah" just to be difficult now...

Anthony Perez9 said:Yeah. I’d do it. Who actually wants to stop existing?[/I]

You missed the point.
Extending your life isn't the same thing as signing up for eternal life.

Most people just want to live longer. But who actually wants eternity?

My guess is absolutely nobody. It’s just not something you can crave. Living without mortality is theological nonsense.

Besides, that realization would put all those religious theorists and snake-oil salesmen out of business.
You missed the point.
Extending your life isn't the same thing as signing up for eternal life.

Most people just want to live longer. But who actually wants eternity?

My guess is absolutely nobody. It’s just not something you can crave. Living without mortality is theological nonsense.

Besides, that realization would put all those religious theorists and snake-oil salesmen out of business.
You missed the point.
Extending your life isn't the same thing as signing up for eternal life.

Most people just want to live longer. But who actually wants eternity?

My guess is absolutely nobody. It’s just not something you can crave. Living without mortality is theological nonsense.

Besides, that realization would put all those religious theorists and snake-oil salesmen out of business.
You're making a wrong assumption there. Some people truly do want it. You don't think I'm just reciting the Creed when I say "I believe in (...) everlasting life" for no reason...

Chris Taylor12 said:What I want to know is how exactly did God give him (or them) that authority? Is there some official document or announcement somewhere, or did they just make the whole thing up themselves?

Even though the lady from Indianapolis already answered the question, I’ll just drop the specific passage from the Bible that the Catholic Church uses as the foundation for the sacrament of confession...

"Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone's sins, they are forgiven; if you deny them, they are not forgiven" (John 20:22-23).

Michael Perez5 said:That’s exactly what I’m struggling with... how can one man—who is supposed to be an example of divine teachings—forgive my sins in God's name? I find that really hard to wrap my head around. I guess God has some serious problems if most of His "representatives" act like what I've experienced. I truly, sincerely hope I can eventually find a good person I can actually talk to with real faith in them and their intentions.

My question is, regardless of all this, am I still able to get married in that church according to the official rules and protocols?

Well, the efficacy of a sacrament doesn't depend on how holy the Priest performing it happens to be.
That isn't a scientific fact; it's a matter of faith.

I believe you can still get married there (after all, the Priest doesn't own the building), but you should probably check with the local authorities to be sure...

It's honestly frustrating how many people today (not necessarily pointing at you) treat a church Wedding as nothing more than a tradition—just doing it so the neighbors won't talk—or a mere formality, without understanding that it's a sacred sacrament and what that actually implies...

Michael Perez5 said:So, I guess I’m not a believer just because I haven't done my Confirmation... wow... that’s exactly the kind of response I was expecting. Maybe I’m not a believer either because I don't leave money $333 to cover "the priest's needs—the parish's needs"
. Or maybe I’m not a believer because I believe a priest can't actually "forgive" my sins; only God can, and even then, only if I sincerely repent by my own bed and He hears me, right?
Am I not a believer if I don't show up at St. Michael's Church regularly?
Am I not a believer because I think the nuns shouldn't be treated like servants to the priests?
And am I not a believer if I spend my time helping the sick, the hungry, and those in need... which I ALWAYS do?

Did God suggest that priests should drive around in brand-new cars, go out for fancy lunches at restaurants, or hang out with their buddies at night over beers talking about what some teenage girls confessed during confession regarding their first experiences? Is that why the sacraments have to be respected?

Look, I realize that if I want a church wedding, I have to follow whatever rules the church sets. That’s just how it works. I know I need to do my Confirmation, and I will do it. So, the sacraments are being honored... but that's not what we're talking about right now! My faith is deep, and it's my own personal relationship with God (which, I mean, I believe everyone should have if they want to live honestly and in peace—you don't need priests to take your money and tell you whether you're a believer or not... I guess...). But unfortunately, I haven't had a single positive experience with priests. In fact, my experiences have been completely opposite, and in the worst way possible.

I would truly love to talk to an honest, humble, and reasonable representative of God, but I haven't run into one yet...

The reason I'm writing here is about the behavior of a priest who acted so condescendingly and arrogantly. He looked down on me, insulted me, and treated me like a liar... I mean, what kind of man does that? I don't even have friends like that...

How can you ask people for MONEY when they already hold such a fearful respect for priests, and many actually think they aren't "good believers" if they don't give enough cash? I just can't believe it... but what happened today really crossed the line. And by the way, I didn't even tell him I hadn't done my Confirmation. Honestly, I could barely get a word in between his outbursts... who knows... if I had, he probably would have kicked me out right then and there... 😢

I can't tell you if you're a believer or not, but if you think regular sacramental confession isn't necessary (that confessing personally to God is enough), then you're stepping outside the bounds of Catholic teaching. A Priest doesn't forgive sins in a sacramental confession (only God forgives sins); he grants absolution (think of him as God's representative who, based on the authority God gave him, absolves sins).

