In response to:

Redefining Marriage Sign of a Lost Society

InsightingTruth Wrote: Nov 26, 2012 11:29 AM
There is no legitimate reason to look to government to define marriage. Take the government out of the equation and the tiny percentage of the population that considers themselves homosexual has virtually no power to influence anyone who is not similarly inclined.
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Nov 26, 2012 11:36 AM
So no Social Security for spouses? Spouses of Military do not get health care and housing? No married filing Jointly on taxes? No bringing over spouses that are not US citizens?

There are hundreds of civil code areas where marriage matters. Unless you want to remove them all, it is important that the word have a uniform "LEGAL" definition.

A religious institution or an individual is free to accept that legal definition or not, but as long as the word marriage is part of civil codes, it is needed for a legal definition
InsightingTruth Wrote: Nov 26, 2012 11:41 AM
Tinsldr2:
You are conflating unrelated issues.
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Nov 26, 2012 12:58 PM
No.

All those issues are involved in marriage. Unless you want to undo all those things and remove marriage from them All then you must define marriage legally.

Paulus Textor Wrote: Nov 26, 2012 11:36 AM
Absolutely correct, I.T.

Catholics are absolutely free to have Catholic marriages. They are also absolutely free to condemn gay marriages. They are also absolutely free to condemn marriages between Catholics and non-Catholics.

Consenting adults should be free to set up whatever household contracts they wish. They are also free to seek out the sanction of a church, or not.
Dreadnaught011 Wrote: Nov 26, 2012 2:04 PM

All Catholics do not sell their immortal souls, Paulus. But some do. (We don't condemn mixed marriages; there you're mistaken.)

We allow homosexuals to sell their souls; even unmarried couples. So what's troubling them?

One significant development in the recent election was votes in four states approving same sex marriage initiatives. Until now, all previous state referenda to approve same sex marriage – 32 of them - failed.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page – a place where conservatives usually turn for intellectual capital – saw this as cause for celebration.

According to the Journal, marriage definition should come from voters, not from court orders. Americans, they argue, have “shown themselves more than capable of changing their views on gay marriage the democratic way.”

In other words, our definition of marriage should follow process, not...