Why not tolerate non-sacramental, civil gay marriage?

[The_Bucket]

No, I think that was what you said. Of course you could not seem to answer a yes/no question with a yes or no. Let me ask you again just to give you a third chance: So there is no difference between your marriage and that of a same sex union? They are the same thing to you?

I personally don’t think you’re entitled to a yes or no answer because you’re going about this in a way that, were this a different forum, I’d have a choice word to describe your mannerisms.

That said, the answer is no. My marriage is not the same as a same sex union nor is it the same as heterosexuals living together before marriage or people who have been divorced and remarried without a declaration of nullity. And news flash: Sin is sin. Grave matter is grave matter. I see no distinction between divorcees remarrying, heterosexuals shacking up and sexually active homosexuals. It’s all grave sexual sin.

As for your consistent use of legal fiction… like I said, all civil marriage is a fiction. It was designed as a way first to allow for the transfer of property rights and then to encourage family and societal stability by assigning “legitimacy” to offspring provided that the parents behave in a certain manner. Legitimacy as it pertains to a human being in and of itself is, of course, also a societal invention.

I don’t care that you didn’t say it, by the way. It is what it is. Civil marriage has changed over the centuries and is basically an invention for the purposes of property, tax and other civil law along with slapping the “legitimate” label on the human fruits of the sexual union. Marriage for quite some time did not require witnesses nor did it require an officiant. People just sort of declared themselves to the public that they were married, everyone said “great” and we all moved on. This went on for centuries among the lower classes. The lower classes have pretty much dispensed with the formality and thus you see a huge rise in single parenthood and a dearth of fathers in the inner city. Or heck, even among the rural poor.

But civil marriage has never been the same thing as sacramental marriage. Ever. We as a society have always found ways to muck it up.

 

[Stephen168]

That said, the answer is no. My marriage is not the same as a same sex union nor is it the same as heterosexuals living together before marriage or people who have been divorced and remarried without a declaration of nullity. And news flash: Sin is sin. Grave matter is grave matter. I see no distinction between divorcees remarrying, heterosexuals shacking up and sexually active homosexuals. It’s all grave sexual sin.

I completely agree with you. Now you just have to stand up for yourself, your spouse, and your children when others want to degrade your marriage by saying that any old live-in arrangement is the same as your marriage. Don’t cower to the name calling

 

[Stephen168]

However this thread is about civil marriage, not Catholic marriage.

No, they do not have children, they did not create them therefore, they are someone else’s children.
Adoption is the legal fiction of creating ‘civil‘ parents who are not ‘real‘ parents.

If the government calls a same-sex union marriage, it is creating a legal fiction; creating a ‘civil’ marriage that is not a ‘real’ marriage.

Legal fictions are created as a work around to ‘real’ or ‘civil’ problematic situations. I don’t see the problem being solved by creating the legal fiction of same sex unions as marriage.

 

[JimG]

Well then we agree in several large respects. **And honestly, the main reason that this change took place is because we separated children from marriage. And that happened when we separated sex from children. **
Certainly people engaged in fornication for millenia. This is nothing new. There was, however, always the risk of a child being conceived. Or at least some kind of a risk given that contraception before the modern era was not exactly reliable. Technology has changed that dramatically.

The separation of sex from procreation is what enabled society to easily do away with separating marriage from children. And with marriage now firmly all about “two people being in love” there is no reason for the state to use marriage as a way to foster procreation.

I agree entirely. With the acceptance of contraception, marriage was undermined. Catholics and Protestants had the same teaching on contraception up until 1930, when the Lambeth Conference allowed it for grave reasons among married couples.

Then the floodgates opened. Other denominations caved in. Contraception freed men from responsibility, and separated marriage from sex. There followed the sexual revolution, which required abortion as a fail safe–a fail safe which became just another means of contraception.

Who suffered from this revolution? Children most of all. Then women, and men, and families, and society as a whole.

I just don’t propose that because we have come this far towards disintegration, that we put the final nail in the coffin of marriage by accepting same sex couplings as equal to marriage. They are not. True, marriage is nearly dead already, but I’d rather not use that as an excuse to just kill it off.

