In my hypothetical list of turn-ons and turn-offs, such as they are, hypocrisy is a major turn-off. Also, proof = MAJOR turn-on.
I like to know things. I like to fact check. I like research. (Duh.)
I like when rules are consistent (family dynamics for the win!) even when they are rules I don't agree with.
For instance, the right claims that gay marriage is wrong because:
Though I disagree, I require that the logical extension of the argument include anyone who is infertile, post-menopausal, vasectomized, or just doesn't want children.
One who believes that marriage is the sole purpose for marriage should ostensibly be arguing for a signature on documents that Party A and Party B promise to reproduce at some future point. However no one on the right seemed to be calling for these measures which kind of pissed me off because at least if you're going to have an idiotic argument, don' t leave it so full of holes!
While it may seem like reductio ad absurdum, I point you to the Catholic church which seems to have at least one of it's proverbial ducks in its own special row.
Canon 1084.1 of the Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church states that "antecedent and perpetual impotence to have sexual intercourse, whether on the part of the man or on that of the woman, whether absolute or relative, by its very nature invalidates marriage."
Now that is some awesome consistency. I'd like to see the evangelicals match this one.
I like to know things. I like to fact check. I like research. (Duh.)
I like when rules are consistent (family dynamics for the win!) even when they are rules I don't agree with.
For instance, the right claims that gay marriage is wrong because:
- marriage is for procreation
- same-sex couples can't reproduce on their own
- Therefore marriage is not for people who cannot reproduce
Though I disagree, I require that the logical extension of the argument include anyone who is infertile, post-menopausal, vasectomized, or just doesn't want children.
One who believes that marriage is the sole purpose for marriage should ostensibly be arguing for a signature on documents that Party A and Party B promise to reproduce at some future point. However no one on the right seemed to be calling for these measures which kind of pissed me off because at least if you're going to have an idiotic argument, don' t leave it so full of holes!
While it may seem like reductio ad absurdum, I point you to the Catholic church which seems to have at least one of it's proverbial ducks in its own special row.
ROME - An Italian bishop has told a young paraplegic he cannot have a church wedding because he is impotent, despite his fiancée being aware of the problem. Salvatore de Ciuco, spokesman for Bishop Lorenzo Chiarinelli of Viterbo in central Italy, explained that: "No bishop, no priest can celebrate a wedding when he knows of admitted impotence as it is a motive for annulment" of the marriage. The 26-year-old groom, who took part in a civil marriage ceremony Saturday in Viterbo, has been paraplegic since he was involved in a car accident. The curate of the parish who was banned from marrying the couple was present at the ceremony. Their pastor, having been refused permission to witness the union in a Catholic ceremony, attended the civil event.
Canon 1084.1 of the Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church states that "antecedent and perpetual impotence to have sexual intercourse, whether on the part of the man or on that of the woman, whether absolute or relative, by its very nature invalidates marriage."
Now that is some awesome consistency. I'd like to see the evangelicals match this one.
Labels: marriage
Stumble It!
The story of Michael and me.
6 Comments:
when my husband and I got married in the Catholic Church (to please my dying mother. nothing like 2 atheists jumping on the bandwagon for a couple of weeks) his father and sister both had to sign notarized affadavits stating that he was not impotent (amoth other things, including insane). His sister in particular was a little concerned about why/how she would be so familiar with her little brother's habits. We both had to sign paperwork stating that we would have children, and that we would baptize and raise them catholic. They do indeed have it under control. All except for the sincerity of the participants, but what can you do?
I didn't know this about the Catholic church! Which is weird because I know everything...no really. I didn't know.
Fascinating.
Hmmm... I'm from a Catholic family, married for 15 years, and even been able to "procreate" with my husband, this was not the reason I got married (we never wanted nor have children).
I'm with Jane Austen, who made it clear in her books that she believed that the reason for a couple to marry is to make each other happy.
What about an old couple, past the age of bearing children? Should they also be prevented from getting married just because of not being able to procreate?
This to me sounds like a weak argument from religious people interested in keeping the "traditional way".
I always love the simultaneous stereotyping of the "promiscuous homosexual lifestyle" and demands that those same loose people not be allowed to commit to one partner.
Most times I visit your blog for the sole purpose of making my brain hurt.
You make me think in ways that I never even knew Thinking required.
Past all that *brain hurt* part though? I'm STILL freak'n mulling over your post about Rape as a Weapon Of War.
It sickens me to my core to read what you wrote and quoted and linked.
Rape as a Weapon on War . . . on WHO? Women that don't (predominately) want war overall, or Women of The Enemy of War that, again, don't (predominately) tout war as mankind's answer.
How you go through your daily life with all this knowledge inspires me.
I don't even know how to end this post. You are a true inspiration.
KBC - thank you for such a wonderful compliment. I write about this because I want people to know and to think and then, perhaps once in a while, to act.
Any small act has the potential to make an enormous change.
Post a Comment
<< Home