Of course if marriage were only about love then this argument would hold water. The fact remains that there is a procreative element to marriage. Of course in certain circumstances exceptions are given, but procreation is still a central part of a marriage. (Continued…)
Jon, how ironic that you used the word "logically" in your post since your contention is illogical. You failed to mention one important fact - marriage is not required for procreation. (Continued…)
Thanks for your thoughts Christopher, but you misread my comment. I stated that procreation is a part of marriage, not that marriage is necessary for procreation. (Continued…)
"Same-sex marriage advocates should consider the consequences of changing the definition of marriage. Why should we stop at 2 people?"
Worked in the Old Testament. (Continued…)
Also, if procreative abilities are requisite for marriage, should people who are medically infertile be allowed to marry? Other scenarios regarding the reproductive organs, etc. (Continued…)
Jon, thanks for your comments and for facing a harsh crowd without resorting to too much sarcasm.
I think the fundamental disagreement I have with you is whether a marriage should be defined by a single institution, in this case the patriarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, or by the people marrying one another. (Continued…)
This is two separate issues that should not be intertwined. 1) Should gay marriage be legal; 2) Should it be recognized by the church.
As for the second question, I have absolutely no problem with the Catholic church being opposed to gay marriage and to continue to not recognize the religious institutional significance of the event. (Continued…)
Sophiy
Ginay
posted 9/08/08 @ 10:04 PM EST
I admire those groups working for GLBT, also those online services like the one **BisexualMingle dotcom**. Members there are very active. Hope you are the one. (Continued…)