 

[john78]

Why should Catholics have to tolerate divorced people getting married? Civil marriage is already contrary to the Catholic version in that it allows for divorce and remarriage.

There are many more divorces than there are same sex marriages. Surely that is where the larger problem lies?

rossum

how does one draw a line between Catholics " tolerate " divorced people getting remarried, versus same sex marriages and that there is a larger number of heterosexual divorces so ipsofacto that must be the problem an thus same sex marrage is better ?

a very confusing statement.

As Catholics we do not interrogate each other as to what couple is married, divorced, or has had an annulment or not, nor do Catholics tolerate unwed mothers, single mothers, or people who have been married or divorced multiple times. We do not tolerate or condemn, we live by what we have been taught in faith.

So if homosexuals want to get married, they can; just not in the Roman Catholic Church, and as Catholics we do not have to " tolerate " nor be " progressive " and " supportive " of those homosexuals who live as civil married couple. As Christians and Catholics, we are not called to reign fire and brimstone upon those who decide to live in sin, we are merely called to pray for them, and to do our best to bring the Truth to them. No real Christian or Catholic will snarl and spit an demean an outcast a civil homosexual couple, we are still charged to love as Christ has loved.

Do not confuse , not being " tolerant, progressive, or supportive " as being hateful and mean. If one is a drug addict or an alcholoic people reach out to help those who are hurting themselves. Same concept just over simplified.

just because a law is made that says homosexuals can marry, doesn’t make it right, nor would a law that says legalizing marajuana, and prositution is morally right.

 

[Monkey1976]

It does benefit society and I know it. It increases happiness among the couples who marry.

Irrelevant. The law cares nothing about how “happy” people are, or any other emotion. The pursuit of happiness is enshrined the US Constitution, but - to me - it’s an essentially meaningless phrase. A prisoner in a cell can “pursue happiness” until he’s blue in the face. Maybe some legal scholars can shed some light on what that phrase actually means from the standpoint of constitutional law?

It tends to increase the length of their relationship given the legal implications of divorce.

With no-fault divorce being the current law of the land, what “legal implications” would there be?

It means that the state can save money on caring for the aged because more of them will have a partner to look after them in their old age.

Actually, it will cost the state quite a bit more money. Medicare benefits for “married couples” are much higher than those for single persons, and the same tax breaks as those offered to married couples are one of the primary legal benefits gay “marriage” activists are agitating for. In return, they are guaranteed to do nothing regarding the government’s most basic interest in marriage - producing children which will ensure the continuation of society.

There are more couples available to adopt children from orphanages.

Providing homes which are devoid of either a mother or father, so what’s the difference between these and adoption by single persons? In addition, if adoption was really such a driving concern, why were Catholic adoption agencies forced to close? Surely it would have been in these children’s best interests to have as many agencies as possible out there, right?

I am not arguing about the teachings of the Catholic Church, I am arguing about civil marriage, which is certainly not a teaching of the Catholic Church because it allows divorce and remarriage.

rossum

The Church’s standpoint is that the institution of marriage predates both government and Church. Within the Church, it was raised to the dignity of a sacrament by Our Lord. However - despite how much the current US administration is working in that direction - the Church is not a ghetto, walled off from society. We have a positive duty to to act in the best interest of humanity, even when humanity seems intent in driving off a cliff.

Imagine this - you are standing on a castle wall. Below you are 1000 people with hammers and chisels. Driving toward the wall at high speed is a tank with a battering ram. Which threat do you address first?

To put the analogy another way: Just because most of the horses have fled doesn’t mean we shouldn’t shut the barn door to keep what few are left before we head off to get the rest back.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Since Catholics don’t consider civil marriage a sacrament anyway, then why not just let homosexuals marry each other civilly? So long as any laws passed passed do not force Catholic sacramental gay unions, why not just tolerate them? We don’t even allow two straight Catholics who are merely married civilly to receive Communion, because we don’t consider civil marriage to be an authentic marial union in the Christian sense.

To say otherwise would mean that we actually are giving civil unions a significant measure of validity.

