Incest a 'fundamental right', German committee says

Foxmint

Quazzie wrote: »

Anyways that doesn't answer my question. How can two popes say opposite things but still both be infallible.

Frankie didn't change anything.
It's called reporting and media spin.
Homosexual inclination = no problem. (aka we all have the disorded inclination to sin)
Homosexual acts = problem.
It's always been that way, no change. Just a different PR spin.

Quazzie

Foxmint wrote: »

and the last time a new official doctrine was declared, and papal infalibity was used to settle it, was in 1858

1950 according to the wikipedia article.

Czarcasm wrote: »

So the RCC are criticised for not getting with the times, then they're criticised for getting with the times?

Damned if you don't and damned if you do, eh?

But how can both be correct/infallible?

Foxmint

Quazzie wrote: »

1950 according to the wikipedia article

There you have it then, 1950, not 2013/14

Foxmint

Quazzie wrote: »

But how can both be correct/infallible?

Because Frankie and Benny were saying the exact same thing but Frankie, in a different, more cuddly media friendly way.
Frankie didn't change anything.
It's called reporting and media spin.
Homosexual inclination = no problem. (aka we all have the disorded inclination to sin)
Homosexual acts = problem.
It's always been that way, no change. Just a different PR spin.

Quazzie

Foxmint wrote: »

There you have it then, 1950, not 2013/14

I never said that was the last time, just gave it as an example of a more recent example than yours. I didn't read any more of the article because I like my fiction from a different genre.

Czarcasm

Quazzie wrote: »

Ask ten people to name three things about the catholic church and I bet the majority will name pedofile priests as one of them, so it kind of is.

I'll ask ten Roman Catholics about that so and see what they come up with. I'll bet you're wrong.

If I ask them about incest, 100% will definitely be against it.

Anyways that doesn't answer my question. How can two popes say opposite things but still both be infallible.

Well they're different Papal, ain't they?

Foxmint

Quazzie wrote: »

I never said that was the last time, just gave it as an example of a more recent example than yours. I didn't read any more of the article because I like my fiction from a different genre.

You stopped reading ? So when was the last one ?

Quazzie

Czarcasm wrote: »

I'll ask ten Roman Catholics about that so and see what they come up with. I'll bet you're wrong.

If I ask them about incest, 100% will definitely be against it.

Josef Fritzl was a catholic so be careful about who you ask if you want 100% to be against it.

Czarcasm wrote: »

Well they're different Papal, ain't they?

Forgive my ignorance, but how is that make both infallible when saying opposite things? Is there an expiry date on their infallibility?

Crusades

Quazzie wrote: »

From Google
"Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church that states that, in virtue of the promise of Jesus to Peter, the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error[1] "When, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church."

So one pope says homosexuality is bad, whereas the next says it's ok. So one of the was wrong if they both say opposite things.

Also someone who believes in a giant magical being in the sky, telling someone else they don't have a clue is laughably ironic.

I believe in God. If you want to discuss this (in a safe, polite and respectful manner), there's a Christianity forum for that.

So which pope infallibly declared homosexuality to be ok?

Please stop telling porkies and pretending you know what you're talking about. You don't.

osarusan

Quazzie wrote: »

Forgive my ignorance, but how is that make both infallible when saying opposite things? Is there an expiry date on their infallibility?

What does this have to do with anything anyway?

Quazzie

osarusan wrote: »

What does this have to do with anything anyway?

Just curious is all.
I never meant for it to go this far off topic. I just asked a simple question.
Feel free to drop it whenever ya like

Crusades

Czarcasm wrote: »

You musn't have been to mass in a while either, latest update from the Pope re gay people is they're A-OK!

The church teaches that all people are A-OK (as you put it) and capable of living Christian lives.

If you're trying to find recent evidence of the church condoning homosexual behaviour, you will be disappointed.

Czarcasm

Quazzie wrote: »

Josef Fritzl was a catholic so be careful about who you ask if you want 100% to be against it.

You said ask ten people, I'm hardly likely to be talking to Josef Fritzl any time soon!

Were you that unable to think of anyone a bit closer to home, that you had to use one person in Austria who was actually found guilty of incest and claim his views are representative of 1 billion people?

That's as ridiculous as me claiming that his views are representative of all people who have no issue with incest.

Forgive my ignorance, but how is that make both infallible when saying opposite things? Is there an expiry date on their infallibility?

Your ignorance is forgiven. For a more qualified answer though, perhaps you should ask the man himself on twitter -

https://twitter.com/Pontifex

chinacup

LexieOnRale wrote: »

What the hell? I'm all for LGBT but I don't think it's comparable to riding your father, now, come on.

Never mind the fact if you had a child with your father, you'd be giving birth to your own sibling. Probably born with webbed fingers or something and it wouldn't even be the child's fault, it's dangerous.

Exactly. Bottom line is that homosexuality has very little parallel with incest. Incest there is a huge risk involved and you are directly involving your family in the majority of cases so it has more damage potential.

