Republican senator announces support for gay marriage

[RACJ]

Strawman argument with respect to this Forum and most Catholic discussions in the media. Homosexuals are NOT being slammed or hated to the extent you and other apologists claim. Look at the kerfluffle regarding the Chick-Fil-A incident, the comment was “we believe in traditional marriage…” Nothing hateful regarding homosexuals but they seized this and tried to gin up a media lynching of this company. Of course the hysteria regarding Proposition 8 in California was a sight to behold.

There is nothing wrong with stating the obvious and the proven reality that marriage between a man and a woman has been the building block of stable societies for millenia. The best place for a child to be conceived and reared is in a traditional male/female marriage. Further the redefinition of marriage to include “anyone I love” is just another stage in the social experiments such as no fault divorce, single motherhood and shacking up as a viable alternative to marriage. What it has spawned is poverty, crime, instability, and less prosperity. Further if the TRUE objective is to open marriage to that which I “love” then there will be no way to counter incest, plural marriages, or other lifestyles.

You like Senator Portman find the “nice gay” example as if this means we should go ahead and redefine a cultural norm because you know a nice gay person or a nice gay couple. Baloney. Two men and two women are not the equivalent to a man and a woman and to have society riding on the back of somoene’s sexual habits is appalling. THIS enhances human dignity? Really?

Lisa

Great post as usual, LIsa. These folks who are queasy about upholding any standards love to eviscerate strawmen to make their points. A young boy needs a dad, and a mom. True, the progressives in government have made it extremely costly for people to marry. This was INTENTIONAL, as their goal is to lay wreckage to civil society. The idea that man and woman are interchangeable is loony. There are unfit, creepy people, and many decent ones of both sexes, and all sane inclinations. This fact doesn’t obliterate the norm that a loving HETERO couple is the ideal setting from which children can fluorish.
Only a fool would send his son out on a camping trip in the woods with a homosexual scout master, or a group of tenage girls with a hetero man, for that matter. Let’s not throw common sense to the wolves.
My own granddaughter has a dangerous man for a father, but this fact does not stop me from wishing for her to have a REAL dad. Not another mom, or even a loving granddad can replace a caring dad. Rob

 

[LisaA]

Great post as usual, LIsa. These folks who are queasy about upholding any standards love to eviscerate strawmen to make their points. A young boy needs a dad, and a mom. True, the progressives in government have made it extremely costly for people to marry. This was INTENTIONAL, as their goal is to lay wreckage to civil society. The idea that man and woman are interchangeable is loony. There are unfit, creepy people, and many decent ones of both sexes, and all sane inclinations. This fact doesn’t obliterate the norm that a loving HETERO couple is the ideal setting from which children can fluorish.
Only a fool would send his son out on a camping trip in the woods with a homosexual scout master, or a group of tenage girls with a hetero man, for that matter. Let’s not throw common sense to the wolves.
My own granddaughter has a dangerous man for a father, but this fact does not stop me from wishing for her to have a REAL dad. Not another mom, or even a loving granddad can replace a caring dad. Rob

Rob thank you for the kind words and I agree wholeheartedly. The intention is to destroy traditional values whether it’s religion, marriage, or even an institution like the Boy Scouts. All sacrificed to the altar of political correctness.

One very destructive "social experiement’ I forgot to mention was feminism. This was the big change when I grew up. No one begrudges a woman the opportunities to get an education and to pursue whatever vocation inspires her whether it’s motherhood or being a teacher or a rocket scientist for that matter. But it’s always the unintended consequences and the big one, as you pointed out also in same sex marriage, is gender neutrality or what I would call gender neutering.

Those who claim they are just trying to get equality are really destroying the complimetary nature of man and woman, husband and wife, mother and father which brings so many benefits both to society and to the raising of children. Who wants the world to be entirely masculine or entirely feminine. The phrase ‘viva la difference’ was not coined out of thin air. Children need a mommy and a daddy but so many are sacrificed to adults and their selfish desires.

There has to be a special kind of evil afoot to make so many people identify themselves primarily by their sexual practices as if this is the most important element in their humanity. But they protect this identity like a mama grizzly (ooooh I suppose that was a sexist remark…) and seek to push their practices on everything from the Scouts to the clergy to school curricula.

But of course the howl is always “Don’t push your nasty religious values on ME!!!” They don’t see they are doing just that.

