Let the further absurdities begin. Having redefined marriage, the secular world may discover it has actually undefined marriage. For in removing so basic an aspect of the definition of marriage (a male and a female), proponents of gay “marriage” will have a hard time excluding any newcomers to the the now opened-ended notion of “marriage.” Consider the following story from Yahoo News:
Last week, Nadine Schweigert married herself in a symbolic wedding ceremony. The 36-year-old divorced mom of three wore blue satin and clutched a bouquet of white roses as she walked down the aisle before a gathering of 45 friends and family members in Fargo, North Dakota…..
She vowed to “to enjoy inhabiting my own life and to relish a lifelong love affair with my beautiful self,”…the ring was exchanged with the bride and her “inner-groom,” guests were encouraged to “blow kisses at the world,” and later, eat cake. Schweigert, who followed the ceremony with a solo honeymoon in New Orleans, claims the wedding was her way of showing the world she’s learned to love and accept herself as a woman flying solo. …Schweigert’s 11-year-old son was her biggest critic: “He said, ‘I love you, but I’m embarrassed for you right now.'” [1]
Of course the woman did not marry herself, that is impossible. But why let reality get in the way of wordsmithing and living in a self defined world?
The intrepid reporter could not avoid adding his own commentary:
I believe everyone has the right to marry, regardless of sexual preference…. For some people being alone is what feels most natural. Shouldn’t they too be entitled to tax breaks? …Some people are actually proud of their solo relationship status and even ready to commit to it. Maybe if more people could reap the benefits of a wedding without a partner, there would be a lower national divorce rate.… -Piper Weiss, Shine Senior Features Editor, Single [2]
Let’s overlook the logical fallacy and abuse of the English language in the phrase “solo relationship” for the absurdity is evident enough; and it you don’t see it, I have a square circle to sell you. Let’s also overlook the bizarre non-sequitur that single “marriages” would somehow result in a lower “divorce” rate. For as absurd as the notion of self-“marriage” is, the notion of divorcing one’s own self is even more absurd. Where would one go from oneself?
But absurd is the word for the whole strange redefinition of marriage movement. The secular world, having sown in the wind, now reaps the whirlwind. If something as outlandish as two men together can be called “marriage,” who is to say that any other part of the definition cannot be tampered with? Why should marriage be between only two? Here come the polygamists. And apparently too, here come the soloists like Ms (Mrs?) Schweigert. And while we’re at it, who is to say marriage has to be between two humans? Bring on the bestiality advocates as well as those who would like to effect marriages between their pets.
Absurd? Sure! But so is two men getting “married.” And I would wonder how advocates of homosexual “marriage” would be able to answer Ms. (Mrs?) Schweigert’s (s’ ??) salvo, as well as the silly conclusions of the reporter? Are they not hoisted on the petard of their own “logic?” For if something as basic as sexual identity can be removed from the definition of marriage, who is to say that duality, and even humanity, cannot be removed? Can the homosexual community and advocates of homosexual “marriage” really say such things as polygamy and bestiality are a bridge too far? Why? On what basis?
I have a solution. Back to the Bible, back to Natural Law, and back to tradition. Yes, Scripture, and the natural Law and tradition it reflects, is easier and clearer. God set forth marriage in Genesis pretty well: One man (Adam) for one woman (Eve). God calls her a “suitable” partner for Adam (Gn 2:18). And Adam was to cling to his wife in a stable life long relationship (Gn 2:24), and their fundamental task was to be fruitful and multiply (Gen 1:28). (Which would be pretty hard if the first and archetypal couple were homosexual or solo-sexual – (is that a word?)).
Now for those polygamy advocates, who will surely opine here that the Patriarchs had multiple wives, I will only say here that the Scriptures do not approve of things, simply because they report them. The fact is, polygamy always led to trouble and, as Israel matured, it was set aside. The Patriarchs erred by departing from God’s plan for marriage.
So here we are, going into the waters of ever deeper absurdity. A woman “married” herself (she did no such thing). And soon enough the “soloists” will be at City Hall demanding licenses and benefits. The polygamists will be there with them, and Lord only knows what other combinations.
In the end, if anything is marriage, nothing is marriage. We need to stop using the word and return to the older “Holy Matrimony.” The word “marriage” is becoming increasingly meaningless.
Here’s the rather depressing Beatles song “I Me Mine, sung interestingly, at the very time they were breaking up and heading off to solo careers.
