Replies

I’m starting to think we just drop out of these debates. Or at least make them tell you what “advantages” they want. If they want to be able to visit in hospitals or get a tax break, say “ok, go for it”.

When they want a priest or pastor or rabbi to preside, let the debate begin.

But why should they have a tax break? I mean, I'm all for tax breaks --- give me a break for my good looks --- but as I understand it, legal perks for marriage are (or were) justified only because husband and wife were doing something that transcended their adult self-interest and extended out to benefit society. Namely, they are engaged in the long-term process of transmitting human life to the next generation, thereby creating the next productive "incoming" class upon whose existence we all depend in the natural succession of generations.

By contrast, what people do on the exclusive basis of their own adult self-interest is of no interest to the rest of us. Why should it be subsidized?

Politically, natural marriage can be, and ought to be, defended by its public purposes via Natural Law; it should not need -- in the political forum --- to be justified by Supernatural Law.

Though I'm beginning to wonder about that. I have noticed that people who lack the faith to accept Supernatural Law, lack also the reason to grasp Natural Law.

And when human beings sink below the natural, they do not sink to the bestial: they sink to the demonic.

But why should they have a tax break? I mean, I'm all for tax breaks --- give me a break for my good looks --- but as I understand it, legal perks for marriage are (or were) justified only because husband and wife were doing something that transcended their adult self-interest and extended out to benefit society. Namely, they are engaged in the long-term process of transmitting human life to the next generation, thereby creating the next productive "incoming" class upon whose existence we all depend in the natural succession of generations.

By contrast, what people do on the exclusive basis of their own adult self-interest is of no interest to the rest of us. Why should it be subsidized?

Politically, natural marriage can be, and ought to be, defended by its public purposes via Natural Law; it should not need -- in the political forum --- to be justified by Supernatural Law.

Though I'm beginning to wonder about that. I have noticed that people who lack the faith to accept Supernatural Law, lack also the reason to grasp Natural Law.

And when human beings sink below the natural, they do not sink to the bestial: they sink to the demonic.

once marriage is redefined then all sorts of marriage is allowed and the homosexuals have already used their sham marriage to push further laws like adoption, discrimination, teaching to 5 year olds etc.

Either marriage is between one man and one woman or anything.

Cousins, 9 wives, 3 husbands, frigging donkeys etc