tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post2623264073919082803..comments2024-03-21T04:02:46.799-07:00Comments on Little Catholic Bubble: While we're at it....Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-67058414672270797172012-01-26T11:35:47.226-07:002012-01-26T11:35:47.226-07:00Sarah, understandable. Basically, anyone who was b...Sarah, understandable. Basically, anyone who was baptized Catholic is a Catholic. But of course, being a faithful Catholic (or accurately representing Catholic teaching) is a different story altogether. Unlike most other religions, we have a hierarchical authority system, and official teachings. So, it's not hard to show that many people who claim to speak for the Catholic Church in fact do not. If someone says they are a "Catholic for a Free Choice" on abortion for example, they are easily shown to be an unfaithful Catholic, unwilling to submit to Church teaching. Very obvious, very well-known, very non-negotiable Church teaching. So, anyone like that I would take with a grain of salt, for they do not actually live their faith. They pick and choose which moral and/or doctrinal teachings to follow. And many times, they lead others to confusion on what it means to be Catholic. <br /><br />Hope that helps! The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a great place to learn what is authentic Catholic teaching, by the way.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-75365119071969617912012-01-25T18:45:20.659-07:002012-01-25T18:45:20.659-07:00I'm sorry Leila--I'm not used to blogging ...I'm sorry Leila--I'm not used to blogging and I keep getting lost amidst your postings! <br /><br />It is confusing from the outside to know who is Catholic and who isn't when different groups claim to be Catholic. I have a friend from Israel who says different Jewish groups are forever claiming the others aren't "real Jews." Not being a Jew, or a Catholic, I take a person or group at its word as to its identity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-41987300009370711872012-01-21T17:31:09.939-07:002012-01-21T17:31:09.939-07:00Hi Sarah. Not sure why you posted this comment her...Hi Sarah. Not sure why you posted this comment here? Maybe you meant to post it on my "Not quite a Quick Takes" post?<br /><br />Nevertheless, remember that "Catholics for Choice" is not a Catholic group. It's like saying that "Vegetarians for Meat Eating" is a vegetarian organization. You can see the problem, no?<br /><br />As for the very, very narrow religious "exemption"…. it is a farce. Even Jesus would not qualify for it. What Catholic organization, charity, hospital, school, university, etc., <i>only serves and employs Catholics</i>? I'll answer that: None. So, it's a ruse. A joke. A funny little poke in the eye to Catholics who want to practice religious freedom in this nation. Perhaps you didn't realize that the exemption applies basically to no one.<br /><br />Blessings!Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-48549717793305646232012-01-20T23:23:23.028-07:002012-01-20T23:23:23.028-07:00Hi Leila. Welcome back.
I'm a little confused...Hi Leila. Welcome back.<br /><br />I'm a little confused about your comments about Obama. The article you referenced says that houses of worship and religious nonprofits don't have to provide birth control coverage. And of course no one is forced to use birth control if they don't want to. Some Catholics are happy about the decision<br />http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/news/pr/2012/ObamaFinallyDoestheRightThingforWomen.aspAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-9160122137680781922010-07-14T15:40:57.356-07:002010-07-14T15:40:57.356-07:00Sophie, if you are still there, I have addressed m...Sophie, if you are still there, I have addressed my most recent post to you, and would love if you would continue the dialogue. Blessings!Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-38536087611532778552010-07-12T15:30:11.763-07:002010-07-12T15:30:11.763-07:00Sophie, thank you!! You are truly welcome here, an...Sophie, thank you!! You are truly welcome here, and I am happy to engage you! I returned from a six-hour car ride literally 20 minutes ago, and I need some time to start some laundry, etc. But I am so thrilled that you have answered me, and I will be back soon with my own responses to your points. God bless!Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-21079918760041648362010-07-11T01:33:56.649-07:002010-07-11T01:33:56.649-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Sophie Fletcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14305942096748916079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-15746921153673974542010-07-11T01:30:56.353-07:002010-07-11T01:30:56.353-07:00Before I express my opinion on your post, I would ...Before I express my opinion on your post, I would first like to congratulate you: Congratulations! Although I blatantly disagreed with what you had to say, your argument was so well written that I couldn't help but appreciate your polite but firm position.<br />However, I would like to prove you wrong on two counts:<br />Firstly, on your idea about the "manipulation of language" on both the words "Marriage" and "Gay". According to the dictionary, the word marriage has several definitions, none of which directly pertain to a man and a woman. These definitions are as follows:<br />"The state, condition or relationship of being married; wedlock.<br />The legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities<br />A relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other, in the manner of a husband and wife."