One does not choose one’s race or sex. But one does choose who to marry.
Again, that was not a definition. Why is that so hard to understand?
Of course, if you’re choosing to marry (and whom) you can also choose not to do so at all.
Did you read the article? The tactics used to convince the public that killing unborn human beings has and is being used to convince the public that homosexuality is normal and that these relationships are equivalent to Natural Marriage. Instead of the focus being on the ghoulish practice, it is treated as being “compassionate” to the pregnant woman. Instead of focusing on the reality that homosexual relations and relationships are disordered, unhealthy and sterile the focus is on that nice gay couple or those sweet Lesbians that have been together for 20 years. The public can hardly be bothered about serious domestic and international issues. They certainly are not going to actually think about the results of yet another experiment in social structure.
Only if one considers race and sexual behavior to be equivalent-which is nonsense on the face of it.
Are you contending that Same sex “marriage” is not premised on changing the eons old definition of marriage?Again, that was not a definition. Why is that so hard to understand?
No, I noted that it’s amazing that Catholic teaching regarding sexuality, marriage and reproduction reflects BIOLOGY, not some sort of blind faith as you inferred. Even in the days of St Thomas, it was understood that men and women were created for each other and for them to co-create the greatest miracle of all, a new human being.
And this from those that claim guidance by reason, not God.
Talk about staring into the abyss. It’s the adequate of hell.Actually, so-called gay marriage has created extra burdens for the Canadian government. Furthermore, if Canadian birth rates weren’t so low, they, like Western Europe, wouldn’t need immigration from places where so-called gay “marriage” is illegal.
Marriage is not a Constitutional right for anyone in the USA.
Then I fully expect a solid defense of religious freedom when a gay couples wants a cake baked from a Christian business, or the honesty of the prior statement may be called into question.
That’s what progressives always say when it comes to conservative or orthodox sides of an issue, yet we are all expected to adulate their
That avoids the central issue of why the state is even involved in marriage in the first place, which is the rearing of healthy children for the continued survival of culture and state.
:dts: :nope:
That’s why behavior should never be a protected class.
Only if the interracial couple are of the same sex…
Yes and Pope Francis has tried to expand the focus to include those other serious domestic and international issues as well.
The only way that the Catholic Church could have any impact on this issue with non-Catholics or non-practicing Catholics would be if all its arguments about the nature of marriage and the purpose of sex made sense to these people. But most people who are not devout, practicing Catholics do not really believe that all sexual relations should or must be open to procreation or that marriage is primarily about raising children.
Deliberately. Modeled after your own to illustrate the point!
What you added was the assertion that that was a definition of marriage as opposed to just a comment about marriage.
Sex and sexual preference are two different things.
And one cannot change those. (Ignoring the sticky issue of what is actually ‘changed’ by a ‘sex change’ operation.)
Sexual preferences for particular genders or skin colours are perfectly natural. So it seems that you have no problem with same sex marriage.
Neither race nor physical gender is a behaviour.
No, I am contending that what I wrote there was not a definition. Is that really such a slippery concept?
The Catholic Church is not going to be able to convince non-Catholics or non-practicing Catholics about this issue if they use arguments about the nature of marriage or the purpose of sex that none of these people find convincing. People who are not convinced that all sex must be open to procreation or that marriage is mainly about raising children will not be bothered by the fact that many heterosexual married couples use birth control or that some couple deliberately choose not to have any children. So why would they be bothered by the fact that two gay men on their own cannot produce any children?
The Catholic Church is not going to be able to convince non-Catholics or non-practicing Catholics about this issue if they use arguments about the nature of marriage or the purpose of sex that none of these people find convincing. People who are not convinced that all sex must be open to procreation or that marriage is mainly about raising children will not be bothered by the fact that many heterosexual married couples use birth control or that some couple deliberately choose not to have any children. So why would they be bothered by the fact that two gay men on their own cannot produce any children?