Lisa

 

[fix]

Your “rights” end where mine “begin”…it matters not what your religious beliefs require of YOU when MY religious beliefs require something different from me.

I am very much for any organization that takes Federal money to operate it’s business to conform to the laws they agreed to abide by WHEN they took the money to operate their business.

Civil law is not dependant on your belief system…nor mine…I’m thankful we live in a country where others religious beliefss do not interfere with my religious beliefs.

I do not believe you shoud compromise your ethics and morals…you simply cannot force YOUR ehtics and morals on ME or any one else.

If it’s a matter of religious liberty for you to oppose same sex marriage and same sex relationships in your life, I would no more demand a law to restrict you from it’s practice than I support a law against free speech for Westboro Baptist Chruch…I DO support however laws which restrict WBC’s 'rights" where other’s “rights” would be restricted by WBC’s actions.

Your religious “rights” end where mine begin.

And you protects the children from being forced to live with two homosexuals acting as mother and father? Where are their rights?

 

[fix]

Rob thank you for the kind words and I agree wholeheartedly. The intention is to destroy traditional values whether it’s religion, marriage, or even an institution like the Boy Scouts. All sacrificed to the altar of political correctness.

One very destructive "social experiement’ I forgot to mention was feminism. This was the big change when I grew up. No one begrudges a woman the opportunities to get an education and to pursue whatever vocation inspires her whether it’s motherhood or being a teacher or a rocket scientist for that matter. But it’s always the unintended consequences and the big one, as you pointed out also in same sex marriage, is gender neutrality or what I would call gender neutering.

Those who claim they are just trying to get equality are really destroying the complimetary nature of man and woman, husband and wife, mother and father which brings so many benefits both to society and to the raising of children. Who wants the world to be entirely masculine or entirely feminine. The phrase ‘viva la difference’ was not coined out of thin air. Children need a mommy and a daddy but so many are sacrificed to adults and their selfish desires.

There has to be a special kind of evil afoot to make so many people identify themselves primarily by their sexual practices as if this is the most important element in their humanity. But they protect this identity like a mama grizzly (ooooh I suppose that was a sexist remark…) and seek to push their practices on everything from the Scouts to the clergy to school curricula.

But of course the howl is always “Don’t push your nasty religious values on ME!!!” They don’t see they are doing just that.

Lisa

It is an evil ideology. And yes the CCC says that not all mortal sins are of equal gravity.

 

[Publisher]

You fail to understand that this law does INDEED force your beliefs on others. The homosexual agenda is not satisfied with simply having a marriage ceremony and calling themselves spouses and filing joint returns. If that were the case there would be little objection. Unfortunately that is not the case. Same sex couples have demanded PRIVATE businesses serve them. They do not take government money. They sue if a private photographer won’t take their “wedding” pictures even though therer are many photographers who would be happy to have the business. They sue a B&B owner who does not want a homosexual “wedding” at his place of business.

The homosexual agenda wants to force THEIR lifestyle choice and their sexual practices on others. So your argument fails by a long way.

Honestly I do not care what people do in their private lives. I spent the last decade sharing Thanksgiving dinner with a group of dear friends including a gay couple and the sister of my dear friend who is a lesbian. I do not think of them in the context of their sex lives just as I don’t look at ANYONE in the context of their private sexual practices. If the homosexual agenda were willing to have the same attitude toward others we wouldn’t have this much disagreement.

Please read the cites Abyssinia provided. You need to learn there is more than just your personal experience involved.
Lisa

Those businesses that discriminate against same sex couples have a busness license issued by a civil government. No one is asking those businesses to support their marriages or relationships…simply that they adhere to a non-discrimination policy which I’m sure, though not certain as I have never owned a “small business”, by applying for a business license from civil government, the laws of civil government must be obeyed.

Those business owners have the same right to not conduct business in the public arena as do those Catholic institutions which choose to close down since they do not adhere to the requirments of civil government to not discriminate against same sex couples.

No one forced the business owners to open their business in theose cities that do not allow discrimination…any more than anyone forced Cahtolic institutions to close their doors in ordeer NOT to offer their services to same sex couples.

The whole 'religious freedom" arguement does not hold water in a secular civil society. No one is requiring those businesses or Catholic institutions to close their doors…that is a choice those businesses and institutions make on their own. For those Catholic charities and adoption placement organizations…if they didn’t want to adhere to the goverment guidelines of “non-discrimination”, they should not have agreed to those guideline in order to procure federal money.