I am sick to my stomach. All I can say is Lord have mercy on OUR children. Amen
I repect your office and I love your facebook gems, but I thik you should simply ignore people such as this and pray for them privatley. They do this sort of thing to bring attention to their mistaken cause. Ignopring them is actually helping them. Particularly if you are in the publc eye. I may be out of line, but this is my take on it.
A prudential judgement call
BYW Father? I ME mine is not depressing at all….not sure what you got from the song, but this was a waltz type of song George Harrison wrote….he himself never publcly stated it was “depressing: but rather it was a kind of opening for him to begin his post beatles career. I don’t really see a corolation here….BTW when this was recorded they were NOT broke up yet. Abbey ROde was the last album the recorded. Let it BE was held back by the studios for various reasons. Just don’t liking seeing OPINIONS being spouted off as fact. Bad form.
Video is depressing. Esp Ringo. Looks like I touched a nerve with you
@ Flannery:
Are you serious? Who cares? They’re the Beatles, the very definition, of the Spirit of Rebellion and all that was fueled by it in those calamitous decades. Good riddance.
“Can … advocates of homosexual “marriage” really say such things as polygamy and bestiality are a bridge too far?”
How about “marriage to an inanimate object? Well, in January of this year:
“Love at First Sight? Woman Weds a Warehouse. Occupy Seattle protestor Babylonia Aivaz, a Duke University graduate, married an abandoned warehouse at 10th and Union Street in Seattle. … The wedding, Aivaz’ friends report, was a lesbian wedding because the warehouse, like Aivaz, is “female.””
http://kathyschiffer.com/love-at-first-sight-woman-weds-a-warehouse
https://www.facebook.com/events/179409232160431/?notif_t=event_invite
Where does scripture state “Be fruitful and have have lots of mini-storage units”? Would a self-storage unit be considered sinful?
Thank you, Monsignore, for reporting this glittering ornament on the tree of death. I’m amazed it wasn’t featured in the Washington Post’s society pages!
And I reckon we can be assured that the wonderful Bishop Aquila of Fargo was nowhere near this “wedding.” Thank goodness it wasn’t in San Francisco!
Sad indeed. Currently the Church assumes any marriage conducted outside the Church is valid and it has to be proven not to be valid (for a decree of nullity) if the couple converts. Do you think this will continue? Or is marriage being so emptied of meaning that the Church will have to assume all marriages outside the Church are invalid unless proved otherwise (perhaps by convalidation?) I hope we don’t lose this battle, but things keep getting stranger.
isn’t a sad picture of where our world today has gone. here i am, 54 yrs old and maybe that’s why the Beatles song makes so much of an impact. we are so hedonistic that we would make the early Roman’s blush.
My take on your post, Msgr. Pope, is that you are incredulous that this mockery of reason can have gained such traction. I believe that this is the point or objective. I believe that the complete disordering reason and it’s capacity to function is the objective and the LGBT community is the Trojan Horse to accomplish this end (aka pawns, therefore the clients of the strategy). Remember that the tempter can not act directly but must bring about defeat by enticing the will of his victim. They are being established as an anti-priesthood. In Confucian lore this is the Horse-that-is-not-a-horse strategy (sorry to use two consecutive horse metaphors!). Legend has it that an adviser to the first Chin emperor, desirous of currying favor and taking down his rivals, convinced the emperor to gather his Confucian advisers together and parade before them a deer which he, the emperor, would say is a horse. Anyone that insisted in calling the deer by it’s correct name instead of agreeing that it was a horse, lost their head. As it turns out, some lost their heads, those that didn’t lost their minds.
You are right on Msgr. with your observances. May I add that I have also wondered what the Man Boy Love Association will pursue in the future.
As far as the video: Ringo not only looks severely depressed, the yogi in the background shows which direction the group was heading. Their confusion and the ever-present Yoko at the time lost me as a fan back then. Although I am still sentimental about songs like “In my life” they were instruments of the disorder that has been prevalent since the 60’s.
Returning to calling our sacrament matrimony and leaving the state to regulate marriage gets us out of an expensive argument (because we don’t perform ANY marriages–that is the job of the state) and gives us a platform to present our faith to the world. Civil marriage followed by scramental celebration has long been the norm in Europe–it seems a sensible solution here.