<br />You will note the last definition says in the MANNER OF, not ONLY PERTAINING TO. <br />Now for the word, "Gay." It isn't like someone just up and decided, "Hmm, today I think I'll change the definition of the word 'Gay.'" It happened over a period of many many years. As all the Literary Professors I have ever been taught by have reminded me, "If you can't roll with the evolution of language, stop using it." One must learn to adapt to the new definitions of words. <br />Also, if anyone is giggling at the word "gay" in Christmas Carols, they are most likely about five years old.<br />Secondly, I would like to point out that though you say you "simply don't understand," I think it goes deeper than that. It looks like you are discouraging Homosexual marriage because you dislike the idea of it, not just because of the so-called abuse of literary devices.<br />I have thoroughly enjoyed posting this to you. I do hope I can continue to keep up a friendly debate with you over this, as I have several good points on the subject.Sophie Fletcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14305942096748916079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-949576876089821072010-06-29T13:13:06.555-07:002010-06-29T13:13:06.555-07:00Wow, catching up on posts here! You are on a roll ...Wow, catching up on posts here! You are on a roll tackling the tough subjects here, Leila!<br /><br />In regards to language and definitions, I'd like to humbly submit my own opinion that part of the confusion today on the meaning of "marriage" came with the legal and cultural acceptance of no-fault divorce. With no-fault divorce we stepped away from the understanding that marriage is a union between two members of the opposite sex primarily concerned *with the procreation of and rearing of children.* We threw out the *responsibility" (not merely the "right") towards children and basically redefined marriage as a union between a man and a woman *for the purpose of the happiness of the individual spouses,* and this union can be broken any time for pretty much any reason.<br /><br />I realize that with no-fault divorce we are still talking man and woman. But notice the change... marriage is now about the individual *right* to personal fulfillment/happiness. And one can now be "married" to multiple partners, in succession of each other, if that is what they prefer. (Serial monogamy). No matter how miserable this makes the kids.<br /><br />Now, it seems so unfair to deny others - say, same-sex pairings - of the 'right' to 'personal happiness' too? Correct?<br /><br />This is where it gets frustrating for me as I feel our culture has abandoned the original definition of marriage long ago, even though natural law still points clearly to it. :(<br /><br />And this idea that marriage is all about your personal fulfillment has also led to the increase in the pursuit if children through IVF, surrogates, etc. (which also further "legitimizes" same-sex unions. See they can "have" kids too!). The US is far more liberal about these technologies than many other countries because again, we don't want to hinder anyone's "right" to personal happiness - even if children receive the fall-out.<br /><br />Sorry so long!Sarahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04966555296621723142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-35037399952429058582010-06-29T06:02:14.275-07:002010-06-29T06:02:14.275-07:00I'm late to the discussion but as a speech pat...I'm late to the discussion but as a speech pathologist (and taken my fair share of courses on communication and language) I thought I would put my two cents in about the language thing. <br /><br />1. Is language organic and dynamic? yes<br />2. Can the systematic substitution/alteration of a word definition truly fit in what is the normal development of language? No. Language makes sense. Because it makes sense, we have been able to learn about languages that no longer exist (courtesy of the Rosetta Stone discovery as an example). We know that languages have phonemes, morphemes, semantics, syntax, etc. All these things make sense (even when different) and help us understand language. If people using some extinct language arbitrarily decided to change the meaning of a word systematically for 10 years or so in the middle of their existence- when future people find their writings, would they have a clue what was going on? Likely not, because the semantics is violated. Disclaimer- I know that semantics (since it is a part of language) can be develop, but it would change naturally and evidence would be present in some of the other markers of language to indicate such.Chasinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07270063135679037402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-70802074720509041342010-06-28T22:19:40.450-07:002010-06-28T22:19:40.450-07:00http://www.usccb.org/marriageuniqueforareason/inde...http://www.usccb.org/marriageuniqueforareason/index.shtml<br /><br />I haven't had a chance to watch it yet, but this video by the US bishops is supposed to be very good. It's why marriage is unique.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-15362309583540224512010-06-28T20:29:33.586-07:002010-06-28T20:29:33.586-07:00Wow, I think that was well written. I don't th...Wow, I think that was well written. I don't think it was offensive at all! When you tell it how it is, you usually don't get much in the way of a response b/c there is nothing to say back to the truth! :) and I agree with TCIEAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-77575217773206883172010-06-28T18:15:48.448-07:002010-06-28T18:15:48.448-07:00I am so not ok with two cousins being identical. ...I am so not ok with two cousins being identical. A la Patty Duke. I have a huge problem with that. Just thought I'd share.Amy @ This Cross I Embracehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04766112822487858490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-29851853263202863572010-06-28T14:54:32.311-07:002010-06-28T14:54:32.311-07:00I think this exchange has just inspired my next bl...I think this exchange has just inspired my next blog post.... Stay tuned....Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-21788480221692886212010-06-28T13:53:23.684-07:002010-06-28T13:53:23.684-07:00Thanks, Gwen, but you missed my point. We have the...Thanks, Gwen, but you missed my point. We have the same definition for "compassion," you and me. We both know what we are talking about when we are talking about "conservatives" and "liberals". (I happen to think that liberals are less compassionate than conservatives, btw.) Those words mean what we know them to mean. "Trickle down economics".... same thing. We know what "trickle down" and "economics" mean. <br /><br />You may disagree with "trickle down economics" in the sense that you think it doesn't work as well as liberal economic models, etc., but that term is very CLEAR... we know what it means.<br /><br />You may disagree that conservatives are "compassionate", but we still know what those words <i>mean</i>. <br /><br />So, you are WAY off the point. <br /><br />As far as those states who have "gay marriage".... Calling a chair a lamp doesn't make it a lamp. And that's exactly the point of this post.<br /><br />So, you never really answered: Are you okay with changing ACTUAL DEFINITIONS of words in order to advance political agendas?<br /><br />And, are you fine with two brothers getting "married" if they are in love? I am truly interested in the answer.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-44292947139264324502010-06-28T13:42:04.712-07:002010-06-28T13:42:04.712-07:00I'm afraid I have post-lunch sleep inclination...I'm afraid I have post-lunch sleep inclinations otherwise I'd dive right into this debate on language manipulation (which is a part of the fluidity and nature of political language for better or worse-"compassionate conservatism" or "trickle down economics" anyone?)<br /><br />But I would like to point out that gay marriage does in fact exist in such havens as Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont and even the Coquille Tribe of Oregon! I just wish the many friends I have who are gay/lesbian and not living in the above places had a choice to see their love recognized and the morality of thier choices in life respected instead of condemned.<br /><br />Thank you so much for the lively discussion : )<br /><br />Peace,<br />gwenMiss Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02503676176409924845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-41223548047941208622010-06-28T12:42:54.218-07:002010-06-28T12:42:54.218-07:00L, does JJ know you are reading my blog at work, h...L, does JJ know you are reading my blog at work, ha ha!<br /><br />I think Ann said it perfectly. Language should evolve organically, not by force of propaganda (aka, Orwell's 1984 "newspeak").<br /><br />Thanks to Ann, I don't have much more to add. All I would say is that I am a big fan of making <i>distinctions</i>.<br /><br />L, You were confusing two conversations:<br /><br />1. The manipulation of language<br />2. The immorality of certain actions<br /><br />I think you blended the two. <br /><br />You are right that an immoral act is immoral act no matter what word is used to describe it. But it is also wrong when folks co-opt normally understood language in order to coerce acceptance of those immoral acts.<br /><br />My post dealt with the language issue.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-65555562760031753762010-06-28T12:32:38.622-07:002010-06-28T12:32:38.622-07:00LHorton: You are absolutely right in it is the ac...LHorton: You are absolutely right in it is the actions and substance behind this which makes it morally wrong, but the problem begins with manipulating language to promote a political agenda. (Even the examples you gave were where words gradually – as in over centuries – took on additional slang meanings and that was what Leila referred to the “natural organic growth of language.” That is not the same thing as people demanding their State governments to change the meaning of the word “marriage” to mean something it has never meant so that they can receive benefits and recognition afforded to marriages. For a less hostile example: I do not want to register my vehicle, maintain insurance, pay ad valorem tax on it as the law requires for “vehicles” in my state, so why can’t I just rename my “vehicle” and now call it a “widget” or “furniture” so that these laws will not apply to me? (Sorry – it was the best example I could come up with on short notice). There is a serious problem with manipulating language in order to promote a political agenda. We count on words to mean what they mean and what they have always meant. <br /><br />With that said, I don’t think Leila or anyone else here (sans one commenter) is taking the position that a gay union is moral while a gay marriage is not. We’re all on board with you on that point. I thought Leila was saying “gay marriage” was hard to debate because there is no such thing....https://www.blogger.com/profile/09490440266637782466noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-73513761866710062382010-06-28T11:59:03.843-07:002010-06-28T11:59:03.843-07:00If you TRULY believe they mean "THE EXACT SAM...If you TRULY believe they mean "THE EXACT SAME THING" then why can't you settle for "gay unions"? After all, the mean "THE EXACT SAME THING?"<br /><br />In fact, you know, as do all of us and everyone else, that they don't mean the same thing. Everyone knows, deep down, that marriage has been known for centuries as a sacred institution between one man and woman.LifeHopeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16574486597928055997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-26414060098481670292010-06-28T10:37:22.992-07:002010-06-28T10:37:22.992-07:00*CHALLENGE* ;)