Michael Perez5 said:So, I guess I’m not a believer just because I haven't done my Confirmation... wow... that’s exactly the kind of response I was expecting. Maybe I’m not a believer either because I don't leave money $333 to cover "the priest's needs—the parish's needs"
. Or maybe I’m not a believer because I believe a priest can't actually "forgive" my sins; only God can, and even then, only if I sincerely repent by my own bed and He hears me, right?
Am I not a believer if I don't show up at St. Michael's Church regularly?
Am I not a believer because I think the nuns shouldn't be treated like servants to the priests?
And am I not a believer if I spend my time helping the sick, the hungry, and those in need... which I ALWAYS do?

Did God suggest that priests should drive around in brand-new cars, go out for fancy lunches at restaurants, or hang out with their buddies at night over beers talking about what some teenage girls confessed during confession regarding their first experiences? Is that why the sacraments have to be respected?

Look, I realize that if I want a church wedding, I have to follow whatever rules the church sets. That’s just how it works. I know I need to do my Confirmation, and I will do it. So, the sacraments are being honored... but that's not what we're talking about right now! My faith is deep, and it's my own personal relationship with God (which, I mean, I believe everyone should have if they want to live honestly and in peace—you don't need priests to take your money and tell you whether you're a believer or not... I guess...). But unfortunately, I haven't had a single positive experience with priests. In fact, my experiences have been completely opposite, and in the worst way possible.

I would truly love to talk to an honest, humble, and reasonable representative of God, but I haven't run into one yet...

The reason I'm writing here is about the behavior of a priest who acted so condescendingly and arrogantly. He looked down on me, insulted me, and treated me like a liar... I mean, what kind of man does that? I don't even have friends like that...

How can you ask people for MONEY when they already hold such a fearful respect for priests, and many actually think they aren't "good believers" if they don't give enough cash? I just can't believe it... but what happened today really crossed the line. And by the way, I didn't even tell him I hadn't done my Confirmation. Honestly, I could barely get a word in between his outbursts... who knows... if I had, he probably would have kicked me out right then and there... 😢

If you know a Priest who is leaking secrets from confessions, I suggest you warn him, and if that doesn't work, report him to the Bishop.

Michael Perez5 said:So, I guess I’m not a believer just because I haven't done my Confirmation... wow... that’s exactly the kind of response I was expecting. Maybe I’m not a believer either because I don't leave money $333 to cover "the priest's needs—the parish's needs"
. Or maybe I’m not a believer because I believe a priest can't actually "forgive" my sins; only God can, and even then, only if I sincerely repent by my own bed and He hears me, right?
Am I not a believer if I don't show up at St. Michael's Church regularly?
Am I not a believer because I think the nuns shouldn't be treated like servants to the priests?
And am I not a believer if I spend my time helping the sick, the hungry, and those in need... which I ALWAYS do?

Did God suggest that priests should drive around in brand-new cars, go out for fancy lunches at restaurants, or hang out with their buddies at night over beers talking about what some teenage girls confessed during confession regarding their first experiences? Is that why the sacraments have to be respected?

Look, I realize that if I want a church wedding, I have to follow whatever rules the church sets. That’s just how it works. I know I need to do my Confirmation, and I will do it. So, the sacraments are being honored... but that's not what we're talking about right now! My faith is deep, and it's my own personal relationship with God (which, I mean, I believe everyone should have if they want to live honestly and in peace—you don't need priests to take your money and tell you whether you're a believer or not... I guess...). But unfortunately, I haven't had a single positive experience with priests. In fact, my experiences have been completely opposite, and in the worst way possible.

I would truly love to talk to an honest, humble, and reasonable representative of God, but I haven't run into one yet...

The reason I'm writing here is about the behavior of a priest who acted so condescendingly and arrogantly. He looked down on me, insulted me, and treated me like a liar... I mean, what kind of man does that? I don't even have friends like that...

How can you ask people for MONEY when they already hold such a fearful respect for priests, and many actually think they aren't "good believers" if they don't give enough cash? I just can't believe it... but what happened today really crossed the line. And by the way, I didn't even tell him I hadn't done my Confirmation. Honestly, I could barely get a word in between his outbursts... who knows... if I had, he probably would have kicked me out right then and there... 😢

I'm sorry that Priest treated you that way. Unfortunately, Priests sin too, sometimes even worse than anyone else. I don't know what to advise you. If you still want your Wedding at that church and the Priest is being difficult, perhaps you should talk to the Bishop...