Another case of foot-in-mouth disease in the RCC

[JRDelirious]

Heck, the OP itself (remember the OP? it’s about a bishop’s statement being idiotic, with a mild rip at the RCC thrown in for spice) says it, this is what you’d expect the religious authorities to say. But really, considering that fact, this one’s not even particularly egregious in regards to the RCC.

Conservative denominations and prelates across the land (in Canada AND the USA) have made similar statements. As did Justice Scalia of SCOTUS!

[An_Arky]

*Originally posted by whatami *
**Speaking only to the birth defects part of this post. I thought I remembered an article coming out, oh, maybe a year ago that said the increase in poosible defects was negligible. Let me see if I can find it or I’m imagining things.

**

I was referring to incest as in parent/child or sibling/sibling, not cousins, which the artilcles linked were about. The second one concluded:

The report made a point of saying that the term ‘incest’ should not be applied to cousins but only to sexual relations between siblings or between parents and children. Babies who result from those unions are thought to be at significantly higher risk of genetic problems; the report said, but there is not enough data to be sure.

While I find cousin marriage distasteful, it’s not that highly taboo and it’s not what I think of when I think of incest.

I was concerned that people were advocating parent/child or sibling/sibling incest. About which all I can say is uh-uh. No way!

[whatami]

Well then, I suppose I should read the linked articles before I comment on them, eh?

[Ludovic]

Why are you so willing to tell ME what I am and am not allowed to do?

[seal_cleaner]

*Originally posted by An Arky *
**…and yes, I’m aware of the irony of somebody from Arkansas being taken aback at idea of incest…:o **

Another arkie here - I actually still LIVE THERE.
Remember the old arkie rule on childbearing:

If number of Ancestors = Odd number
Number of children reccomended = 0

[An_Arky]

*Originally posted by Ludovic *
**Why are you so willing to tell ME what I am and am not allowed to do? **

I don’t know if that was directed at me. If not, sorry.

Anyway, I wasn’t telling anybody what they can/can’t do, but I find it distasteful. Go ahead and marry your Mom, just think of the children, though, ok?

[Ludovic]

An Arky, yeah, it was. I guess I took this quote:

I was concerned that people were advocating parent/child or sibling/sibling incest. About which all I can say is uh-uh. No way!

a bit out of hand

Now, i’m not advocating it, but, even though I don’t have a desire to form a committed relationship with a male or an immediate family member, I consider it a personal affront when people advocate restricting my freedom, even when I don’t currently have plans for a particular action.

Now, if you’re not advocating restrictive legislation, by all means, don’t take offense. (Then again, when I think about it, shouldn’t I assume you don’t favor that, considering your username? :D)

[PhiloVance]

Seriously, I don’t see why adults should not, by default, be allowed to couple however they see fit.

:eek:

uhhh, care to rephrase that?

[detop]

*Originally posted by JRDelirious *
**Heck, the OP itself (remember the OP? it’s about a bishop’s statement being idiotic, with a mild rip at the RCC thrown in for spice) says it, this is what you’d expect the religious authorities to say. But really, considering that fact, this one’s not even particularly egregious in regards to the RCC.

Conservative denominations and prelates across the land (in Canada AND the USA) have made similar statements. As did Justice Scalia of SCOTUS! **

The big difference is that Turcotte is the archbishop of Montréal, in other words the official spokeperson for the French-Canadian church, he’s not some backwood preacher with a theology certificate from a diploma mill or a box of Cracker Jacks. And I still don’t see what the churches are crying about. It’s not like they would be forced to officiate gay wedding ceremonies, maybe the prelates are afraid their boyfriends will sue them for palimony

[An_Arky]

*Originally posted by Ludovic *
**An Arky, yeah, it was. I guess I took this quote:

a bit out of hand

Now, i’m not advocating it, but, even though I don’t have a desire to form a committed relationship with a male or an immediate family member, I consider it a personal affront when people advocate restricting my freedom, even when I don’t currently have plans for a particular action.

Now, if you’re not advocating restrictive legislation, by all means, don’t take offense. (Then again, when I think about it, shouldn’t I assume you don’t favor that, considering your username? :D) **

I had a reply last night, but my toddler son came by and turned off my computer before I could post it (no button unpushed for that lad!).

Anyway, I wasn’t advocating further restrictions of freedom (legislating morality is usually a bad idea); laws are already in place prohibiting parent/child/sibling relations and marriage. I don’t have a problem with that, admittedly because it’s taboo to me. When I said “no way”, I was speaking personally, not legally.

Anyway, WRT the OP, I was basically trying to say, however feebly, is that it’s a horrible comparison. It’s comparing apples to ugli fruit. What that yoyo cardinal said was a kind of Godwin’s law invocation. Likening something to incest is way, way over the line, but, him being a cardinal, I’m not surprised.

[Sublight]

*Originally posted by Ludovic *
Seriously, I don’t see why adults should not, by default, be allowed to couple however they see fit.

*Originally posted by PhiloVance *
**:eek:

uhhh, care to rephrase that? **

I’m sure Ludovic can post for himself, but I agree with his statement 100%, though I’d toss in “mentally competent” and “consenting” just for the sake of clarity. While incest runs very much against my personal programming, I don’t see any compelling reason for having laws against what consenting adults do with each other in the privacy of their own homes.