You want your religious beliefs to be protected…yet you refuse others their beliefs to be protected.

I understand your convictions…and I support your right to hold them…until your rights conflict with my right to practice my faith tradition I support your rights…but as I said your rights end when my rights begin.

 

[Publisher]

And you protects the children from being forced to live with two homosexuals acting as mother and father? Where are their rights?

There is no evidence, other than ancecdotal you can provide that proves in any way that same sex couples who adopt children and care for them when their heterosexual parents don’t want them is detrimental to the children…evidence points to the contrary.

 

[fix]

There is no evidence, other than ancecdotal you can provide that proves in any way that same sex couples who adopt children and care for them when their heterosexual parents don’t want them is detrimental to the children…evidence points to the contrary.

No way. Unless you are choosing very specfic parameters to cook the books. Depriving a child of his/her right to normal parents is evil. There is no way anyone can claim two men are the same as a mother and father unless they have seriously lost all moral moorings. Common sense and logic have been eroded in so many words cannot describe the insanity.

 

[Publisher]

No way. Unless you are choosing very specfic parameters to cook the books. Depriving a child of his/her right to normal patents is evil. There is no way anyone can claim two men are the same as a mother and father unless they have seriously lost all moral moorings. Common sense and logic have been eroded in so many words cannot describe the insanity.

Thankfully we do not live in a society guided by “your” 'common sense and logic".

 

[epan]

… The homosexual agenda is not satisfied with simply having a marriage ceremony and calling themselves spouses and filing joint returns. If that were the case there would be little objection.

I find that statement to be disingenuous.

Since you bring up the “suspect class” issue, some state courts have found gays to be a suspect class, and therefore deserving added scrutiny, other state courts have not. I believe at this point, that the last Federal decision was that gays are not subject to added scrutiny as a suspect class, but I don’t think that the US Supreme Court has weighed in on it. It would not surprise me if this issue is also resolved in this session.

If the Court determines that homosexuals are a suspect class which is entitled to heightened scrutiny, then it will be a whole new ball game, particularly in states which have passed state constitutional amendments, or other laws which are relevant to this issue, and also to any remaining parts which could be left intact of DOMA.

 

[LisaA]

Those businesses that discriminate against same sex couples have a busness license issued by a civil government. No one is asking those businesses to support their marriages or relationships…simply that they adhere to a non-discrimination policy which I’m sure, though not certain as I have never owned a “small business”, by applying for a business license from civil government, the laws of civil government must be obeyed.

Those business owners have the same right to not conduct business in the public arena as do those Catholic institutions which choose to close down since they do not adhere to the requirments of civil government to not discriminate against same sex couples.

No one forced the business owners to open their business in theose cities that do not allow discrimination…any more than anyone forced Cahtolic institutions to close their doors in ordeer NOT to offer their services to same sex couples.

The whole 'religious freedom" arguement does not hold water in a secular civil society. No one is requiring those businesses or Catholic institutions to close their doors…that is a choice those businesses and institutions make on their own. For those Catholic charities and adoption placement organizations…if they didn’t want to adhere to the goverment guidelines of “non-discrimination”, they should not have agreed to those guideline in order to procure federal money.

You want your religious beliefs to be protected…yet you refuse others their beliefs to be protected.

I understand your convictions…and I support your right to hold them…until your rights conflict with my right to practice my faith tradition I support your rights…but as I said your rights end when my rights begin.

You might look to the Constitution regarding religious liberty. It is not meant to protect the government or public from the church but to protect the church from the government. If someone has a matter of religious conscious they should not be compelled to violate it on the grounds of discrimination.

You are right you do not know anything about opening or operating or licensing a business. When you get a license as an accountant or a doctor or a simple business license to run a photography studio it does not say you must take ANY customer who comes through the door and meet his or her demands. In a free society with a free exchange of goods and services, the merchant or service provider offers what he or she wishes (as long as its legal IOW not drugs or prostitution ) and a customer is free to purchase or not purchase the service or product.