The good thing that is “marriage” — what it is, not how the word is defined — remains that lifelong bond of love between a man and a woman ordered to a common life and the procreation and rearing of children. These attributes still define a unique human relationship unlike any other. Society can redefine “dog” to include animals that meow as well as those that woof, but woof-dogs will always have attributes that distinguish them from meow-dogs. The reality remains. They are in denial of it.
It clearly shouldn’t be called a marriage between a person and herself but some form of civil recognition of celibacy might be a nice thing. Though I have trouble thinking someone “married to herself” would be someone for whom celibacy would be appealing. More likely it would be a declaration that she is unwilling to commit but wish to do as she pleases with her sexuality even if it’s to her detriment.
I don’t know why I respond, but here is my responce as a Catholic who also happens to be gifted by God as a gay man:
“Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. ejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.” Matthew 5:11-12
I thank the Lord, that he is leading my gay brothers and sisters to walk the way of martyrdom to proclaim His mercy! BRING IT ON!
As Our Lord was silent while he was killed. I won’t say anything other than:
“I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified” 1 Corinthians 2:2
Keep scourging us with your words. The LORD will vidicate us!
Peace and All Good!
Well you’re being a bit excessive in your claim to be the “victim” in all this. You have the saecula and “the Man” with you. IOW you have the law and the culture are all with you, and it is you who thus have the power to impose your agenda on the rest of us. Those of us who object to your view, do so not on account hatred and persecution as you imply, but on account of homosexual behavior being contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture. Further we object because homosexual “marriage” is wholly contrary to what God and Tradition have set set forth as the actual reality of marriage.
Quoting Matt 5:11-12 is quite stunning actually since, even if what you suffer you may wish to call persecution, it isn’t persecution for Christ’s sake, since what you propose is clearly contrary to the scripture he entrusted to his Church and which was authored by His Holy Spirit. You are not suffering for Christ’s sake in any sense. If you are suffering at all, it is on account of your behavior which you boldly assert is just fine. It is not.
Martyrdom? Please, do not further abuse other words. Scourging, please, stop being so precious. If you want to boldly assert sinful behavior expect a reaction. And please stop impugning motives on those who reasonably object to what you propose. There is some middle ground between the joyful approval you seek and the hate you allege.
For NRR consider Leviticus 18:22. Also, for those who tend to negate the Old Testament as having been replaced, or some such, by the New Testament (even though the Nicene Creed assures that the Holy Spirit, namely God, spoke through the prophets) consider Matthew 5:17 where Jesus Himself says that He doesn’t abolish the law but fulfills it.
Fruthermore, I never noticed that, by changing my focus, the picture at the upper right of this page becomes a skull until the third time I accessed this page. Am I slower than most of you on this?
In all fairness, there seems to be a serious divergence in the approach to this topic here. Msgr. is arguing from the perspective of objective truth and abstract concepts, and NRR seems to be sharing the challenge of his lived experience. Perhaps a compromise is called for. Sexuality is certainly a messy incarnational experience, and is essential to our identity and so must be understood and respected. Because the idea of a “perfect” man or woman, or of a “perfect” expression of sexuality is not within our grasp in this Genesis 3 world, objective truth needs to be sought as a guide, but compassion needs to direct our motives. Many aspects of our life are compromises of the ideal (your recent example of struggling with maintaining an “ideal” weight illustrates that we often use food for purposes that God did not intend, and the results cause illness and are even deadly). None of this is to suggest that we ought to discard ideals, but that we ought to interact with struggling human beings in their imperfect incarnation without defensiveness but with an eye toward compassion. After all, the Sabbath was made for people…
The key words here were “falsely” and “for My sake”.
Also, the idea that if someone is suffering, it makes him the victim, and if he is the victim, he must be blameless — this is idea is nonsense and is certainly alien to Scripture.
1 Peter 2:20: “For what glory is it, if committing sin, and being buffeted for it, you endure? But if doing well you suffer patiently; this is thankworthy before God.”
@ NRR:
Don`t hold your breath.
G.
Common sense isn’t so common any more.
I have just been writing letters and emails to a number of my British MPs and Home Office Dept. The British Government want to pass an emergency Law through Government without any democratic consultation which allows them to legalise same-sex marriage, starting with secular premises and then moving onto the religious premises. As a practicing Catholic and British, I am opposing this with all my strength.
