homosexual marriage

[hglundahl]

Could not put this into edit of previous:

I would not see anything wrong with the state regulating relationships which involve, or are intended to involve children, and excluding non-childbearers or adopters from that. But so many homosexuals do have children (sometimes from previous relationships) such a restriction would not resolve the Catholic objection to gay marriage.

Someone declaring beforehand not to want children makes his marriage null of after ceremony he carries that out (otherwise such a statement can be considered a bad joke).

People who try hard to get children and then after bad luck adopt someone who lost both parents is of course no reason to ban their marriage.

However, such a restriction DOES very much uphold the Catholic (as human as well as as in Roman) ban on marrying a man to a man or a woman to a woman.

You see, Catholic canon law and doctrine is not at all against a homosexual man marrying the mother of his child.

I have made the point so often, some people have began to see me as homosexual myself, it is destroying my life, but shall not destroy the Church:

God’s marriage does not exclude homosexual persons. It is a heterosexual relationship, not a relationship reserved for heterosexual persons.

A good example is on capital punishment, which is now very rare in the world, and outside the US, virtually unknown in democracies.

Very rare in the world? Heard latest news from Muslim countries?

 

[hglundahl]

To two on my side:

Now, I’m not a Luddite. But I do think the Industrial Revolution and the factory system did allow us to have many more goods than humanity had been used to in previous centuries. Technology has allowed us to have an abundance unprecedented in previous history.

There is nothing wrong with abundance. It’s when we use material goods - food, clothing, purchaseables - to try to fill a void which can only be filled with God. Because then we may die thinking we are satisfied when really we never were, nor could be, satisfied.

The problem - and reason why I am Luddite* - is that: “abundance” under Industrial Revolution is bought at the price of those doing necessities either many getting out of work or out of that particular, in the net end those particular trades, and either into living out of work or living from less necessary and therefore more conjecture sensitive works.

I am a writer and composer. That is clearly less necessary than a baker or a miller. So it is more conjecture sensitive. Up to last time I checked my writing and composing has been so conjecture sensitive that economically it is as if I were out of work or worse since I am not looking for it and therefore cannot honestly apply for social aids as if I were doing so.

*See my poem Luddite’s Lament:
antimodernisminmemoriam.blogspot.fr/2009/02/luddites-lament.html
It has become hard to find this on google without adding my name to the title.

On this computer I have no sound and cannot check if this similar title is same text or not:
youtube.com/watch?v=rjVA3JmRPxY

Homosexuals are recognized as citizens. They do not deserve certain rights because they choose aberrant behavior.

Do you mean “special rites” when you say “certain rites”? If you mean “certain rites” - like that to marry - the answer is: they renounce and do not deserve that right AS LONG AS they chose a behaviour that is aberrant against nature.

Some would say my behaviour is aberrant, but my voluntary choices are not against nature, as are those of homos!

 

[TarkanAttila]

Could not put this into edit of previous:

You see, Catholic canon law and doctrine is not at all against a homosexual man marrying the mother of his child.

Ah… this can be true, in a sense. I wonder, though, does this mean that anyone who has had children can get married and never have children again?

But why would a homosexual man want to marry a woman? Part of being married is having sex. IIRC, a marriage can be annulled on the grounds that they never had sex.