Imagine a society where someone walks into a Jewish deli that does not offer pork products, indicates this, and yet the customer demands a ham sandwich and the government forces him not to “discriminate.” Thus he must provide the sandwich. You really think this is what should happen? I get my hair done at a studio where only one of the stylists works with ethnic hair. And it is a specialty. If an African American comes in and this stylist is not available should she be able to force another stylist to cut her hair? Or how about a doctor who does not do abortions. A woman comes in and says you cannot discriminate, you must perform an abortion. Or even getting into religious organizations, should a priest be forced to perform a same sex marriage? Should a pastor be charged with a hate crime because he read a passage in the Bible regarding the prohibition of homosexual practices? Even something as seemingly innocuous as dress can be a reason not to provide a service or product. Some restaurants demand a coat and tie. Golf courses do not allow people with shorts to hit the links. The world is full of “discrimination” but it’s not necessarily a bad thing.

This is still not a totalitarian society Publisher. Someone’s sexual proclivities do not rule the land at this point. Again you claim that this is forcing my standards on others. it is not. They are the ones forcing their standards on private organizations that should have the right to say no.
Lisa

 

[InSearchofGrace]

You might look to the Constitution regarding religious liberty. It is not meant to protect the government or public from the church but to protect the church from the government. If someone has a matter of religious conscious they should not be compelled to violate it on the grounds of discrimination.

You are right you do not know anything about opening or operating or licensing a business. When you get a license as an accountant or a doctor or a simple business license to run a photography studio it does not say you must take ANY customer who comes through the door and meet his or her demands. In a free society with a free exchange of goods and services, the merchant or service provider offers what he or she wishes (as long as its legal IOW not drugs or prostitution ) and a customer is free to purchase or not purchase the service or product.

Imagine a society where someone walks into a Jewish deli that does not offer pork products, indicates this, and yet the customer demands a ham sandwich and the government forces him not to “discriminate.” Thus he must provide the sandwich. You really think this is what should happen? I get my hair done at a studio where only one of the stylists works with ethnic hair. And it is a specialty. If an African American comes in and this stylist is not available should she be able to force another stylist to cut her hair? Or how about a doctor who does not do abortions. A woman comes in and says you cannot discriminate, you must perform an abortion. Or even getting into religious organizations, should a priest be forced to perform a same sex marriage? Should a pastor be charged with a hate crime because he read a passage in the Bible regarding the prohibition of homosexual practices? Even something as seemingly innocuous as dress can be a reason not to provide a service or product. Some restaurants demand a coat and tie. Golf courses do not allow people with shorts to hit the links. The world is full of “discrimination” but it’s not necessarily a bad thing.

This is still not a totalitarian society Publisher. Someone’s sexual proclivities do not rule the land at this point. Again you claim that this is forcing my standards on others. it is not. They are the ones forcing their standards on private organizations that should have the right to say no.
Lisa

:clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[BigBlueCane]

You might look to the Constitution regarding religious liberty. It is not meant to protect the government or public from the church but to protect the church from the government. If someone has a matter of religious conscious they should not be compelled to violate it on the grounds of discrimination.

You are right you do not know anything about opening or operating or licensing a business. When you get a license as an accountant or a doctor or a simple business license to run a photography studio it does not say you must take ANY customer who comes through the door and meet his or her demands. In a free society with a free exchange of goods and services, the merchant or service provider offers what he or she wishes (as long as its legal IOW not drugs or prostitution ) and a customer is free to purchase or not purchase the service or product.

Imagine a society where someone walks into a Jewish deli that does not offer pork products, indicates this, and yet the customer demands a ham sandwich and the government forces him not to “discriminate.” Thus he must provide the sandwich. You really think this is what should happen? I get my hair done at a studio where only one of the stylists works with ethnic hair. And it is a specialty. If an African American comes in and this stylist is not available should she be able to force another stylist to cut her hair? Or how about a doctor who does not do abortions. A woman comes in and says you cannot discriminate, you must perform an abortion. Or even getting into religious organizations, should a priest be forced to perform a same sex marriage? Should a pastor be charged with a hate crime because he read a passage in the Bible regarding the prohibition of homosexual practices? Even something as seemingly innocuous as dress can be a reason not to provide a service or product. Some restaurants demand a coat and tie. Golf courses do not allow people with shorts to hit the links. The world is full of “discrimination” but it’s not necessarily a bad thing.