Redefining marriage effects public policy which effects everybody. It affects education in schools and colleges and religious liberty. Religious liberty being impacted has been documented and homosexual marriage is not even legalised in many states yet. Consequences come from redefining marriage

Homosexual civil marriage enshrines into law that 2 people can marry regardless of fecundity and if you base marriage on that then how can marriage be denied to a group of people, incestuous couples or people that want to marry inaimate objects?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Since Catholics don’t consider civil marriage a sacrament anyway, then why not just let homosexuals marry each other civilly? So long as any laws passed passed do not force Catholic sacramental gay unions, why not just tolerate them? We don’t even allow two straight Catholics who are merely married civilly to receive Communion, because we don’t consider civil marriage to be an authentic marial union in the Christian sense.

To say otherwise would mean that we actually are giving civil unions a significant measure of validity.

Redefining marriage leads to the redefinition of parenthood. When marriage occurs that attaches parents to children through ‘presumption of paternity.’ This is an ancient doctrine that means a woman’s husband is presumed to be the father of the children that would be conceived in their marriage

Those who want to redefine marriage want to redefine this to change to ‘presumption of parentage,’ which means that any children that would be born to either one of a gay couple during the course of their ‘marriage’ is presumed to be the child of both individuals. That means that every child will not be attached to least one of their biological parents. So natural parenthood is undermined and the consequence of redefining marriage is that a message is sent that children do need a mother and a father. Traditional marriage teaches that children need a mother and a father and deacdes of studies have shown the benefits of marriage, and children brought up by their biological married parents and that is why government should protect and preserve marriage between 1 woman and 1 man

Homosexual civil marriage enshrines into law that 2 people can marry regardless of fecundity and if you base marriage on that then how can marriage be denied to a group of people, incestuous couples or people that want to marry inaimate objects?

Redefining marriage effects public policy which effects everybody. It affects education in schools and colleges and religious liberty. Religious liberty being impacted has been documented and homosexual marriage is not even legalised in many states yet. Consequences come from redefining marriage

 

[_Abyssinia]

Irrelevant. The law cares nothing about how “happy” people are, or any other emotion. The pursuit of happiness is enshrined the US Constitution, but - to me - it’s an essentially meaningless phrase. A prisoner in a cell can “pursue happiness” until he’s blue in the face. Maybe some legal scholars can shed some light on what that phrase actually means from the standpoint of constitutional law?

---

Happiness is not a reason government accepts as a compelling interest to legalise or subsidise a variety of things. Government does not subsidise chocolate even though it increases happiness through endorphins, and government prohibits polygamous marriage, even though people can argue if they were alllowed to marry multiple people it would make them happier

 

[The_Bucket]

I just don’t propose that because we have come this far towards disintegration, that we put the final nail in the coffin of marriage by accepting same sex couplings as equal to marriage. They are not. True, marriage is nearly dead already, but I’d rather not use that as an excuse to just kill it off.

So Jim, like I said, we’re basically on the same page. I just happen to think that a more marriage-positive campaign would better serve the cause than an anti-same-sex marriage cause. Because people do not understand that marriage is about children anymore. They simply don’t. We as a society redefined it as “two people in love.” Abyssinia provides a good history lesson for what civil marriage was all about, but we have to recognize that it already has been changed in the public mind.

It went from property and contract law and the legitimacy of children to merely the state’s acknowledgement that two people love each other. This was never formalized, but the change absolutely and definitively happened in the societal ether. While I’m all in favor of tying marriage to love, I also concede that civil marriage originally had nothing to do with love. It was all about property rights and, as Abyssinia said, the “presumption of paternity” that legitimized certain offspring and cast out others are illegitimate. Love, even good Christian love, had nothing to do with it. Romantic love was certainly not really a party to it either, except in literature. In practice there was some romantic love and some Christian love, but it was not remotely considered a requirement.

The way I see it, the definition of civil marriage has already changed and now it’s merely undergoing formalities to recognize that change. Marriage is now about romantic love and feelings. Well that and some tax, property and privacy privileges.

If we want to be upset at someone for changing the definition of marriage, I suggest we look at ourselves. And by that I don’t mean the Catholic Church or those who post on these forums. I mean our society and specifically our Christian brothers and sisters who separated children from sex, which then enabled sex to be separated from sacramental marriage and children to be separated from civil marriage.

