Just the fact that it's even mentioned is scary.
All morals are dead. Pedophilia soon to follow.
by defender of truth 20 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
Freedom77
Ya know I'm not sure if the OP really equates gay marriage with "all morals are dead" or not. But folks - anyone who thinks that is seriously screwed up in their thinking. It's actually a continuation of the JW & Evangelical SCAPEGOATING (Leviticus 16) of homosexuality as being not merely a sin, but the absolute WORST of all possible sins. For centuries, legal and religious authorities used to define it as "the sin too horrible to be named among Christians": http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/P/PeccatumilludhorribileinterChristianosnonnominandum.aspx
(An example of non-JW thought control: if an idea is "too horrible" to even say the word, you can never even discuss the idea, can never question it, can you?)
Which is really, really, really stupid. Because 1) it makes no logical sense, and 2) it is obviously a psychological projection of straight men, like so many other things in the Bible (ladies, take note) - making gays out to be the scapegoat, the boogeyman, the worst of all possible sinners, gets the straight boys off the hook for "the worst" crimes of all, in a way.
The Bible is full of straight boys committing rape, murder, adultery, polygamy, and even genocide with gleeful abandon, and quite often with the full APPROVAL of Almighty God, who is a mighty good sport about all of that if you belong to his club. But two gay guys or gay gals doing anything with each other - even a simple kiss and no more - OMG THE UNIVERSE IS RUINED!!!!! WE MUST STAMP THAT OUT!! HANG 'EM!!
Which was an attitude embedded in the culture for a couple thousand years, only just now being seen for what it is: stupidity and scapegoating. Just like all those WT doctrines we were so sure were the complete and ultimate divine TRUTH - but came to realize were just the deeply flawed inventions of deeply flawed (straight, white) men.
The judge who was quoted above has no business being a judge if he can't reason any better than what was quoted. Same-sex marriage and incest are two entirely different things - apples and oranges. And pedophilia is something else again. He's just perpetuating the unspoken assumption that gayness is THE WORST THING IN THE WHOLE WORLD - you allow that, you have to allow everything. How stupid, crazy, illogical is that? What.A.Jerk.
He's also implying that gay men and lesbians are not capable of real, abiding love and commitment, nor capable of being "moral" in any sense, and are certainly not fully as human as he is, in his shiny, clean heterosexuality - because whatever he does can't be sin, can it? He's straight! And if he screws up now or then, hey God will forgive him! No biggie! But those homos, oh they are a completely different case - the "end of all morality." Right.
Pride, arrogance, and refusal of welcome and protection were the real sins of Sodom. They still are.
-
Bye bye birdie
I have said this before .... Sodom and Gomorrah was not destroyed because of homosexuality. It was destroyed because they were sociopaths.
then Lots daughters made sure to save the wine for later....
why is the Bible sooooooo weird?
-
DJS
This is the same arugment used by religionists against atheists (god is dead, morals will go in the tank) in the past and the present. And yet, as has been pointed out and supported by excellent data several times on this site, the more secular/atheistic a state, region, nation is, the more functional, educated and intelligent it is likely to be. A better title of the OP:
"All Moralists (those concerned with regulating the morals of other) are Dead." and its sister topic: "All Religions are dead." Now that would be a great OP!!!
-
matt2414
All of this is now a non-issue. Most intelligent people were so outraged by this judge's comparing homosexuality to incest that he has been suspended from all criminal cases, including the one in question. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/11/attorney-general-hits-out-at-nsw-judge-over-controversial-incest-remarks.
But what I find even more outrageous are the despicable comments made over on the JW Talks Forum. http://jwtalk.net/forums/topic/16059-wow-all-morals-are-dead-judge-says-incest-is-no-longer-taboo/
What an embarrassment to Watchtower by allowing its members to spew such stupidity and hate. It's a reflection of the organization as a whole and its leaders. They're claiming this case in question is opening the door to pedophilia, so Armageddon needs to come and destroy everyone. What ignorance! The article they supposedly read only quotes the view of one misguided judge; it doesn't say anyone agrees with him. And that's why God needs to destroy everyone? Wow! It's hard to find the love of Christ there. No wonder the org. is hemorrhaging followers.
-
steve2
Each succeeding "modern" generation whips itself into a lather about what it "means" to accord equal rights to specified groups.
It is fairly recent history when powerful "arguments" were used to argue against abolition of slavery. It is mind-boggling to read what so-called "reasonable" thinkers back then predicted would happen to the "races" if black Americans were freed from slavery.