This is still not a totalitarian society Publisher. Someone’s sexual proclivities do not rule the land at this point. Again you claim that this is forcing my standards on others. it is not. They are the ones forcing their standards on private organizations that should have the right to say no.
Lisa

This same argument was made and is still made about patrons not wanting to allow people of different ethnicities into their establishment. Marriage is a legal issue. If a state or the country recognizes the right for homosexuals to get married then they are protected. Not to serve them would be the essence of discrimination because you are only discriminating against them because they belong to a particular group of people. The freedom of religion does not mean that religious law supercedes the laws of the state and that you can use that as a blanket to discriminate against other people.

 

[rossum]

You might look to the Constitution regarding religious liberty. It is not meant to protect the government or public from the church but to protect the church from the government. If someone has a matter of religious conscious they should not be compelled to violate it on the grounds of discrimination.

That is not correct in law. A Church may discriminate when it acts as a Church – witness that Church that refused to marry a heterosexual couple because of their race. That was legal because of religious freedom. However that does not apply to members of the Church acting as citizens. They would not legally be able to discriminate on grounds of race when, say, serving in a shop.

One person’s freedom of religion is limited by other people’s freedom not to be discriminated against. Freedom of religion is not absolute, otherwise Mormons would have retained polygamy. That is a case where the law of the land overrode religious freedom.

rossum

 

[LisaA]

This same argument was made and is still made about patrons not wanting to allow people of different ethnicities into their establishment. Marriage is a legal issue. If a state or the country recognizes the right for homosexuals to get married then they are protected. Not to serve them would be the essence of discrimination because you are only discriminating against them because they belong to a particular group of people. The freedom of religion does not mean that religious law supercedes the laws of the state and that you can use that as a blanket to discriminate against other people.

Homosexuals try to compare their crusade with that of blacks or other ethnic minorities. However they are equating a behavior pattern which is neither fixed nor determined at birth to inherent characteristics.

I have encountered many homosexuals, have some as good friends, and the reality is that some practiced heterosexuality before, during or after coming out. It is a behavior, not an inherent characteristic. It may well be a very compulsive behavior that is quite unchangeable, but it is not the same as being born with black skin, growing up with black skin and dying with black skin.

Private businesses, churches, and individuals should have the right to accommodate or not accommodate the wishes of specific customers, congregants or parishioners, particularly if there are religious or ethical objections.

Please address the proposed “discrimination” examples. Do you think a doctor should be forced to perform abortions if he does not believe in allowing the murder of unborn babies? Must a priest be forced to “marry” two men or two women? Does the hair stylist who does not work with ethnic hair have to cut the hair of anyone who walks in the door? Must an accountant prepare the tax return of anyone who walks in the door on April 15th? Must a business accommodate an armed citizen with a concealed carry permit if they disagree with non law enforcement persons carrying guns? Or to pull in Publisher here…should Quakers be forced to take up arms?

It’s so funny how Leftists claim that people should be free do do as they wish but that only means they should be free to engage in Leftist approved behaviors.

Do you like living in a free country BBC? Or do you want to decree what is or is now allowed for the rest of us?

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

That is not correct in law. A Church may discriminate when it acts as a Church – witness that Church that refused to marry a heterosexual couple because of their race. That was legal because of religious freedom. However that does not apply to members of the Church acting as citizens. They would not legally be able to discriminate on grounds of race when, say, serving in a shop.

One person’s freedom of religion is limited by other people’s freedom not to be discriminated against. Freedom of religion is not absolute, otherwise Mormons would have retained polygamy. That is a case where the law of the land overrode religious freedom.

rossum

Race does not equal sexual practices. Race is genetic, inherent, inborn although it is truly a false difference. Sexual practices are none of the above. We have outlawed racial discrimination in this country. You might not know too much about the Mormon issue. They agreed to no longer (openly) practice polygymy in order to achieve statehood. Polygymy still exists though. Do you think we should also allow plural marriage?

Lisa

 

[epan]

Homosexuals try to compare their crusade with that of blacks or other ethnic minorities. However they are equating a behavior pattern which is neither fixed nor determined at birth to inherent characteristics.

I have encountered many homosexuals, have some as good friends, and the reality is that some practiced heterosexuality before, during or after coming out. It is a behavior, not an inherent characteristic. It may well be a very compulsive behavior that is quite unchangeable, but it is not the same as being born with black skin, growing up with black skin and dying with black skin.

Private businesses, churches, and individuals should have the right to accommodate or not accommodate the wishes of specific customers, congregants or parishioners, particularly if there are religious or ethical objections.

