Gay Marriage - What's the big deal?

[Urf]

Right here is the whole purpose behind the SS marriage push. To do away with marriage, thus to totally destroy the concept of family.

ugh

 

[brianwalden]

i also agree with mirdath that the catechism’s statement seems to deny this. what does “affective complementarity” mean, anyway? mars and venus?

I’ll take a stab at this one. Here’s the sentence in question:
They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity.

First off if you go back and read the full quote, the “they” at the start of the sentence is referring to homosexual acts. It’s not talking about any type of relationship, as you seem to be implying. You can parse the sentence several ways (if I knew how to read Latin I would wonder what the original said), but I read it as describing two things: genuine affective complementarity and genuine sexual complementarity. So it’s saying: Homosexual acts do not proceed from a genuine affective complementarity and homosexual acts do not proceed from a genuine sexual complementarity. I think affective complementarity is refering the reciprocal self-giving aspects of the act while sexual complementarity refers to the way man and woman complete each other in the act. I think the two concepts overlap a lot, which is probably why the sentence is written the way it’s written in the catechism. That’s my guess at it, but I’m not great analyzing stuff like this.

 

[Bennie_P]

Sexually Yes. Just as with heterosexuals who engage in immoral sexual acts are lusting. But people are more than their sexual acts. Here’s an example:

Case 1: Say I’m back in my bachelor days and I’m seeing a girl. I make her a fancy dinner at my place so that she’ll want to have sex with me. It works.

Case 2: Say I’m back in my bachelor days and I’m seeing a girl. I want to do something nice for her so I make her a fancy dinner at my place. Later on that evening we have sex.

In both cases the sex is sinful - it’s lust, not love. But in the second case, making dinner was a true act of love; I did it out of selfishness. I don’t see how it’s any different for homosexual relationships. While I can’t advise anyone to be in a homosexual relationship - it’s a huge occasion for sin - I don’t doubt that love exists between homosexual couples.

The Church doesn’t teach that homosexuals are incapable of expressing love, out of love persons expressing platonic love for a friend of the opposite sex or the same sex, such as making dinner for the friend, well there is nothing sinful nor disordered with such an act. What is disordered is to think love is to always lead to sexually expression, or love equals sex or vice versa.(even between hetersexuals) If one is doing an “act of love” for someone and expecting some sort of payback, sexual or non-sexual, that is bartering, not loving. Sexually you make yourself or your “lover” a prostitue. That’s not love.

 

[Mirdath]

I’ll take a stab at this one. Here’s the sentence in question:
They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity.

First off if you go back and read the full quote, the “they” at the start of the sentence is referring to homosexual acts. It’s not talking about any type of relationship, as you seem to be implying. You can parse the sentence several ways (if I knew how to read Latin I would wonder what the original said), but I read it as describing two things: genuine affective complementarity and genuine sexual complementarity. So it’s saying: Homosexual acts do not proceed from a genuine affective complementarity and homosexual acts do not proceed from a genuine sexual complementarity. I think affective complementarity is refering the reciprocal self-giving aspects of the act while sexual complementarity refers to the way man and woman complete each other in the act. I think the two concepts overlap a lot, which is probably why the sentence is written the way it’s written in the catechism. That’s my guess at it, but I’m not great analyzing stuff like this.

Well, here’s the Latin sentence: E vera complementaritate affectiva et sexuali non procedunt. My Latin was never very good and it’s extremely rusty now, but it looks like the English translation was pretty much straight across.

I can certainly allow the charge that homosexual acts do not stem from sexual complementarity from the Catholic perspective specifically; after all, procreation does not result. However, I would still take issue with the use of the word ‘genuine’ here. ‘Complete’, ‘full’, even ‘perfect’, I think, would get the point across both more clearly and more charitably.

The purpose of sex, according to the Church, is not merely procreative but first and foremost unitive. It is the consummation of the bond between the spouses and the ultimate expression of their love for each other. This is the ‘affective complementarity’ the Catechism speaks of.