While I respect the basic rights and freedoms of all individuals in society I believe that marriage is a sacred institution which is essentially the union of a man and a woman. This is something which has been clearly understood in EVERY society from the beginning of time. I believe that marriage is one of the fundamental building blocks on which society is built and is therefore not something which any individual government has a right to re-define, seemingly at a whim and without due consultation.
It seems that there is an active minority in our coalition Government who are intent on implementing this, regardless of whether the majority of the British people want it or not.
It appears that the intention is to pass this legislation through following nothing but a brief internal “consultation.” I believe however that a real consultation means listening to the British public. I have demanded that this issue at the very least subject to a full Parliamentary debate or preferably a full referendum. I believe that the majority of the people, regardless of any religious affiliation would not be in favour of this change, and yet we are not being given the chance to democratically oppose it.
It seems as if at the moment the Government would prefer to be influenced by a small minority of bullying activists rather than listen to the greater majority, for the greater good of society.
You think you’ve got problems in the US, spare a thought at what we are going through at the moment. Its shere madness. Common sense is dying as we speak.
Anne
I believe the key phrase driving all the absurdity is, “be entitled to tax breaks.”
I, for one, will clean out the local dog pound if “marriage” to animals is legalized and counted as a tax break on my 1040.
A couple dozen mutts should drop my tax due to about zilch. No doubt the puppies will love me tender and the feeling will be mutual.
Divorce tax status from marital status (all pay at single rate no matter who you are tied to or by what means), and the homosexual, pantheist, polygamist hoo-haw will disappear in a blink.
I found the Beatles song and video frighteningly depressing. That is the fruit of their so-called freedom? They look drugged out and unhappy.
Secular thought, particularly New Age thought, is immersed in the cult of ME. A marriage to yourself is a predictable outcome of indulging your wants and desires along with a rejection of rightful authority. No one is going to tell ME what to do! No one is going to tell ME what’s right! It FEELS good and right so it must be! I am terribly sorry for this woman’s 11 year old son. Even though he has probably never heard of natural law, he sees and knows the truth that this is an embarrassing act.
“The word ‘marriage’ is becoming increasingly meaningless.” I guess it’s easier to break someone else’s stuff to make one’s own efforts look better; instead of improving (or justifying) their own. Talk about the traditional meaning of marriage as a form of relationship between a man and a woman and one is usually met by derision. Why derision instead of mentioning valid facts, figures, data, etc? Is it because there aren’t any facts, figures, data, etc. to disprove the traditional meaning?
Same gender relationships have been around for a long time so, now that they can be openly displayed, why aren’t they doing something worthwhile with this stuff instead of stealing someone else’s sacrament. Is the concept of a same gender relationship so flawed that it can’t go anywhere unless it is portrayed as something else and take a vicarious, and likely temporary, positive illusion off the other.
If anyone should care to dispute what I said I encourage them to do so but, by pointing to the validation in their agenda. If anyone calls me a derogatory name I would be interested in seeing their attempt to justify it. I stated a generality about pretending to show value in one’s own stuff by breaking down that which competes, and then mainly ask questions. Yet, more and more, it seems that when society, and its members, in general don’t like certain questions they attack those who ask the questions instead of trying to give honest and valid answers. One may have a right to dislike questions that make them uncomfortable but that does not give the right to attack the one who asked the question(s) as a means of dodging a response. As a matter of fact it should be giving anyone, who genuinely wants the truth, the feeling that something really terrible is being hidden.
People who use hard data to dispute the popular hedonism being called “homophobic”; or other form of the word; for instance. Blocking, and distracting from logical statements with a bunch of name calling that would look childish in a playground for instance. More to hide?
It’s all about six. Two six-letter words, that is. A word game. In a flat earth mindset and agenda (also six letters!) marriage “parity” and marriage “parody” surely must mean the same thing.
The English word “marriage” is a relatively recent invention. Nevertheless, the word “marriage” has long had numerous definitions/meanings that do not involve or require a man and a woman. For example, there is the marriage of peanut butter and jelly., and of words and music in a hit song, and of moon and earth, and marriages in a game of pinochle, etc Indeed, I can open many an everyday dictionary and find broad and diverse meanings such as “any close or intimate association or union”. And even being married to yourself is understandable with respect to Catholic Church teaching that, for example, the person has multiple levels of identities, with Christ within us being our deepest identity. Thus a woman in a “spiritual marriage to Christ” is in a marriage to her deepest identity. These many and diverse meanings for the word “marriage” are perfectly acceptable and in keeping with Catholic Church teaching, as she professes that the Church “speaks all tongues, understands and accepts all tongues in her love, and so supersedes the divisiveness of Babel.”