Leila, maybe it's just me but ...*CHALLENGE* ;)<br /><br />Leila, maybe it's just me but I don't understand the big hoopla about this perceived "language manipulation." Is a homosexual union or relationship just as morally wrong as a homosexual marriage? Yeah. Words have changed meaning throughout the history of man. Gay, nice, awful, are just three words that have changed or gained more than one meaning over time. Throughout history the term gay has meant 1) joyful and carefree 2)a woman prostitute 3) a straight man or "bachelor". In the 20th century a "joyful and carefree bachelor" wasn't viewed as very masculine, which led to gay being a term for the homosexual male. It's like fruit or queer; neither originally meant homosexual. I think words change as society changes and they're not as important as the actions that society takes. Why be zealous about banning gay "marriage" but say that they can have gay "unions"? THEY MEAN THE EXACT SAME THING! So it's not the language that is important but the action and behavior behind it.LT Hortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10057328553496237374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-60215938863734453092010-06-28T10:24:13.535-07:002010-06-28T10:24:13.535-07:00Gwen, welcome! I am glad you are here, and I hope ...Gwen, welcome! I am glad you are here, and I hope you will continue to engage us. Maybe you can be the liberal that finally answers my questions? :)<br /><br />Quick points, as I am out the door here in a second...<br /><br />Re: my friend. He knows me, and he knows it was a friendly debate. He agreed to it happily, knowing my position (he reads my very frank facebook!), and I did not incite or bash in anyway.<br /><br />Re: the secular vs. religious view of marriage, it is a coincidence (a convenient one) that Lauren, just today, posted some in-depth studies on what happens when a society redefines marriage and family. Check out the stats at<br />http://psalm34-3.blogspot.com/2010/06/marriage-and-society.html<br />(Megan also points you there.)<br /><br />Also, regarding companionship, legal recognition, etc., then why not call it "union" or something else? Why usurp "marriage"? That was a point I made. Mrs. Blondies is right that marriage has always had procreation as a purpose... more on that in another post, to come.<br /><br />Would you be okay with two brothers getting "married", by the way? If not, why not?<br /><br />Re: Yes to the Dress... I LOVE that show! There was one episode with lesbians, and I really couldn't watch that one with any joy.<br /><br />Ultimately, you did not answer my question. I asked, essentially, if it was okay to manipulate language to advance a political agenda? Are you in favor of making words mean something they never have before? That's all I really want to know. I'm against it. I believe that liberals are for it. We don't have to agree, but I would like to be clear on what we all believe, so we can understand each other better.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-68583246944516759332010-06-28T10:14:51.879-07:002010-06-28T10:14:51.879-07:00Gays adopting has long been controversial. On the...Gays adopting has long been controversial. On the international front, most countries simply won't allow it. In other words, Elton John can not adopt an African orphan. The world sees the value in marriage, the benefit of having both sexes represented in the parenting of a child. I think it odd then, that Christian agencies here in the US are quite willing to place children in homosexual homes. Now I know, folks will scream that children are better off in A home, rather than no home. I understand. But really? Do we have to validate homosexual relationships with children that will not know a father or a mother. Is two mommies really the best we have to offer them?Danya @ He Adopted Me Firsthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00732437893256532188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-73449436079511117032010-06-28T09:44:10.761-07:002010-06-28T09:44:10.761-07:00On a different note, women and men are undeniably ...On a different note, women and men are undeniably different. We are complementary both physically and relationally, and we do a disservice to our humanity when we attempt to say that men and women are equal in every way. We are absolutely equal in dignity, but to say that women and men are the same is just not true.<br />In a marriage, women and men are designed to fulfill different roles. In a nutshell, women are the nurturers and men are the mentors. These two qualities together are of absolute importance when it comes to raising children. And try as two women might to lovingly raise a child together, they cannot provide the same balanced upbringing that a heterosexual couple can. The child will be lacking a mentor. <br />I know that studies have been done that say children raised in same sex homes turn out normally, however, all of these studies have been done by groups who have a vested interest in advancing the homosexual agenda.<br />There is research unrelated to homosexuality that I think illustrates my point. <br />It has been shown that in families where the mother is devout in her faith but the father is not, the children have a very small chance of growing up to practice their faith. However, if the father is devout but the mother is not, the children have almost an equal chance at practicing their faith as when both parents are devout. <br />I'm not saying that women can't have an impact on their children's faith development etc, but the mentor role of the man means that he is teaching his children through his example in faith, integrity, work ethic, etc. Women are equally important, but our role is teaching our children to have compassion, sensitivity, how to deal with our emotions, teach children to care for others, etc. Both roles are extremely important and cannot be overlooked or dismissed, and they both contribute to raising balanced children.