But according to the Church, the love being expressed in a sexual act between a same-sex couple is a counterfeit love: in other words, lust. Homosexuals are held to be capable of true storge, or fondness; true philia, or friendship; and true agape, or spiritual and charitable love; but for some reason are considered incapable of true eros, romantic love. The Church simply denies that an entire class of people is capable of loving others fully, saying they are emotionally stunted. And any same-sex relationship founded upon what the parties perceive to be love is in fact a corruption, a sinful mockery of a ‘true’ relationship, because where the spouses see and feel love for each other, the Catholic Church has decreed only lust exists.

Love is, perhaps, the single most defining characteristic of humanity; and to love one another is the greatest thing we are called to do. By claiming homosexuals cannot love fully and substitute mere misshapen lust for romantic love, the Church dehumanizes millions of people with one stroke of a pen. Homosexuals are incomplete human beings, unable to truly love one another, and by that token inferior, no matter how much ‘respect’ and ‘sensitivity’ is to be shown them according to CCC 2358.

 

[JFonseka]

Well according to the church the marriage isn’t complete until consummation, which means a homosexual act has to take place, which means that is a violation of God’s law.

 

[Dempsey1919]

I read Humane Vitae yesterday and it cleared up a lot of things for me.

I know that it deals with contraception in heterosexual marriage but this quote is applicable to this thread:

Each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.

Since homosexual relations cannot result in procreation, it is wrong.

This is also a good quote:

An act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will.

Therefore, we are to believe that any Marital union must have the potential of creating human life. Gay unions obviously do not and so their abuse of the marital union is “repugnant.”

There will be some who read this and think that this has nothing to do with the issue of Gay Marriage. However, my reason for posting this is to show how the Church views sex within marriage. This provides us with an insight as to why they teach that homosexuality is wrong - and why Gay Marriage is wrong.

To use sex while depriving it of its purpose is repugant according to church teaching.

 

[Mirdath]

Therefore, we are to believe that any Marital union must have the potential of creating human life. Gay unions obviously do not and so their abuse of the marital union is “repugnant.”

Yet sex is still ‘open to life’ if the man has been inadvertently sterilized (say, by radiation) or if the woman has had an hysterectomy or an oophorectomy, or is simply past menopause.

If God can get a heterosexual couple with child in spite of their lacking sperm, eggs, or even the uterus, why can’t he do the same for a gay or lesbian couple?

(Although I’d hate to think about how a gay man would deliver a child :bigyikes: )

To use sex while depriving it of its purpose is repugant according to church teaching.

Procreation is only one purpose of sex.

 

[Bennie_P]

Love is, perhaps, the single most defining characteristic of humanity; and to love one another is the greatest thing we are called to do. By claiming homosexuals cannot love fully and substitute mere misshapen lust for romantic love, the Church dehumanizes millions of people with one stroke of a pen. Homosexuals are incomplete human beings, unable to truly love one another, and by that token inferior, no matter how much ‘respect’ and ‘sensitivity’ is to be shown them according to CCC 2358.

By holding on to false ideas of love it is those that embrace the Culture of Death that are dehumanizing the whole human race equating love to mere animal impulses. Homosexuals are capable of love, but first they must understand what love is. You can only find love through God, for God is love. If you try to find find it through sex, yourselves, your intellect, your lover, any where but through God, you will live of life of frustration, always putting the blame on your family, your friends, your lover, , the CCC, the Church, and God. That is where Satan wants all of us to stay, that is the fruit he offered Adam and Eve. It wasn’t a stroke of a pen, it was a bite into the fruit of death and declaring “I know better then God.”

Oh, by the way homosexuals need to quit thinking they are so unique, this is a problem of all mankind.

 

[Mirdath]

By holding on to false ideas of love it is those that embrace the Culture of Death that are dehumanizing the whole human race equating love to mere animal impulses. Homosexuals are capable of love, but first they must understand what love is. You can only find love through God, for God is love. If you try to find find it through sex, yourselves, your intellect, your lover, any where but through God, you will live of life of frustration, always putting the blame on your family, your friends, your lover, , the CCC, the Church, and God. That is where Satan wants all of us to stay, that is the fruit he offered Adam and Eve. It wasn’t a stroke of a pen, it was a bite into the fruit of death and declaring “I know better then God.”

Oh, by the way homosexuals need to quit thinking they are so unique, this is a problem of all mankind.

Thank you. For all my skill with words, you make my point better and more clearly than I ever could.