You can’t distinguish between the meaning of a word and its metaphorical use.
The homosexual movement already stole the wonderful word “gay”, and perverted beauty, and covenant meaning, of the rainbow. Have we now lost the meaning of marriage to them as well? Time to refer to marriage as “holy matrimony” instead? Come on, at some point we need to recover our language, and fight for what is true. No retreat! Holy matrimony=marriage=one man one women. Same sex union = sodomy.
Ah, your generous and understanding spirit to those who are different from you! They’ve stolen your word! And playing with your football too, I bet, the naughty people. After thousands of years of repression at the hands of those who find “different” to be a crime, I think the gay community gets to choose which words they wish to describe themselves. Feel a little love, sister. Isn’t that what your religion teaches?
I can promise you I wouldn’t want to steal any of your words or theirs. But honestly why do you equate disagreement with a lack of love? It seems so petulant of you to demand acceptance for what ever you do and then when someone says “I’m not so sure about that” you say, in effect “Waaa….!!! You don’t love me.” Further, it’s not about being “different” it’s about sinful behavior.
I was not being aggressive or petulant, I think, simply commenting on Jeans’ post about “homosexuals stealing the word gay”. Personally I am not myself gay, I believe in accepting differences in others where that difference harms nobody else. My allegiance will always be with those who quietly follow the love in their hearts, rather than those who label a whole group of people as sinful. But there we go. Peace and love.
But note this difference, the group in question defines itself in terms of a range of behaviors consindered sinful by what many sincerely believe to be the inspired word of God. If someone is struggling with an orientation but reamins chaste, there is no sin in that. But what the homosexual activists are doing is insisting that others accept behavior otherwise we are bigots, hateful etc. You also imply this with your peace and love comments. So physician, heal thyself.
So, why pointedly state that you are not gay?
This business of everyone picking and choosing which words define them is getting a little old – especially because the words are usually not accurately descriptive. Gays can call themselves gay, but that has nothing to do with their being queer – a word which much more closely fits their behaviors. And they are the unhappiest and most aggressively confrontational group I’ve ever seen. Nothing gay about them.
Black folks can use the N word indiscriminately but no one else can. It’s derogatory no matter who says it.
I’m going to cop a word for heterosexuals of all races and creeds – NORMAL. And I dare anyone to stop me.
No, sir, I simply meant “peace and love”: it’s a wide enough world for many different opinions, and ours certainly don’t coincide, but no harm in that. I love reading blogs and website which let me learn more about how others think, an insight into faiths and beliefs from all over – and it’s interesting to share ideas, isn’t it, which is why I guess your site has space for comments. Have a good day.
Her 11 yr. old had the perfect Christian response I think: ‘I love you, but I’m embarrassed for you right now.’
For those of us with children also this is a cautionary tale. It brings to my mind a feeling of shame to think that we as parents could potentially fail so badly to protect our children from the humiliation they suffer as a result of our own foolishness. God save us and our children from ourselves!
Good call, Padre.
From the Oxford English Dictionary:
matrimony […] Origin: late Middle English: via Old French from Latin matrimonium, based on mater, matr- ‘mother’
So ‘matrimony’ derives from mother, which one may hope sort of ring-fences it. Excepting of course that in this age, the meaning of words is defined by government, in consultation with a tiny minority of lunatics. In future ‘Holy Matrimony’ will be legally defined as ‘the union of entities’.
The law according to Alice:
“When I use a word, it means what I want it to mean; neither more, nor less”–Humpty Dumpty to Alice (Lewis Carroll, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland)
A good article. However, I would suggest that polygamous marriages actually are real marriages even if we can agree that God also calls us to monogamy.
In this sense, polygamy and, repulsive as we might regard it, incestuous heterosexual marriage, are in fact conforming to what marriage is. Even if they do not conform to marriages we should approve of. Whereas, homosexual “marriage” simply is not marriage. To talk of it is to make a category error.
Therefore, ironically, polygamous relationships have a stronger case than homosexual relationships in being recognized as marriage. They are also far more prevalent in western society if we actually look at the facts of how many heterosexual men maintain mistresses etc.