 

[fix]

Should I bother pointing out that stating “There is no ultimate truth” is itself asserting an ultimate truth?

There is no way to argue logically in this case. And yes you are quite correct.

 

[rossum]

There is no way to argue logically in this case. And yes you are quite correct.

See my post #192 in this thread.

rossum

 

[JimG]

So Jim, like I said, we’re basically on the same page. I just happen to think that a more marriage-positive campaign would better serve the cause than an anti-same-sex marriage cause. Because people do not understand that marriage is about children anymore. They simply don’t. We as a society redefined it as “two people in love.” Abyssinia provides a good history lesson for what civil marriage was all about, but we have to recognize that it already has been changed in the public mind.

It went from property and contract law and the legitimacy of children to merely the state’s acknowledgement that two people love each other. This was never formalized, but the change absolutely and definitively happened in the societal ether. While I’m all in favor of tying marriage to love, I also concede that civil marriage originally had nothing to do with love. It was all about property rights and, as Abyssinia said, the “presumption of paternity” that legitimized certain offspring and cast out others are illegitimate. Love, even good Christian love, had nothing to do with it. Romantic love was certainly not really a party to it either, except in literature. In practice there was some romantic love and some Christian love, but it was not remotely considered a requirement.

The way I see it, the definition of civil marriage has already changed and now it’s merely undergoing formalities to recognize that change. Marriage is now about romantic love and feelings. Well that and some tax, property and privacy privileges.

If we want to be upset at someone for changing the definition of marriage, I suggest we look at ourselves. And by that I don’t mean the Catholic Church or those who post on these forums. I mean our society and specifically our Christian brothers and sisters who separated children from sex, which then enabled sex to be separated from sacramental marriage and children to be separated from civil marriage.

I agree with nearly everything you say here. Yes, Catholics have been complicit in the deconstruction of marriage. The problem with legalizing gay marriage is that it will lead to legal and civil penalties against faithful Catholics as well as other Christians, and will foment and facilitate religious persecution.

Marriage may already be so disintegrated as to be doomed. In that case, our civilization is doomed as well. I simply don’t think that Christians have the option of throwing in the towel when it comes to complicity with evil.

If marriage is just about “who you love,” then mothers can marry their sons, family members can marry each other, close friends and business partners can marry. It’s only a matter of time before pederasts and polygamists petition for the right to marry.

You may be right, in that the destruction of marriage is already a fait accompli. The evidence suggests that you are. If so, I mourn for the children who must come to maturity in this new dark age.

 

[The_Bucket]

The problem with legalizing gay marriage is that it will lead to legal and civil penalties against faithful Catholics as well as other Christians, and will foment and facilitate religious persecution.

Here is probably the only place we disagree. I can’t see that happening. At least not in America. Our separation of church and state will prevent this; churches are not public spaces and therefore lawsuits challenging religions banning gay marriage will fail.

The worst thing I can imagine here is that at some point there will be a ban on religions of every denomination losing their tax-exempt status. That is bad but it is not the worst thing in the world.

Marriage may already be so disintegrated as to be doomed. In that case, our civilization is doomed as well. I simply don’t think that Christians have the option of throwing in the towel when it comes to complicity with evil.

I concur. I just happen to have a different take than some other posters on what the strategy should be.

If marriage is just about “who you love,” then mothers can marry their sons, family members can marry each other, close friends and business partners can marry. It’s only a matter of time before pederasts and polygamists petition for the right to marry.

At this point I don’t see any reason why polygamy should be banned in states where there is gay marriage. Same with incestuous relationships provided that there is no history of abuse and the individuals are both adults. That’s where we will probably always draw the line, so I don’t think there is anything in the future for pederasts (including those, who sadly, have found far too often among our clergy) except jail. Which is good.

You may be right, in that the destruction of marriage is already a fait accompli. The evidence suggests that you are. If so, I mourn for the children who must come to maturity in this new dark age.

