Comments on: You keep using that word… I do not think it means what you think it means.

By: Barbara

Barbara — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 22:16:33 +0000

Jesurgislac:
Maggie Gallagher, National Organization for Marriage has done a great job of outlining the custody issues if same-same unions take place. Also, tax disadvantages of marriage now. Interesting to note her stats on how few same-sex attracted pairs actually “marry.” In other words, she completely blows you ideas about how beneficial same-sex unions are just because they call them selves married.
You might want to consider the marriage question from the civil rights perspective. In this country our rights are alienable because we are endowed with them by a Creator. Highly doubtful the Judaeo-Christian Creator our Founding Fathers had in mind is okay with a contractual arrangment between two adults of the same gender as marriage. Marriage between a man and a woman is first and foremost a covenantual relationship -the first unit of civilization. Family, cland, tribe, nation – follw OT history and you’ll see what I mean.

By: Jesurgislac

Jesurgislac — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 10:41:07 +0000

Jesurgislac, if marriage means an institution which is intrinsically about sexual love leading to childbirth & childrearing, and which is intrinsically indissoluble, are you interested in said institution?

When I meet the right woman.

Same-sex couples are as likely to have that kind of marriage as mixed-sex couples.

It would be possible to deny marriage to any couple who physically/biologically couldn’t have children together – but that would mean no woman past the menopause could be allowed to marry, no man with a vasectomy, no woman with a tubal ligation.

It’s a question of whether you really believe married parents are beneficial to children. If so, there’s no excuse for denying the children of same-sex couples married parents – but that’s what opponents of same-sex marriage do – usually justifying it by claiming that as they believe the children of same-sex couples are already in sub-standard families, those children should be further discriminated against by being denied the benefits of married parents.

By: Chris Burgwald

Chris Burgwald — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:01:18 +0000

By: jesurgislac

jesurgislac — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:56:42 +0000

It is ironic that the net result is that couples who do not, and never will have children, can get married – but couples who do have children, or who want to have children, will be denied marriage.

Very directly, the argument that same-sex couples can’t get married because marriage is all about having children, means that hundreds of thousands of children across the US are being denied married parents by people who claim that marriage ought to be all about protecting children.

Hm.

By: Round Up – November 10, 2009 « Restrained Radical

Round Up – November 10, 2009 « Restrained Radical — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:48:47 +0000

[...] What opponents of gay marriage mean by “marriage” and what the Catholic Church means by “marriage” are not the same. You keep using that word… I do not think it means what you think it means. [...]

By: Gabriel Austin

Gabriel Austin — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:01:33 +0000

I think there is some misunderstanding about the question of procreation in a marriage. The text is in Genesis: “Increase and multiply”. As the footnote in my [old] Bible comments “This is not a precept. God addressed the same words to the birds and animals who cannot receive a precept. It is a blessing”.

Further, we use the word “procreation”. In a sense husband and wife are responsible for the body of the child [confirmed by DNA]. But it is God who creates the soul.

For the matter of couples beyond child bearing age, consider Abraham and Sarah.

The point is not to interfere with the conjugal act.

Contraception [most of which methods are abortifacient] is properly defined as mutual masturbation. It is degrading to both parties, but particularly to offensive to the woman.