 

[Dempsey1919]

Mirdath:

Procreation is only one purpose of sex.

Read Humane Vitae - it talks about the closeness between husband and wife also.

Yet sex is still ‘open to life’ if the man has been inadvertently sterilized (say, by radiation) or if the woman has had an hysterectomy or an oophorectomy, or is simply past menopause.

It also mentions cases where infertility is an issue.

I will state the first quote again:

Each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.

This means that the deliberate use of contraception by fertile couples is wrong. However, in this case it also applies to homosexuals because their unions have no potential to the procreation of human life.

If this quote is not good enough, then I would direct people to remember that the Church has ALWAYS taught that homosexuality is a grave disorder, and that to engage in this behaviour is a mortal sin. This fact is not open to discussion.

Not only that, but homosexuality was also considered as a grave disorder in the Old Covenant. The punishment for this behaviour was death. There is a reason why this behaviour is also referred to as Sodomy.

The fact that comitting homosexual acts is sinful, means that Catholics should not support Homosexual Marriage.

The very concept of a ‘gay marriage’ is perverse. Marriage is an institution created by God for male and female. The fact that homosexuality is now considered to be an “alternative lifestyle” is wrong.

 

[Abiien]

Procreation is only one purpose of sex.

Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's Questions

Answers is the place to go to get the answers you need and to ask the questions you want

www.answers.com

Answers.com:

A result or effect that is intended or desired; an intention.

Geniune marriages have the male and female go into the relationship or think about the relationship expecting to be able to make their own kids, i mean, That IS their desired result, right?

Can you say even a number of gay marriages go and desire to birth and raise (regardless of capability) a child between each other?

I dont understand that if you are capable of removing one purpose and still fulfilling the meaning of a Marriage at the same time?

And also, someone earlier said that its against freedom of religion to suppress gay marriage or something.
Its the Christian Catholic religion that supplements us with marriage today. So you can’t say its against your freedom of religion. As said many times in this thread. Just thought i would reiterate.

 

[brianwalden]

Well, here’s the Latin sentence: E vera complementaritate affectiva et sexuali non procedunt. My Latin was never very good and it’s extremely rusty now, but it looks like the English translation was pretty much straight across.

I can certainly allow the charge that homosexual acts do not stem from sexual complementarity from the Catholic perspective specifically; after all, procreation does not result. However, I would still take issue with the use of the word ‘genuine’ here. ‘Complete’, ‘full’, even ‘perfect’, I think, would get the point across both more clearly and more charitably.

The purpose of sex, according to the Church, is not merely procreative but first and foremost unitive. It is the consummation of the bond between the spouses and the ultimate expression of their love for each other. This is the ‘affective complementarity’ the Catechism speaks of.

But according to the Church, the love being expressed in a sexual act between a same-sex couple is a counterfeit love: in other words, lust. Homosexuals are held to be capable of true storge, or fondness; true philia, or friendship; and true agape, or spiritual and charitable love; but for some reason are considered incapable of true eros, romantic love. The Church simply denies that an entire class of people is capable of loving others fully, saying they are emotionally stunted. And any same-sex relationship founded upon what the parties perceive to be love is in fact a corruption, a sinful mockery of a ‘true’ relationship, because where the spouses see and feel love for each other, the Catholic Church has decreed only lust exists.

Love is, perhaps, the single most defining characteristic of humanity; and to love one another is the greatest thing we are called to do. By claiming homosexuals cannot love fully and substitute mere misshapen lust for romantic love, the Church dehumanizes millions of people with one stroke of a pen. Homosexuals are incomplete human beings, unable to truly love one another, and by that token inferior, no matter how much ‘respect’ and ‘sensitivity’ is to be shown them according to CCC 2358.

Concerning: “The purpose of sex, according to the Church, is not merely procreative but first and foremost unitive.” The procreative and unitive cannot be separated. You cannot have one at the exclusion of the other. Sexual acts which are not open to life are immoral according to the Catholic Church, just as sexual acts which are not completely selfless are.