I take heart in knowing that every generation is what Christ called: An evil generation. We’ve always had it wrong and probably always will. If it’s not gay marriage then it’s condoning the public beating of homosexuals. If it’s not condoning and even supporting shacking up, it’s public shaming and shunning of those who engage in heterosexual relations outside of marriage. If it’s not abortion, it’s war. If it’s not extreme feminism it’s banning women from having jobs or driving a car. It’s slavery, discrimination, genocide. If it’s not one thing it’s another, you know?

And yet despite all of these terrible, terrible evils, the Church remains and Christ’s love endures. I take great heart in that.

 

[fix]

Just to keep everything in proper perspective:

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

The scope of the civil law is certainly more limited than that of the moral law,(11) but civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience.(12) Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person.(13) Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.

 

[rossum]

Here is probably the only place we disagree. I can’t see that happening. At least not in America. Our separation of church and state will prevent this; churches are not public spaces and therefore lawsuits challenging religions banning gay marriage will fail.

I agree. Churches have exemptions from anti-discrimination laws. It is illegal to discriminate against women in employment, yet the Church can legally do so when appointing priests. It is illegal to discriminate on the grounds of race, yet the First Baptist Church in Crystal Springs refused to marry a couple last year on racial grounds and what they did was legal because the church was exempt from the law.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

snip

If we want to be upset at someone for changing the definition of marriage, I suggest we look at ourselves. And by that I don’t mean the Catholic Church or those who post on these forums. I mean our society and specifically our Christian brothers and sisters who separated children from sex, which then enabled sex to be separated from sacramental marriage and children to be separated from civil marriage.

Our society was not wrecked overnight and it was not done on a whim. Powerful forces were arrayed against us and worked with all their strength to gradually poison us. I lived through it. I watched it happen. Remember, satan works through lies and deceptions.

1960 The FDA approves the birth control pill for sale by prescription. Now, at that time, the media was reflecting our values, not offending them. The Federal government was supportive of our Christian ideals. They told us we were in a struggle not just with Communism but “Godless Communism.” No, life was not perfect and we were still sinners, but we lived out our faith daily. What we believed blended seemlessly into our daily lives. And we were surrounded by good role models. Our neighborhoods contained mostly good neighbors, the bad apples kept to themselves for the most part. Politeness and clam, civil behavior was understood by all. We had great fun and trusted those in government and the press more.

1967 The word Freedom would help promote the lies this year, both outside and inside the Church.

1. Some Catholic institutions of higher education break ties with Church leadership because of “freedom.”

catholichistory.net/Events/LandOLakesStatement.htm

1. Time Magazine publishes a cover story about The Pill. The Pill was a product, and like any product, it had to have a benefit. Again, the benefit was “freedom.” The title of the article: “Contraception: Freedom from Fear.” Fear of what? Babies. What was once a “gift from God” and “a bundle of joy” was marketed as not desirable.

time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,843551,00.html

1968 None of this is lost on Pope Paul VI, but some of his advisors were proposing that the Church relax its ban on artificial contraception. Instead, he issued Humanae Vitae, which reaffirmed constant Church teaching and warned that if his words were not heeded then there would be an increase in sexual promiscuity, and that the love and devotion between married people would begin to fray.

But the dissidents inside the Church were incredibly angry and acted quickly to protest against the Pope!

“Within 24 hours, in an event unprecedented in the history of the Church, more than 200 dissenting theologians signed a full-page ad in The New York Times in protest. Not only did they declare their disagreement with encyclical’s teaching; they went one step further, far beyond their authority as theologians, and actually encouraged dissent among the lay faithful.” Source: regnum christi

an event UNPRECEDENTED in the history of the Church

The Sex without love Revolution was beginning and those who would damage our way of life could NOT have the Pope telling anybody to avoid buying product! Especially The Pill.

1969 A group was founded to promote the ultimate form of artificial birth control - abortion. It used lies and deception as reported by its co-founder:

catholicnewsagency.com/resources/abortion/articles-and-addresses/an-ex-abortionist-speaks/

Enemy number one? The Catholic Church.

1970s Pornographers spend millions of dollars on prostitutes, photographers, filmmakers and printers. They had to buy, rent, lease or build the new dens of sin. They knew addiction would follow. They turned private intimacy and presented it to all. Adult Bookstores, strip clubs and topless bars opened across the country. They multiplied temptations greatly and, of course, we protested but they had high priced lawyers to keep us at bay. They said it was legal! That they were protected by the First Amendment!!