Foxmint

chinacup wrote: »

Exactly. Bottom line is that homosexuality has very little parallel with incest. Incest there is a huge risk involved and you are directly involving your family in the majority of cases so it has more damage potential.

If two gay adult brothers love eachother and want to get it on, and get married what business is it of yours or anyone elses ?
You have no right whatsoever to deny them these things.

Demonique

My first thought when I saw the title of this thread:

https://38.media.tumblr.com/e9125a9818189ee387ae4107366aceac/tumblr_n02lgbl5CI1qzss7so2_500.gif

Czarcasm

Foxmint wrote: »

If two gay adult brothers love eachother and want to get it on, and get married what business is it of yours or anyone elses ?
You have no right whatsoever to deny them these things.

Are you familiar at all with the concept of social responsibility?

Social responsibility is an ethical framework that suggests that an entity, be it an organization or individual, has an obligation to act to benefit society at large. Social responsibility is a duty every individual has to perform so as to maintain a balance between the economy and the ecosystems. A trade-off may exist between economic development, in the material sense, and the welfare of the society and environment. Social responsibility means sustaining the equilibrium between the two. It pertains not only to business organizations but also to everyone whose any action impacts the environment. This responsibility can be passive, by avoiding engaging in socially harmful acts, or active, by performing activities that directly advance social goals.

Incest as an activity has been deemed in most societies to be socially irresponsible behaviour, so your childish "none of your business" argument, is worthless.

suicide_circus

So the argument is worthless because an ethical framework called social responsibility exists?

Czarcasm

suicide_circus wrote: »

So the argument is worthless because an ethical framework called social responsibility exists?

Well that's what I just said? Not only does it exist, but it's the way most societies function, and it's the reason why we have punitive measures in place when people act in a manner that contravenes their duty to be socially responsible. That's why "two consenting adults" is never just two consenting adults that can decide between themselves to do whatever the hell they like, because they are part of society and have a responsibility to abide by the laws of that society.

Stainless_Steel

Two consenting adults may wish to cannibalise eachother. Let's legalise that so.

They may want to ride some cows. Sure the cows won't feel a thing (farmers have to inflict worse), let's be liberal and legalise that too.

No! Because both are the wishes of sick minded individuals who don't belong in a society. The same as two brothers who want to fcuk. It's disgusting. Stop being liberal just for the sake of it.

0byme75341jo28

I'd love to ride a cow now that you mention it...

Czarcasm

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Two consenting adults may wish to cannibalise eachother. Let's legalise that so.

They may want to ride some cows. Sure the cows won't feel a thing (farmers have to inflict worse), let's be liberal and legalise that too.

No! Because both are the wishes of sick minded individuals who don't belong in a society. The same as two brothers who want to fcuk. It's disgusting. Stop being liberal just for the sake of it.

Best bloody comment of this whole thread. Nail on the head in a nutshell.

Guy:Incognito

Crusades wrote: »

It's evident from that statement that you haven't a clue really. Google: papal infallibility.

Is the pope not chosen by god? Does that not make him fallible?

Foxmint

Czarcasm wrote: »

Are you familiar at all with the concept of social responsibility ?

Are you familar with the concept that two bothers who love eachother and have a loving sexual relationship and want to get married, is indeed the very definiation of social responsibilty. What's your next backward dark ages yarn, marriage should only be between a male and female ?

Stainless_Steel

Foxmint wrote: »

Are you familar with the concept that two bothers who love eachother and have a loving sexual relationship and want to get married, is indeed the very definiation of social responsibilty. What's your next backward dark ages yarn, marriage should only be between a male and female ?

What an absurd point of view.

Foxmint

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

What an absurd point of view.

What an empty argument

Czarcasm

Foxmint wrote: »

Are you familar with the concept that two bothers who love eachother and have a loving sexual relationship and want to get married, is indeed the very definiation of social responsibilty. What's your next backward dark ages yarn, marriage should only be between a male and female ?

It's actually the concept of incest is a backwards yarn that was indeed popular in the Dark Ages.

There's no benefit to society whatsoever in allowing for family members to engage in incestuous relationships, let alone allowing for them to enter into marital relationships, still no benefit to society as a whole, unless you're aware of some benefit to society as a whole of incest that the rest of the developed world is unaware of?

Stainless_Steel

Foxmint wrote: »

What an empty argument

I posted solid enough arguments above. I don't see you coming back with a reply to them.

Foxmint

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

I posted solid enough arguments above. I don't see you coming back with a reply to them.

I haven't seen one yet
What were they, post them up now

Foxmint

Czarcasm wrote: »

It's actually the concept of incest is a backwards yarn that was indeed popular in the Dark Ages.

There's no benefit to society whatsoever in allowing for family members to engage in incestuous relationships, let alone allowing for them to enter into marital relationships, still no benefit to society as a whole, unless you're aware of some benefit to society as a whole of incest that the rest of the developed world is unaware of?

Same thing could be and is said about homosexual relationships and marriage.
What a massive fail that bigoted point of view turned out to be.

