Article series on same-sex marriage

[razredge]

For example, that same gender marriage implies a progression toward incestuous relationships. Just no support for that assumption.

.

The same argument for changing the definition of marriage to encompass same sex relationships can be used to support incestuous relationships as well.

 

[tws]

So my articles were centered on what is wrong with gay marriage, but what is the authentic model?

There is a great discussion on this issue on Catholic Answers Live. Go to the following link and search for “True vs. Gay Marriage.” It will appeal to both Catholic and other Christians.

 

[sw85]

The appeal of using the Bible to deny civil rights is obvious. It is a time honored practice. But the sweep of history is toward toward the rejection of such practices. You can rationalize your views however you like, and of course we are all entitled to our opinion, but you are not going to influence the sweep of history much in that way. It is simply a generational issue at this point. Once the current older generation is no longer voting, the numbers will change enough that support of same sex marriage will be pretty much universal. Racism was similar. Discrimination against women was similar. This is known as progress. You are not going to change it.

One definition of mental health is the ability to adapt to change. Consider that.

Whether or not gay “marriage” constitutes “civil rights” is exactly what’s at issue here. You asserting that they are doesn’t actually prove anything.

And your burbling about the “sweep of history” is so much heretical Marxist/Hegelian ****, unworthy of anyone who calls himself a Christian. If you want to set about preparing your soul for Hell, you can at least do so in a manner that doesn’t really on lame and critically unevaluated leftist cliches.

One definition of mental health is the ability to adapt to change. Consider that.

Whose? Adorno’s?

You are correct, the titles said enough. Reading the articles just now proved that impression to be correct. I disagree with your train of thought in most instances. For example, that same gender marriage implies a progression toward incestuous relationships. Just no support for that assumption.

Oh? If marriage is not based on procreation there is literally no compelling reason to limit to two unrelated people. This means polygamy (“no”), incest (“unrelated”), and bestiality and inanimate object fetishes (“people”), like the kook who married the Eiffel Tower recently and masturbates with a bit of fence post.

Think, man!

As Judge Walker pointed out, there was once a legal distinction in marriage between the respective duties of each spouse based on gender. That is no longer true under the law.

The duties that are materially critical to marriage – the female duty of motherhood and the male duty of fatherhood – remain. To the extent that “the law” warps them, the law is backwards and ought to be scrapped.

Setting up human civil law over the word of God… what gall!

 

[tws]

For anyone interested in getting involved in the battle to secure the Biblical and traditional view of marriage, I recommend visting and supporting the National Organization for Marriage. Of the many organizations involved in the fight, they seem most successful in capturing the attention of our civil leadership. I’m making a donation.