I was stunned. I couldn’t understand it. Who allowed this to happen! The radicals, anarchists and Hippies called it good. “We’ve got the Freedom!!!” Freedom to what? Sin?

And the worst “product” they sold was a thick swingers’ magazine that was easily over 100 pages. It was filled with ads and photos of mostly or partly nude women who were offering free, no strings attached sex.

Worse, those that lived in the shadows entered our neighborhoods and since we were naive and taught to welcome the stranger, we listened to what the Hippies and Anarchists told us. They wanted to give us FREEEEEEEDOM!

Parents who had raised their children right were now seeing their sons using illegal drugs. Parents were seeing their children living with and having sex with their boyfriend or girlfriend. They had been “encouraged” by these people. All in the name of Freedom. They told us: “Don’t trust anyone over 30!” They told us everything would change - change for the better! They had a better way! And since our mindset was such that we were inclined to at least consider what they had to say, some of us stupidly gave their way of life a try.

1973 Abortion is legalized in the most irrational Supreme Court decision known to man. I was stunned again. What was happening? I didn’t know how or why but I knew this was the worst possible decision our government could make. It was certainly NOT the will of the people.

Meanwhile, gays within the American Psychological Association, along with outside, radical gay activists, would dump years of research involving homosexual persons and turn homosexuality, which was classified in their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual as a disorder, into not a disorder - by vote.

amazon.com/Homosexuality-American-Psychiatry-Politics-Diagnosis/dp/0691028370

continued…

 

[edwest2]

The 1960s and 1970s were the time of the dissidents INSIDE the Church.

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704586504574654282563939764.html

Starting in the 1970s, the media gradually turned to their way. Sex meant nothing, and was only for pleasure. Families, especially in-laws, were a pain.

The National Organization for Women sowed the seeds of discontent among women. They were the enemy of women. But just as Adult Bookstores, strip clubs and topless bars were DESIGNED to help men sin, NOW was designed for the same purpose regarding women. Take a look:

www.now.org/

They made is a point to tell women all men were out to use and abuse them. To trust none of them. To fear them. To hate being a housewife - a slave. They had a better way. And they all wanted to give women Freedom! This made the ground fertile for what was to come.

1980s I open the newspaper to the Classifieds. You know who turned the sanctity of Marriage into nothing but a contract? Catholics? No. Lawyers who didn’t care. Making a buck was job one. I saw a lot of ads that read like this: “No kids? $75 and you’re out. Call 800-DIVORCE.” I was stunned - again. And again, I asked, Who allowed this No-Fault Divorce? Catholics? Of course not!!

And as the 80’s turned into the 90’s, the media got worse and worse. Every year, it was more skin, more sexual situations, more dirty language. I stopped listening to FM radio in the 90’s. Then the ultimate tool for all perversions appeared - the internet.

So, on TV, we have dirty language, partial nudity and soft porn. And who was behind this? Catholics? The same people from the late 1960s wanted to push their lifestyle into our faces 24/7 and turned true love into ‘just sex’ like using a toilet.

Turn off your TV most of the time. Catch some sports or maybe, a little news, but that’s it. Don’t go the movies unless a particular movie can be watched by all ages. My average is one or two a year. Last year, it was one. This year, it looks like one - maybe - again.

YOU are in charge. Not them. If you want to live as Catholics then do what you know you have to do. We can turn this around. Now. Each one of us. But we must begin by ignoring the abnormal, and the lies and deceptions going on right now:

ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/pope-renounce-culture-that-disguises-falsehood-as-truth

Pope Benedict has shown us the way and described the problem as it is right now.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Regular_Atheist]

I don’t understand why you think families have become a burden. Most people still seem to have families once they’re ready to settle down. They just do a bit more fornicating prior to getting married (or, at least, having kids). And who can blame them? Fornication is great.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I don’t understand why you think families have become a burden. Most people still seem to have families once they’re ready to settle down. They just do a bit more fornicating prior to getting married (or, at least, having kids). And who can blame them? Fornication is great.

Fornication is not great