Comments on: Morning Metro: Lots of CL Links, Sycamore Street, and Hunting NYC Movie Scenes

By: Marty

Marty — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 21:38:03 +0000

If the Catholic Church believes that sexual activity between two people is for where it is impossible for the intimacy to produce “the gift of a child” is harmful and always wrong, then why focus just on same sex couples? Why not prohibit sex for married women who are too old to produce a child? How about prohibit sex by married men who are impotent? Why not prohibit sex for anyone who for a medical reason or age cannot produce a child? Why if they know they cant have children and still engage in sexual activity that is obviously harmful and wrong.

Why the Catholic Church makes so much sense on this issue, I think they ought to be in charge of making our laws on these issues.

By: At Home in Decatur

At Home in Decatur — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 19:33:55 +0000

Wow, this link made me more convinced, rather than less, that we cannot let religion decide what the legal contract of marriage should be. I found myself disagreeing with many of the assumptions and assertions in these “FAQs” even though I am a church goer. In fact the “sexual difference” argument is ironic given today’s Morning Metro article “Why we all begin our lives as females.” Using faqs/facts to argue matters of faith seems misguided. Likewise, using faith to argue legal matters is not a rational, constitutional approach.

By: AJ

AJ — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 19:18:33 +0000

The position of the Catholic Church certainly is clear, Patrick, but it also requires that you buy into its essentialist views on gender and its limited view of the purpose and meaning of human sexuality. I don’t share those views; nor do many others. The issue is complex, no doubt. However, on one hand you have individuals whose actual day-to-day lives are affected by their inability to marry their chosen spouse, and on the other you have individuals whose beliefs about marriage are offended by SSM, but whose actual lives are not impacted. I readily admit that I am a gay person who would like to marry my partner legally, so I come to this with considerable bias.

By: A. Postate

A. Postate — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 06:04:06 +0000

The Baltimore Catechism has moved on since I last reviewed it in 1964.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 03:13:50 +0000

While the conversation is interesting, and mostly respectful, this issue is perhaps far too complex to be defended or attacked in a few words. It’s tempting to be swayed by emotion and even what seems logical. The Catholic Church has a very clear FAQ that explains its position at http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/marriage/promotion-and-defense-of-marriage/frequently-asked-questions-on-defense-of-marriage.cfm#m4.

By: Curious

Curious — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 01:47:10 +0000

I always find it odd that heterosexuals against gay marriage care so much about it being allowed. How does it really impact them to fight so hard against it?

By: Daydreamer

Daydreamer — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 23:52:48 +0000

Anyone truly interested in this (if you haven’t already) should read a little about the case headed to the Supreme Court. Just looking at a number like 600k in taxes, knowing it would be different for her, if her spouse were man just isn’t right, there’s no way to justify it. I don’t understand how anyone could look at this woman who was with her partner for 40 years, and tell her she’s unworthy of marriage in the eyes of the law.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/11/nyregion/edith-windsor-gay-widow-revels-in-supreme-court-fight.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

By: Udog

Udog — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 23:15:03 +0000

19 posts directed at Chris’s comment. He doesn’t need to engage in discussion. He lets his “students” do the talking. Not exactly what I would call evaporating but a clever teacher.