I think your biggest issue might be that Catholics are absolutists. We believe that there is one absolute truthful definition of love. The Church doesn’t make any judgment about how genuinely anyone feels anything. Genuine affective complimentarity and true eros isn’t describing how much people think their feelings are true. It’s describing whether actions meet a standard (for the record heteroxual sex outside marriage and contraceptive sex and masturbation also don’t meet that standard). I know you think that standard is wrong and you’re entitled to believe that, but you can’t put the Church’s teachings into a subjective paradigm where truth is determined by how truly one feels something. It’s a fish out of water.

Nowhere does the Catholic Church say that homosexuals are incomplete or inferior. All people have certain inclinations to sin, that does not make them incomplete or inferior. No person, whether homosexual or heterosexual, can experience eros through a homosexual act (or sex outside marriage, contraception, masturbation, etc.). A person, whether homosexual or heterosexual, can experience eros within marriage to a person of the opposite sex. Sexual preference has nothing to do with it. Marriage is not something that all humans are required to do to be human; it has no effect on one’s human-ness. So even if a person’s same-sex attraction (or heterosexually permiscuous inclination, or absolute lack of any sexual desire, or whatever reason) is so strong that they could not faithfully commit to marriage and hence cannot experience eros, that in no way makes them any less of a person.

 

[brianwalden]

Anyway, we got on this path because of the claim that the Church allegedly says that homosexuals do not love each other. We agree that the Church believes homosexuals are capable of storge, phila, and agape and disgree over eros. I’m happy to agree to disagree there. The real issue in defining marriage isn’t determining how much people love each other. It’s whether the proper conditions for a marriage to occur are met.

Mirdath, you said you were raised Catholic, so here’s a Catholic analogy: Take, for example communion at Mass. The consecration cannot occur with rice cakes and cranberry juice. It doesn’t matter how well the priest says the prayers of consecration, the proper ingredients aren’t present to confect the sacrament. Catholics believe the same thing is true of marriage (all marriage, not just sacramental marriage). It doesn’t matter how much the two people love each other. The ingredients for marriage are one consenting man and one consenting woman; without them a marriage cannot occur.

I understand why you disagree with this. I don’t understand why you think I have no right to advocate for what I believe publicly. In a sense you believe the same type of thing that I do. You believe that two or more consenting people are required for marriage to occur. Some people may disagree with you and say that they truly have a life-long, loving commitment to their toaster and that they would violate no one’s consent or harm anyone by marrying it. Would you not also put up a fight if they told you that you had no right to advocate for your position because it restricts theirs?

 

[goofyjim]

I just have the feeling that two guys or two girls getting married to each other won’t affect me in the least.

 

[brianwalden]

I just have the feeling that two guys or two girls getting married to each other won’t affect me in the least.

No one’s trying to stop anyone from doing anything in their own home. The debate is really over truth. Take this example:

Let’s say India decides that it’s predominantly male population is getting too far skewed from the 50/50 ratio and so decides to encourage people to have girls by using tax breaks for people raising girls. Fair enough.

Then lets say that a few years later people think that healthy children are good for society and they want to change the definition of a girl from a female child to a female child or any child who is not obese. The government has the right to give tax benefits to people raising girls and to people raising children of a healthy weight. But the government doesn’t have the right to redefine what a girl is.

The difference between this and marriage is the the definition of a girl can be determined empirically while the definition of marriage can’t. I’m fine with us as a society using the democratic process to decide what the definition of marriage is. Even if that decision ends up not being my personal definition, we as a society reached that definition fairly and to the best of our ability. And I’m also fine with the govermnent deciding whether or not to promote marriage, or anything else, through benefits. But I’m not fine with the government redefining marriage to be something society has determined it’s not, just as I would not be fine with the government redefining the definition of a girl to be something that its not.

 

[emily47017]

i, too, would like to see the majority prevail, as long as the decision is made democratically through our elected representatives. it appears as if we’re headed in a new direction for our nation:

a newsweek poll from last may shows that a majority of the public already supports some form of same sex marriage, either using that word or calling it “civil union”.

       "Which of  the following comes closest to your position on this issue? Do you support FULL  marriage rights for same-sex couples, support civil unions or partnerships for  same-sex couples BUT NOT full marriage rights, or do you oppose ANY legal  recognition for same-sex couples?"