I had read somewhere in the past few months that a man in India had married his pet monkey, a recent article in the Economist magazine had the title “Whales are people, too”, I guess some liberal group wants to give human rights to whales, of course they refuse this distinction for babies in the womb, I have really tried to understand the liberal mindset…is it just a lack of common sense, ignorance or some demonic influence.
Someone recently stated that America is in a silent civil war, I personally believe so, as to whether this turns violent is yet to be determine, if it does so it will be perpetrated by the left especially if people of faith really fight back and try things like putting the bible back in our schools or really defending marriage, etc, I for one am really for it, I don’t think it would be any different than what Catholics did in the French and Mexican revolutions or the Spanish Civil War, I believe it was St Thomas Aquinas who stated that self preservation is a natural law right.
As to The Beatles:
The wages of sin are death, I suppose, huh. I liked the cynical take on the monk rocking backing and forth, they wanted liberation from their error’s so badly, but could not repent of them, and were destroyed. So it goes. Much of their music is still excellent.
As to the matter:
I’m actually shocked you holy rollers don’t take a longer view of this picture. The words of her son capture it all. He loves her, but is really embarrassed for her. Marriage as an institution, or some concrete form of reproductive/tribal organization, is unquestionably essential for a stable and healthy society. When it is gone, so goes society. The liberal elite will have a very short day, necessarily. Their views are, at best when taken sympathetically, cute but naive. Let the polygamists and beastialists have a heyday. It shall be as the orgies during the plague. They shall be vomited up from the earth. So it goes.
What is genuinely frightening to think of is who is going to succeed these buffoons?
Thanks, by the way I am not a holy roller, I am a pew jumper. 🙂
yes, I young girls in Seattle married a building last week to demonstrate what is next now that Gay Marriage has been approved in Washington state..
The one funniest line I’ve read all week.
“Schweigert’s 11-year-old son was her biggest critic: “He said, ‘I love you, but I’m embarrassed for you right now.’”
The most pathetic line I’ve read all week.
“Maybe if more people could reap the benefits of a wedding without a partner, there would be a lower national divorce rate.… -Piper Weiss, Shine Senior Features Editor, Single ”
Wait, not pathetic, dumbest and equally hilarious. I can not believe this man put that in print. It has to be nerve racking to realize this mentality exists and is employed in the general population.
Gays Against Gay Marriage
http://takimag.com/article/gays_against_gay_marriage_bp_terpstra
“..The pro-free-market gay writer Richard Waghorne stresses a point we all need to digest:
A wealth of research demonstrates the marriage of a man and a woman provides children with the best life outcomes, that children raised in marriages that stay together do best across a whole range of measures.
..Even on the libertarian side, David Coburn of the UK Independence Party advances the position that same-sex marriage will harm free religious speech and divide us.
..Coburn, who identifies as gay, accuses the gay-marriage movement of stirring mainstream religious people with “an aggressive attack on people of faith, and an act of intolerance in itself.”
I don’t believe there is any stopping the gay marriage agenda. We should oppose it, but we should also seriously think about re-branding the sacrament to its older name. Holy Matrimony. This was mentioned already, but it makes sense. We need to distinguish what is holy from what is profane.
Controversial alert…
I also liked the idea from Ron Paul which was the government should not be in the marriage business at all. It should only be the churches. That would solve the problem too. VII hamstrung us in getting rid of the idea of the Catholic state where ordered marriage could be imposed by govt. It was impervious to these lbgt arguments. So if we are not having official Catholic states, and instead are embracing liberty of conscience, including poorly formed ones, why choose the route of defeating gay marriage, when the fight should really be getting the govt out of civil unions all together. The only downside would be tax breaks.
I’m single and there’s no way I would marry myself. I can barely stand myself some days.
I mean, I’M the reason I’m single!!
Creepers! People without God are nuts.
I cannot help but notice how many times tax breaks, insurance coverage and similar things are used as stiff cation for these random combinations of people and genders to call marriage. All I can say is, REALLY?
The tax code? The most convoluted and bizarre document, with loopholes, exceptions and overt chaos. Then there is insurance…not sure what to say there, except they and banks build most skyscrapers…towers of babel?
Marriage is elaborated on in the catechism. A much more steadfast document (unlike the at code) from a much more worthy author. But in a world of facts that change when the website disappears, it’s transient rationale is the pagan future.
Personally I object to any attempt to bend the Word of God.
In the Aftermath of Redefining Marriage, Absurdities Multiply.
Woman