Please address the proposed “discrimination” examples. Do you think a doctor should be forced to perform abortions if he does not believe in allowing the murder of unborn babies? Must a priest be forced to “marry” two men or two women? Does the hair stylist who does not work with ethnic hair have to cut the hair of anyone who walks in the door? Must an accountant prepare the tax return of anyone who walks in the door on April 15th? Must a business accommodate an armed citizen with a concealed carry permit if they disagree with non law enforcement persons carrying guns? Or to pull in Publisher here…should Quakers be forced to take up arms?

It’s so funny how Leftists claim that people should be free do do as they wish but that only means they should be free to engage in Leftist approved behaviors.

Do you like living in a free country BBC? Or do you want to decree what is or is now allowed for the rest of us?

Lisa

I think this post shows the confusion that surrounds the difference between sexual orientation, and sexual behavior.

Sexual orientation is not volitional.

Sexual behavior is volitional.

If the goal is to stop gay marriage, then heterosexual marriage needs to be redefined back to where it once was. Legal gender roles need to be restored. No fault divorce repealed. Adultery laws passed. Once this happens, then gay marriage will make no sense legally. As long as the current legal definition of the heterosexual marriage gender rights and duties are in place, then it makes no legal sense to distinguish between genders to grant a marriage license.

 

[JimG]

When it comes to homosexual parenting, Dawn Stefanowicz’ recent book might be instructive.

 

[JimG]

I think this post shows the confusion that surrounds the difference between sexual orientation, and sexual behavior.

Sexual orientation is not volitional.

Sexual behavior is volitional.

If the goal is to stop gay marriage, then heterosexual marriage needs to be redefined back to where it once was. Legal gender roles need to be restored. No fault divorce repealed. Adultery laws passed. Once this happens, then gay marriage will make no sense legally. As long as the current legal definition of the heterosexual marriage gender rights and duties are in place, then it makes no legal sense to distinguish between genders to grant a marriage license.

I’m not quite sure what you mean that it makes no legal sense to distinguish between genders when it comes to marriage. It certainly makes sense anatomically and biolically as well as from a common sense standpoint. Same sex couples are inherently incapable of engaging in marital relations. It’s an impossibility.

Yes, marriage has already taken a number of hits. That doesn’t mean that we should take the final step of making it entirely devoid of meaning.

 

[BigBlueCane]

I’m not quite sure what you mean that it makes no legal sense to distinguish between genders when it comes to marriage. It certainly makes sense anatomically and biolically as well as from a common sense standpoint. Same sex couples are inherently incapable of engaging in marital relations. It’s an impossibility.

Yes, marriage has already taken a number of hits. That doesn’t mean that we should take the final step of making it entirely devoid of meaning.

I don’t know what you mean by “marital relations” but homosexuals are indeed capable of engaging in relations whether they be marital or not.

 

[epan]

I’m not quite sure what you mean that it makes no legal sense to distinguish between genders when it comes to marriage. It certainly makes sense anatomically and biolically as well as from a common sense standpoint. Same sex couples are inherently incapable of engaging in marital relations. It’s an impossibility.

Yes, marriage has already taken a number of hits. That doesn’t mean that we should take the final step of making it entirely devoid of meaning.

I do think that it makes sense to distinguish morally and biologically. I see the social value.

My point was that gender distinction in heterosexual marriage has been eliminated legally. There is absolutely no distinction in gender rights, obligations or duties in marriage currently under the law. Since that is the case, then legally speaking, there is no point in distinguishing by gender who may be married. This is known as legal equality, which has been a driving force in the civil rights movement for decades. This is why the legal definition of civil rights has steadily expanded over the past decades.

Also, there is much talk about the rights of children. This argument is compelling. But consider this. Only 50% of adults now choose to marry. Of those marriages, more than 50% will result in divorce. Children are being born out of wedlock and into single parent homes. It actually might be of some social benefit to increase the number of gay couples who will adopt parentless kids. It is well established that a two partner same sex home can better raise a child than any single parent home, on average. It is a simple time and money calculation.

As I have stated. I believe that the best solution is the roll things back to the broad standards of the Catholic Church. Repeal no fault divorce. Restore gender roles in marriage and in society. Restore adultery laws. Under these conditions, there is no legal equivalency between heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage.

The ability to procreate is a biological distinction, and not a legal one. The ability to raise children competently is not related to the ability to procreate. Only a minority of children are raised under ideal conditions.