Comments on: Tackling A Myth of Gay Marriage

By: donviti

donviti — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:34:39 +0000

boy David, it doesn’t matter how you slice it, you are full of crap and so easy to pick apart on these issues.

By: Tim J

Tim J — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:33:53 +0000

Wait, are you trying to convince me that someone in our federal government actually pays attention to what is in the Constitution and Amendments?

From my experience governments at all levels have a tendency to legislate what they want. Then someone looks back and realizes that oops, they might have violated their own founding documents. The city of Dover has violated its charter on more than one occasion and had to correct itself. The same is true of the Federal Government, but in DC they are less likely to correct the problem once they have found it. Instead they just keep on going.

By: TPN

TPN — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:56:18 +0000

So, your supporting political arguments with the “Catholic Catechism” and declarations from 1652?

Okey dokey.

By: David Anderson

David Anderson — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:33:22 +0000

I think that the are people married if they don’t have children argument is a sign of desparation and illogic. To paraphrase the Catholic Catechism, the union of a man and a women naturally leads to procreation. Procreation is not the only function of marrital love but its supreme achievement and crowning glory.

From 1652: “Children are the supreme gift of marriage and contribute greatly to the good of the parents themselves. God himself said: “It is not good that man should be alone,” and “from the beginning [he] made them male and female”; wishing to associate them in a special way in his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: “Be fruitful and multiply.” Hence, true married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it, without diminishment of the other ends of marriage, are directed to disposing the spouses to cooperate valiantly with the love of the Creator and Savior, who through them will increase and enrich his family from day to day.”

By: David Anderson

David Anderson — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:20:39 +0000

That is a safe prediction. They already can in one state. The last time I checked MA was still part of America.

That quirk of marriage defination may very well change in the future. The people of MA aren’t too happy about that and have been stimied by a tyrannical minority who disrespects them.

It will be pushed in couple of others than fall apart as a fad of its own excesses.

By: donviti

donviti — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:57:51 +0000

either way, it doesn’t matter what David “thinks” is right. Gays and Lesbians will be able to legally marry in this country in my life time.

By: donviti

donviti — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:53:45 +0000

should people that can’t have children marry david?

By: donviti

donviti — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:52:09 +0000

What we are talking about is preserving the legal recognition of marriage the way it has been through out our nation’s history.

what about the rest of civilization though David? It was all wrong until the United States came along? Our country hasn’t been around for all of “civilization” so how is our way the right way? You are a crackpot.

By: donviti

donviti — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:49:25 +0000

David Anderson is an idiot.

Successful human civilization has been built by real marriage not pretend marriage.

What? That doesn’t even make sense.

Succesful human civilization? Give us a few examples of some please. I’m waiting with baited breath.

What is real marriage? Old Testament? New Testament? What about Muslim marriages? They don’t count? What about the Romans and the Greeks and their family style?

you really are an idiot. And a creepy one at that.

By: TPN

TPN — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 01:10:15 +0000

How is an act of government “your” institution, David? How does any other marriage affect YOUR marriage, in the slightest.

Brian Shields has it right that you have some bizarre zero-sum calculus in mind.

Nobody’s emptying your bucket to fill theirs, by any stretch. But you certainly want no one else to even have a bucket to fill.