Those who already have rights secured under law seem to struggle the most in extending them to others - they come up with the most astonishing catastrophizing imaginable. Religious and judicial catastrophizers are not the only ones who do this - but they are easily the worst offenders in this regard because they exude an air of capable authority - which,honestly, they often lack.
-
fulltimestudent
The inability of some people to read properly amazes me.
It's certainly true that the Judge's remarks have cause some controversy. But look carefully at what he's saying and you'll soon see that he was not advocating a sexual 'free-for-all.'
here's the background set-out in the reference in post 2 of the thread.
Judge Neilson made the comments during the trial of a brother charged with raping his younger sister. The man has pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting his sister when she was 10 or 11 years old in 1973 or 1974 but has pleaded not guilty to charges relating to sex they had in 1981, when she was 18 and he was 26.
The man charged had pleaded guilty to the sexual assault of his younger sister when she was aged 10 or 11 (and he must have been around 18), but NOT guilty to charges relating to a later incident when the sister was 18 and her brother 26.
The comments made by the Judge refer to the second charge, and he expressed his thoughts (aloud) as to what was an appropriate judgement. And, when you see it from that angle, you soon see how mindless some comments are.
"By that stage they are both mature adults," the judge said.
So the remarks made by the Judge had nothing to do with under-age sex. And , as the next quote indicates, the girl had had two relationships with other men, then apparently makes a decision to go to bed with her older brother ( of her own free-will), but apparently (later) had some second thoughts.
"The complainant has been sexually awoken, shall we say, by having two relationships with men and she had become 'free' when the second relationship broke down. The only thing that might change that is the fact that they were a brother and sisterbut we've come a long way from the 1950s – when the position of the English Common Law was that sex outside marriage was not lawful."
According to the law (operating in that jurisdiction) should the Judge find the older brother guilty on the second charge? And, if he did enter a verdict of guilt, what penalties would operate?
That's the situation in which the Judge made his remarks, and I suggest the Judge is a good deal more sensible than many of the people who have made all kinds of stupid comments about the remarks.
We could ask how other legal jurisdictions have legislated for such situations? Here's a few:
Argentina:
Incest in Argentina is legal if both individuals are over the minimum age of consent.
Austria.
In Austria, incest between lineal ancestors and descendants and between full siblings is prohibited. It is punishable by up to two years in prison.
France and Belgium.
The 1810 penal code promulgated by Napoleon I and adopted throughout most of Europe abolished incest laws in France and Belgium. On 27 January 2010, France reinstated laws against incest. The new law, however, defines incest as rape or sexual abuse on a minor "by a relative or any other person having lawful or de facto authority over the victim". Incest between consenting adults is not prohibited.
Netherlands.
Consensual incest between adults is legal in the Netherlands.
People's Republic of China and Taiwan.
Consensual incest is legal in the People's Republic of China.
United States.
In the United States the District of Columbia and every state have some form of codified incest prohibition. However, individual statutes vary widely.(Too complex to try and summarise)
-
Band on the Run
I can see incest laws being on the books but I would not want them enforced. The Supreme Court held polygamy laws const' but that was decades ago. Legal commentators do not see how polygamy laws could be const'l today. The state may have a right to regulate to protect children. We discussed incest quite a bit in law school. Does the state have a legitimate interest or is merely repeating religious speech? I've been present at fierce debates that intermarriage reuins the gene pool. West Virginia appears to have many defected individualls while others point to Egypt as proof that intermarriage does not ruin genes.w
-
cofty
West Virginia appears to have many defected individualls while others point to Egypt as proof that intermarriage does not ruin genes
Breeding between close relatives absolutely does result in genetic defects. There is no doubt about that at all.
We all carry many copies of faulty genes whose deleterious effects are masked by the good copy we got from our other parent. If both parents carry the same recessive gene the children will suffer ill effects.
-
problemaddict
My favorite is the final comment on the thread.
While it's true that the comments by that judge show how perverted the world has become, I would like to mention that marriage between siblings has nothing inherently immoral, other than the high possibility of producing children with congenital defects.
Marriage between siblings and close relatives was practiced at the beginning of humankind, and we don't know whether it will be allowed again in the new world, when imperfection is removed.
Its like a hey now whoa everyone.......be careful talking about incest and all that now. We may get to marry our sisters in the new world (to be read in a Cletus the slack-jawed yokkle voice)