<br />So all that said, I'm sure some would say, well this is a free country, let people live as they wish. In fact, I used to think this way, but then I realized that the family unit is central to the foundation of a society, and unless we hold fast to the strongest family unit which I have illustrated is a heterosexual couple open to life, history has shown that society starts to fold in on itself. http://psalm34-3.blogspot.com/ (Go here for a greater explanation of this point) And while heterosexual couples have done a good job of making a mess of marriage as it is, the more we normalize non traditional unions, the slipperier the slope gets, and harder it is to return to traditional family values.<br />I could keep going with the Catholic perspective on the full meaning of sexuality etc, but since you say you aren't Christian, I will just leave my argument here.<br />Thank you for respectfully submitting your thoughts. It is nice to have a rational discussion about these issues.Meganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02246642466824704112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-72515610793601432472010-06-28T09:43:54.809-07:002010-06-28T09:43:54.809-07:00Gwen,
Your points are well taken, and I do underst...Gwen,<br />Your points are well taken, and I do understand your perspective. My uncle is gay, and he has lived with his partner for over 10 years, and I love them both very much. However, I cannot allow my emotions to sway my moral standpoint. This subject gets very emotional which makes it a difficult one to debate rationally. <br />However, that said, your points illustrate how much our society has deconstructed and compartmentalized marriage. Marriage is definitely about companionship, commitment, etc, but it has always been undeniably about children as well. If you look back in history, it was always understood that marriage and children go hand in hand, and it was shameful not to be blessed with children in a marriage. People have known from the beginning of time that when you have sex, a baby often is the result. However, this is not to say that sex is only about babies, since it is also about bonding between the couple. Is it not well known that when two people have sex, married or not, their bond grows, and they are more emotionally tied. I firmly believe that if a couple is having sex and breaks up, the break up is going to me much more painful than if they were not having sex. <br />The fact that sex is pleasurable is a nice bonus, and God meant for us to enjoy it, but pleasure has become the world's view of the purpose of sex. With the sexual revolution, contraception came on the scene, and suddenly the world's attitude has shifted to thinking that the main purpose of sex is sharing a pleasurable experience together. No babies equals no commitment which destroys the bonding aspect of sex as well. And this is the top a very slippery slope. If babies and bonding are taken out of the equation, then suddenly any sexual relationship becomes justifiable. In fact why should we stop at normalizing same sex attraction. By this logic, what's wrong with bestiality and the like? We are again redefining relationships to fit our whims.Meganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02246642466824704112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-68332765428736614772010-06-28T08:33:00.585-07:002010-06-28T08:33:00.585-07:00Pardon me, may I attempt to "discuss" th...Pardon me, may I attempt to "discuss" this topic from a different perspective?<br /><br />I think perhaps your friend decided not to continue the argument quite simply because it does not appear a very open ended/friendly debate; when you disparage gay pride activities the nature of your words comes across as rather antagonistic.<br /><br />I hope I am correct in understanding that a Christian/Catholic understanding of marriage is that of a sacred act, a sacramental union between man, woman and God? In which case, you are entirely right-there is no other definition of marriage for you and there can be no deviation from a union between man and woman.<br /><br />For those of us who support Gay rights, marriage is recognized as a binding legal contract made official by the state (and by state I mean bureaucratic, government entity). If you do not adhere to a Christian belief system, this is how you interpret a "marriage." One purchases a license, stands before a judge, and thereafter merges (usually) personal finances, etc. Gay partnerships seek these same rights (tax breaks, recognition of union under the law, etc.) that are bestowed upon married couples. Another divergent point here is that marriage in your understanding of a sacramental union before God also emphasizes the purpose of marriage to procreate. Those of us without this belief feel marriage can have multiple purposes: to have companionship, to gain financial security, to gain legal recognition of a partnership, etc.<br /><br />I understand the perceived "threat" to the word marriage that you vigorously defend. However, I do not think that the recent push for recognition of same sex partners is in anyway stopping heterosexual people from getting married in a traditional-or Godly-context. The popularity of the TLC show "say yes to the dress" seems to point to the continuation of man/woman marriages.<br /><br />Thank you,<br />GwenMiss Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02503676176409924845noreply@blogger.com