1 + 1 = ??
By Diogenes (articles ) | Sep 30, 2005
For your weekend homework assignment, explain why this is not likely to happen in your community.
Keep in mind that, as you write, Christian activists in Massachusets will be circulating a petition to amend that state's constitution, so that the document would define marriage explicitly as a union between one man and one woman.
Seems obvious, doesn't it? Yet in Massachusetts, 4 fuzzy-thinking judges balked at the "man and woman" part: the gender element of the marital equation. Who's to say that next time-- maybe not too far in the future, maybe somewhere near where you live-- another set of liberal judges won't have trouble with the mathematical part?
Is "1 + 1" any more self-evident than "man + woman?" Explain.
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:
Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach seven million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
Progress toward our July expenses ($17,656 to go):
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: Fr. William -
Oct. 02, 2005 12:19 AM ET USA
You warned us about this, Diogenes, & were right in stating that it's not a "slippery slope" from same-sex unions to this whackiness in the Netherlands. It's a matter of the doors being open to "anything goes," because it's all about how a person feels about it... e.g., a person "marries" their cat simply because the person loves the cat. When the state decides to separate marriage from God's directives, to separate marriage from its Goods & Responsibilities, the result is not marriage at all.
Posted by: -
Oct. 01, 2005 6:10 PM ET USA
"...so that the document would define marriage explicitly as a union between one man and one woman." How intolerant and un-Christian! WWJD, Uncle Di?
Posted by: Fiducia -
Oct. 01, 2005 7:16 AM ET USA
Fringe Mormon groups have already argued that opening the door to homosexual marriage should open the door to polygamy. They contend that failure to recognize such arrangements amounts to religious discrimination (constitutional protections).
Posted by: hUMPTY dUMPTY -
Oct. 01, 2005 6:27 AM ET USA
As a Math major from a Catholic College, may I point out that "1" is an arbitrary Arabic symbol useful for Number Theory. Incidentially, the Magisterium at one time prohibited the "0" as contrary to Divine Revelation. And let's not even go into Imaginary Numbers such as the sq.root of a "-1", let alone Quantum Mechanics. AMDG
Posted by: -
Sep. 30, 2005 9:09 PM ET USA
My wife and I dearly love our labrador retriever. We have been living with him for 8+ years. Now it is time to cement the union. If the county clerk refuses our request to register the civil union, we will sue --- challenging the species-ism inherent in the clerk's interpretation of the law. This is coming soon in a town near you! Next ? ? ?
Posted by: principle not pragmatism -
Sep. 30, 2005 6:58 PM ET USA
How about all those "catholic " legislators in MA?