I can speak to this. I don’t really care for children, and I don’t plan on ever being a mother. Of my two brothers, one became a father to an adorable baby boy in March and the other has chosen not to have children. Instead, he takes care of a bunch of furry and scaly babies (his cats are all rescue animals) and him and his wife seem to be doing well with their little zoo.
They already have that. In traditional marriage, straight people can’t marry someone of the sex and neither can gays; however gays can still marry the opposite sex.
That doesn’t shock me at all, lol!
It will continue as such against Christians. It has in the UK as well, but when Muslims start objecting, the gay rights movement shuts its mouth, tucks its tail and runs away.
It does if you insist on putting your own desires in front of others needs.
Like I said, that study needs to be replicated, the next time it might show the opposite. That’s how science works.
Why wouldn’t I “take communion?” Not that it’s your concern at all, but I’m curious what you are on about?
The study (single) is free of certain researcher errors, that doesn’t mean it will show the same result when repeated. Let’s let science be science and do things correctly and not jump on a bandwagon just because we like the tune.
So, all these gay folks, over these last three decades of fighting for marriage, what they all secretly want is not marriage but to destroy the Catholic Church? That is their primary goal?
Unless it becomes a culture of marriage and family.
…except children…
I doubt the results would be different if the study were repeated in an honest fashion and even pro-gay rights social scientists have acknowledged the validity of the University of Texas study and the U of M study was done by a liberal department.
For some of them, it is.
It will not. The biological basic of stability such as sexual fulfillment and procreation are simply not there, long story short.
Did you read my entire post or just that one part?
That is a bit like saying Christians have religious freedom in Saudi Arabia because they are free to be Muslims.
Could you please list the lawsuits against the church in states like NY that already allow gay marriage? Especially the ones that have resulted in churches shutting down. I tried Googling them myself and didn’t come up with any. I must be looking them up incorrectly.
I don’t think this is true at all. Changing the genders of the people in a marriage is totally different than changing the number of people in a marriage. Marriage is a commitment between 2 people and the relationship is changed completely if there is another person in it. 3 people cannot really love each other equally in a romantic sort of way. You are always going to prefer one or the other, and one person will always be kind of left out. Then again it worked for Abraham, AMIRIGHT?
There’s more to it than that. Like it or not, Saudi Arabia is a sovereign nation.That is a bit like saying Christians have religious freedom in Saudi Arabia because they are free to be Muslims.
The polygamy of early Biblical figures has been noted by scholars to be “necessary” in certain instances because war and disease claimed many young healthy males and such an arrangement allows for females and children to be cared for by close male relatives or at least someone in a position of trust.
The idea that marriage may be redefined draws strength from the fact that marriage laws have changed in the past. The new claim is that there is nothing essential, definitive, or necessary about the couples being of opposite sexes. That is the aspect of marriage that has changed the least over time. The number of people in a marriage (-or the number one person may be married to at a time) has changed quite a bit. I think it odd to argue that although we now see that the sex of one’s betrothed is irrelevant, that one can only have one spouse (at a time) is set in stone. There are many polyamorous relationships. Are they not people too? Who are you to say their love is less sincere than your own?