Click here to advertise on

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 January expenses ($19,764 to go):
$35,000.00 $15,235.70
56% 44%
Sound Off! supporters weigh in.

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!

Show 6 Comments? (Hidden)Hide Comments
  • 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

    " 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?

Subscribe for free
Click here to advertise on
Shop Amazon

Recent Catholic Commentary

Church Fathers: St. Polycarp and St. Papias January 24
On News Both Good and Fun January 23
Guess who thinks Pope Francis shouldn't give so many interviews? January 23
A rare “win” in the Venerable League: Laity 4, Priests and Religious 3 January 23
The Didache Bible Is Here January 21

Top Catholic News

Most Important Stories of the Last 30 Days
Pope Francis names 20 new cardinals CWN - January 5
In ‘state of the world’ address, Pope decries ‘throwaway culture’ CWN - January 12