Well, here's what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about marriage: Can a Catholic marriage ceremony take place if the couple knows conclusively that they can not conceive? The short answer is, Yes. Marriage has a two-fold purpose: the unity of the spouses and the procreation and education of children. Even when the latter purpose is not physically possible, the former purpose is still possible and the perpetual, faithful, and exclusive love of the spouses is a great joy and a sacramental sign of God's love for the world. Any other defects which may result in the inability to have children, such as simple sterility or infertility, do not pose an obstacle to Christian marriage. Such unions are as much the cause of sacramental joy as any other. Seems the "unity of the spouses" is of equal importance to procreation.
funny that W's saying all this crap while his brother Neil is going through a pretty nasty public divorce where it's pretty obvious that he was not faithful to his wife. I thought marriage was supposed to be till death do we part?
not really. not who I talk to. Adopting is a very difficult thing for them. That's a major issue to lesbians, for sure. Then when they bypass formal adoption and have a baby through a surrogate, only one of them can be listed as legal guardian...right? The actual surrogate gets the other parental designation, i think. If the guardian dies suddenly, what happens to the baby...I believe the family of the legal guardian takes over. The S.O. is on the outside of that. Also, the issue with benefits is a major attraction to working for companies who support S.O. as beneficiary, rather than just spouse. Stands to reason that there are issues with benefits. I'm not one to know about benefits that only count for spouses (versus legal beneficiary)...so, leave that for others. I guess that would be benefits that only a spouse gets versus an heir or "legal beneficiary." While the respect of the label is surely a factor, these things seem to became legal issues because of cases involving not getting the same benefits or as custody battles for lack of having rights as dual parents.
I think legal marriage should be abolished altogether. In this country long ago, marriage was a logical and consistent legal institution. The country was overwhelmingly Christian, very patriarchical, condemning of homosexuality, adultery, sluttiness and even bachelorhood. But times have changed so much. Less religion is allowed in government, wives are not dependent on husbands for politics or ownership or much of anything else. There is no legal sanction against any fashion of sex outside of marriage. And probably worst of all, marriage contracts are easier to break (legally) than a contract to paint a guy's house. Legal marriage has become inconsistent with our societal mores and may even be anachronistic. So, I don't really see the point in having it at all anymore. Legal ramifications can be dealt with with other vehicles. All ownership could be individual except where contracted otherwise. Inheritance would be specified by wills. Everyone can be taxed individually. Adoptions would be done singly. Legal bonds to children would be based solely on biology or adoption. Divorce courts would disappear. Polygamy laws would disappear. Marriage exceptions to child sex laws would have to be altered or dropped. Are there other legal matters I'm leaving off? The institution of marriage as a social phenomenon would not disappear. Churches and other religious institutions would still honor them. They'd probably have to beef up their record-keeping. Doubtless, groups would emerge that would conduct marriages for gays or whatever other group of people cared to marry. But, to the government it wouldn't matter because each citizen would just be an individual.
Oh, and the following is the law in the state of Arizona: A.R.S. Section 25-101 Void and prohibited marriages A. Marriage between parents and children, including grandparents and grandchildren of every degree, between brothers and sisters of the one-half as well as the whole blood, and between uncles and nieces, aunts and nephews and between first cousins, is prohibited and void. B. Notwithstanding subsection A, first cousins may marry if both are sixty-five years of age or older or if one or both first cousins are under sixty-five years of age, upon approval of any superior court judge in the state if proof has been presented to the judge that one of the cousins is unable to reproduce. C. Marriage between persons of the same sex is void and prohibited. Hmmm...let's see if I get this, non-procreative quasi-incestuous marriages are ok, but non-procreative homosexual marriages are not. Mmmmmkay.
My best female friend is a lesbian. She doesn't know if she was born that way or not, because she was once hetero and enjoyed the company of men. The nature vs. nurture is at the core of this debate, because by accepting gays as able to marry just as heteros can, it is a defacto acceptance by govt. that their lifestyle is natural and perfectly normal, thus implying that nature, not nurture, was the cause for their lifestyle. And on that "separation of church and state" thing.....show me where it says it in the Constitution. Well....hold on. I'll pull it up for you.... Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Now you tell where you see it saying that the govt. must put appear in no way, shape or form to have any connection or trace of any religion in it at all? And on the moral front, adultery is illegal in many states and divorce was once illegal accept in cases of severe abuse or neglect or adultery. The rise of no-fault divorce led to a lot of bad things in this country and seriously diminished the adage "til death do you part." As a result, people entered marriage with far less seriousness than this institution, the bedrock our very civilization is founded on, demands. And back to my point about gay marriage. It is wrong for the state to encourage something that is counter current to the beliefs of all but a few. Our nation was built on Judeo-Christian principles (any argument of that is agenda-related revisionism) and if we continue down this path away from our bedrock and toward a "mob rule" approach (whatever the majority wants, it gets), we are in serious trouble. My question is simple: is there a right and a wrong anymore? If this was so correct, why wasn't it put into law centuries ago in our Western tradition or even in ancient Greece, where homosexuality was not frowned upon for sure? And if homosexuals can marry, what's to stop incest and polygamists to do so as well, under the eyes of the law.
How does the number of heterosexual couples who are medically incapable of conceiving children compare to the number of homosexual couples who are medically incapable of conceiving children?
I, being the resident Catholic on the BBS, agree with the chatechism. However, the use of the word marriage implies that a man is being married to a woman. Thus, see my earlier statement on why you can't change the definition of that word, both legally and morally, which leaves you with the option that (gasp) O'reilley gives, set up some other form of civil union that is different from marriage and lets homosexuals to be in more stable unions. Therefore, the two do not get married.
You're not the only Catholic here. I agree with O'Reilly on this as well. Why does it have to be called "marriage?" Why can't it be just a simple civil union that employers can recognize VOLUNTARILY to extend benefits the same as hetero married couples? For those who refuse to accept this, it proves my point that there is more to it than homosexuals wanting to legitimize their relationships in the eyes of the law.
There are also parts of the Cathecism that you left out, why a child can learn womanly virtues from a mother and manly virtues from a father. I feel that that is also another large portion of marriage that gets left out and that stabilizes families, and why marriage isn't the word that should be used for homosexuals because they can't provide both sides of virtue.... This is not in response to a couple's ability to produce children as being a reason why they should not be able to get married but more in response to a defense of the family as earlier mentioned. Oh and by the way adultery is illegal because it breaks the marriage contract. Its a civil crime though.
Do non-human animals that have continually shown homosexual activity, courting, and partnerships choose to be homosexual because of their overly-PC environment?
Marriage should not even be in the laws as it is part of a religious belief. Seperation of Church and State anyone? I think the government should leave that to the churches, if someone wants to be married let em. DD
Don't get me started on church and state seperation because I don't feel like giving a lecture today.
Because the gay activists cannot be satisfied with a mere 'voluntary' recognition system. They will sue each and every employer that refuses to recognize a homosexual couple. And because gay activists have already vocally shot down such a notion as not going far enough.
If your lecture is going to delve into the notion that this nation's laws cannot have religious influences or underpinings, then you need to re-write your lecture because it's false.
Rimmy's argument should be on that other thread because thats not what we are discussing. Besides, the emotions that animals feel in comparison to the one's human feel is a joke. To even make this arguement is a little absurd. SO, basically what I'm saying is he's not even using reason, he's just making a precontrived Berkley argument on studies of behavior rather than studies in education. Humans are not lab rats.