Stainless_Steel

Foxmint wrote: »

What were they, post them up now

Nah fcuk that.

Stainless_Steel

Foxmint wrote: »

Same thing could be and is said about homosexual relationships and marriage.
What a massive fail that bigoted point of view turned out to be.

He didn't bloody say that argument against homosexuals for christ sake.

Foxmint

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Nah fcuk that.

Thought as much

Czarcasm

Foxmint wrote: »

Same thing could be and is said about homosexual relationships and marriage.
What a massive fail that bigoted point of view turned out to be.

Can you stick to the point of the thread at all?

I didn't ask you about homosexuality, I asked you to point out the overall benefit to society as a whole for the decriminalisation of incest. Can you do that much?

Foxmint

Czarcasm wrote: »

Can you stick to the point of the thread at all?

I didn't ask you about homosexuality, I asked you to point out the overall benefit to society as a whole for the decriminalisation of incest. Can you do that much?

I already have, can you tell us what's bad for society about two adult bothers in a loving sexual relationship getting married, and how it's different to two other men getting married, and why that is good for society. Other than "its icky to me" You haven't and you can't, that's because the German commitee are completely correct in their assertion. All the exact same bigotted arguments against incest made on this thread, are the exact same as all the tried and failed arguments against homosexuality.

0byme75341jo28

Foxmint wrote: »

I already have, can you tell us what's bad for society about two adult bothers in a loving sexual relationship getting married, and how it's different to two other men getting married, and why that is good for society. Other than "its icky to me" You haven't and you can't, that's because the German commitee are completely correct in their assertion. All the exact same bigotted arguments against incest made on this thread, are the exact same as all the tried and failed arguments against homosexuality.

Are you riding your brother?

Foxmint

Elle Thankful Soil wrote: »

Are you riding your brother?

Is that the best you can do ?

Is someone who sticks up for gay peoples rights always gay ?

And if someone was, why would it be any of your business ?

0byme75341jo28

Foxmint wrote: »

Is someone who sticks up for gay peoples rights always gay ?

And if someone was, why would it be any of your business ?

Are you gay?

Foxmint

Elle Thankful Soil wrote: »

Are you gay?

What if I was ?

Stainless_Steel

Foxmint wrote: »

Is that the best you can do ?

Is someone who sticks up for gay peoples rights always gay ?

And if someone was, why would it be any of your business ?

You do realise that you are the one who is treating this as a gay marriage issue?

So what you are pro two brothers fcuking, but not father and daughter?

I am not homophobic. But someone who gets sexual with their sibling needs to be mentally assessed. Gay/straight...doesn't matter.

Foxmint

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

You do realise that you are the one who is treating this as a gay marriage issue?

So what you are pro two brothers fcuking, but not father and daughter?

I am not homophobic. But someone who gets sexual with their sibling needs to be mentally assessed. Gay/straight...doesn't matter.

The exact same thing used to be said about homosexuals, that argument failed miserably.
The sexuality and loving relationships of two consenting adults, and what goes on in their bedrooms, is none of your business.

Fat Christy

Foxmint wrote: »

Is that the best you can do ?

Is someone who sticks up for gay peoples rights always gay ?

And if someone was, why would it be any of your business ?

There's a big difference between homosexuality and incest. Why would you even compare the two?

0byme75341jo28

Foxmint wrote: »

What if I was ?

I dunno, what if? You'd be a gay man, and?

Foxmint

Elle Thankful Soil wrote: »

I dunno, what if? You'd be a gay man, and?

So explain why you asked and why its relevant ?

Foxmint

Fat Christy wrote: »

There's a big difference between homosexuality and incest. Why would you even compare the two?

There's a 'big difference' between hetrosexuality and homosexuality, does that mean only one of them should have rights and not the other ?

0byme75341jo28

Foxmint wrote: »

There's a 'big difference' between hetrosexuality and homosexuality, does that mean only one of them should have rights and not the other ?

Yes.

Foxmint

Elle Thankful Soil wrote: »

Yes.

Based on what empty arguement ?

Stainless_Steel

Foxmint wrote: »

The exact same thing used to be said about homosexuals, that argument failed miserably.
The sexuality and loving relationships of two consenting adults, and what goes on in their bedrooms, is none of your business.

Here we go again. I didn't argue against homosexuality. Get that into your head and stop bringing it up.

So two consenting adults can do any sick sh1t they want in the bedroom? And society is meant to say ah ok better support that coz its bigoted not to.

0byme75341jo28

Foxmint wrote: »

Based on what empty arguement ?

It's disgusting.

Foxmint

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Here we go again. I didn't argue against homosexuality. Get that into your head and stop bringing it up.

So two consenting adults can do any sick sh1t they want in the bedroom? And society is meant to say ah ok better support that coz its bigoted not to.

But the exact same failed and bigotted "its sick sh1t" arguments you are using were also tried and failed against homosexuality, so you'll have to suck it up, consenting adults wishing to have a loving sexual relationship have equal rights and entitlements, as the German commitee concluded, and its none of your business.