Marriage Rights – 26%
Civil Unions – 24%
No Legal Recognition – 44%
Unsure – 6%

CNN shows the same majority opinion, ratios reversed:

       Same-Sex Marriages -- 24%          
      Civil Unions       -- 27%
             Neither       -- 43%

Unsure – 6%

the conservative pew forum finds similar percentages, though the number of respondants (35%) who favor using the word marriage is higher than the other polls.

             "Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly      oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into legal agreements with      each other that would give them many of the same rights as married couples?"
       
            Favor -- 54%

Oppose – 42%

FOX news shows an even higher majority supporting some sort of legally recognized partnership:

       "Do you believe gays and lesbians should be      allowed to get legally married, allowed a legal partnership similar to but      not called marriage, or should there be no legal recognition given to gay      and lesbian relationships?"
       
            Legally Married     -- 30% 
 Legal Partnership -- 30%     
 No Legal Recognition -- 32%     
 Unsure -- 7%

 

[terri_fortner]

It’s not right to expect people of a different sexual orientation to go without a relationship or love. If you’re not gay, why do those who are bother you? I mean, how do their actions harm you?

It’s like when you see a kid banging his head against the wall… Why stop him b/c it isn’t hurting you? But it is hurting him, and as a compassionate human being I feel pain, and sorrow for people that I see and know are doing something to hurt themselves. My Uncle is gay, he has been with the same Man for as long as I can remember, but he never once brings up the idea of marriage, b/c he was raised Christian. Marriage is a reflection of Christs “holy union with the church” (He is the Bride groom and the church is His bride) not Christ’s union with another Christ, or the Church’s union with another church. Its like CS Lewis said about the word “gentleman” if we are constantly changing what a word means then it will lose all its meaning. It no longer means a man of wealth and nobility, and Christianity has even been demeaned in this way to no longer mean what it did at Antioch, (that is the place they were first called christians, right?) Now, the devil is working on Marriage, another on of Gods words.

The devil will use whatever means necissary in order to further his agenda of making humans less like Jesus and more like himself. It is all connected. I once had a preacher in a non-denominational church say something that was so true and so meaningful that is has stuck with me always… “The deil is a good devil!” And if you really think about that you cannot deny it.

I hope that helped clarify a few things, if not then I dont’ know what else to say, it is why I feel the way I do.

 

[molly_buttermor]

simpily gay marrages is wrong!!!

 

[Mirdath]

This means that the deliberate use of contraception by fertile couples is wrong. However, in this case it also applies to homosexuals because their unions have no potential to the procreation of human life.

Homosexual couples do not have sex because there will be no children proceeding from it. And as I asked, if God can get around the surgical removal of the ovaries and uterus, surely he could do something if he cared?

There is a reason why this behaviour is also referred to as Sodomy.

Sodom’s sin was not homosexuality but inhospitality, as shown in Ezekiel 16:49: And look at the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters were proud, sated with food, complacent in their prosperity, and they gave no help to the poor and needy.

Abiien:

Can you say even a number of gay marriages go and desire to birth and raise (regardless of capability) a child between each other?

Many would love to, were it possible – and hey, all things are possible with God, right?

Its the Christian Catholic religion that supplements us with marriage today. So you can’t say its against your freedom of religion. As said many times in this thread. Just thought i would reiterate.

Catholicism may give you an idea of marriage but it is not so for everyone else.

brianwalden:

The procreative and unitive cannot be separated. You cannot have one at the exclusion of the other. Sexual acts which are not open to life are immoral according to the Catholic Church, just as sexual acts which are not completely selfless are.

Why can the aspects not be separated? They are working towards separate goals, and married sex is still considered a good thing no matter how unlikely procreation is.

I think your biggest issue might be that Catholics are absolutists.

So am I!

We believe that there is one absolute truthful definition of love. The Church doesn’t make any judgment about how genuinely anyone feels anything.

Except, apparently, where homosexuals are concerned. The Church is quite clear on the matter: romantic love between people of the same sex doesn’t exist. It is, instead, only lust.

It’s describing whether actions meet a standard (for the record heteroxual sex outside marriage and contraceptive sex and masturbation also don’t meet that standard). I know you think that standard is wrong and you’re entitled to believe that, but you can’t put the Church’s teachings into a subjective paradigm where truth is determined by how truly one feels something. It’s a fish out of water.

Catholicism can define love however it wants, but its definition does not necessarily match up with the actual emotion human beings feel. What makes the Church think homosexuals are incapable of selfless giving towards another?

I’m not trying to shoehorn Catholic teachings into a subjective frame of reference. I’m just pointing out that the paradigm Catholicism has chosen to define ‘love’ in ignores a good five percent of humanity.

No person, whether homosexual or heterosexual, can experience eros through a homosexual act (or sex outside marriage, contraception, masturbation, etc.).

It’s impossible to feel passionate love or to make a gift of oneself outside heterosexual marriage? What’s the next requirement, it has to be done exclusively in missionary position? I think you underrate love. According to your own religion, Jesus made the ultimate gift of himself, as a sacrificial lamb, yet he wasn’t married to all of humanity.

The ingredients for marriage are one consenting man and one consenting woman; without them a marriage cannot occur.

Those are the ingredients for a Catholic marriage, yes; and I completely support the right of the Church to decide who it will or will not join in matrimony. That’s the Church’s business. Deciding who the state will recognize as united is not.

Some people may disagree with you and say that they truly have a life-long, loving commitment to their toaster and that they would violate no one’s consent or harm anyone by marrying it. Would you not also put up a fight if they told you that you had no right to advocate for your position because it restricts theirs?

Does the toaster love this person back? Will it sign a marriage license? In order for the state to have an interest in a union of spouses, both of them have to be members of society – a toaster is not one.

If toasters are given citizenship or at least green cards, I will, of course, withdraw my objections

emily47017:

i, too, would like to see the majority prevail, as long as the decision is made democratically through our elected representatives.

I would like to see the rights of the minorities protected first; then let’s talk about majorities prevailing.

 

[JFonseka]

Homosexual couples do not have sex because there will be no children proceeding from it. And as I asked, if God can get around the surgical removal of the ovaries and uterus, surely he could do something if he cared?

Sodom’s sin was not homosexuality but inhospitality, as shown in Ezekiel 16:49: And look at the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters were proud, sated with food, complacent in their prosperity, and they gave no help to the poor and needy.

Many would love to, were it possible – and hey, all things are possible with God, right?

Catholicism may give you an idea of marriage but it is not so for everyone else.

Why can the aspects not be separated? They are working towards separate goals, and married sex is still considered a good thing no matter how unlikely procreation is.

So am I!

Except, apparently, where homosexuals are concerned. The Church is quite clear on the matter: romantic love between people of the same sex doesn’t exist. It is, instead, only lust.

Catholicism can define love however it wants, but its definition does not necessarily match up with the actual emotion human beings feel. What makes the Church think homosexuals are incapable of selfless giving towards another?

I’m not trying to shoehorn Catholic teachings into a subjective frame of reference. I’m just pointing out that the paradigm Catholicism has chosen to define ‘love’ in ignores a good five percent of humanity.

It’s impossible to feel passionate love or to make a gift of oneself outside heterosexual marriage? What’s the next requirement, it has to be done exclusively in missionary position? I think you underrate love. According to your own religion, Jesus made the ultimate gift of himself, as a sacrificial lamb, yet he wasn’t married to all of humanity.

Those are the ingredients for a Catholic marriage, yes; and I completely support the right of the Church to decide who it will or will not join in matrimony. That’s the Church’s business. Deciding who the state will recognize as united is not.

Does the toaster love this person back? Will it sign a marriage license? In order for the state to have an interest in a union of spouses, both of them have to be members of society – a toaster is not one.

If toasters are given citizenship or at least green cards, I will, of course, withdraw my objections

I would like to see the rights of the minorities protected first; then let’s talk about majorities prevailing.

Love by the church is defined as a will and commitment to continue towards your spouse, not a feeling, feelings come and go, so love cannot be coming and going. The feelings are what someone gets when they are in love. In the marriage vows, thats what you commit to, for better or for worse, until death does us apart.

Most people define love as some intense feeling, this is where the blunder is. Parents for e.g. when you were a small child, they would have done so much for us, staying up late at night when we were sick, having to run behind us constantly, numerous things that they may not have always enjoyed doing, but they did because it was out of love, it was a commitment to their children.