Login to Change.org
Create an Account
T Cardone
Recent Activity
-
T commented on the article |I believe Catholic schools should accept all children. But wouldn't same-sex couples want to think twice about sending their kids there? After all, the Catholic Church declares its oposition to same sex marriages. It might be awkward sending your kid to a school that announces it will teach your child that his parents are wrong.
I also can't be totally supportive of the author's comment that "when my son gets curious for the details about how he came to be - which involved a doctor's office and syringes - I will not need to mention sex at all."
Why is it good that you will avoid teaching your son the realities of sex?
-
T commented on the article |When I think about it, love must be the most important part. I must concede that two men or two women can love each other in a way that benefits them and society.
I've consistently opposed gay marriage. But I sometimes wonder if I've been wrong to do so; I examine my conscience.
Society has universally valued marriages, which makes sense because marriages preserve and perpetuate society. Society is a group of people. The large societal group is made up of smaller groups, and the fundamental group is the family: the first group to which we ever belong as children. New families, new pieces of society, are created by marriages.
A gay partnership creates a two-person group, but that group can't grow. I can see why society values this type of partnership less than a traditional marriage, which creates a family: the fundamental unit of society .
But some gay couples raise children, so maybe society should view them as family-producing partnerships. To be prefectly honest with myself, I have to admit that I couldn't provide the best possible environment for a child if I was in a same-sex relationship. I don't think that gay partnerships are the same builders of society as traditional marriages.
I expect that society will continue to value child-producing marriages more than gay partnerships. For all their beneficial qualities, same-sex partnerships can never achieve the same things as traditional marriages. I can't, in good conscience, pretend that it's good to equate a same-sex partnership with a marriage between a man and a woman.
-
T commented on the article |
Jim, I agree with you; the possibility of procreation is a defining characterisitic of marriage. Therefore, same-sex unions can never be true "marriages" as I understand them.
Keaven claims it's invalid to say marriages must be procreative. While it's true that some marriages can not produce children, it's indisputable that the whole institution of marriage developed as a male-female partnership for the creation of families. Even barren marriages are based on the model of procreative marriages.
Gay partnerships are valuable to society. But two men in a partnership is not the same as a man and a woman in a marriage. It's a biological difference that laws can't change.
By seeking to be married, are gays trying to fit into mainstream, marrying society? Do they feel they must marry to gain acceptence? If a new form of legal union provided the same practical benefits of marriage, without the innaccurate title of marriage, wouldn't that be superior to a new definition of marriage?
-
T commented on the article |
Hi Damon. Your distinction between church teaching and religious teaching is not familiar to me. I view my church as religious, so they are nearly synonymous terms to me.
I agree that many situations could result in the hypothetical result of a person unknowingly falling in love with a relative. And, yes, a simple blood test would prevent accidental consummation of that love.
I don't want to dictate how any of my friends or enemies live. There is a principle of separation of church and state in our laws. Yet many U.S. laws share a philosophical foundation with Judeo-Christian teachings.
There are secular philosophical reasons for disallowing some marriages. The example I gave illustrates that a man could inadvertantly fall in love with a close biological relative. While their love would be sincere, they likely wouldn't marry after learning the truth of their kinship. Some loving relationships don't meet the criteria of a marriage. I question whether or not gay relationships meet the criteria.
I'm not saying I know the answer. I don't want to restrict what anyone does in the bedroom. But I'm uncomfortable with expanding the definition of traditional marriage. If everyone could marry who they chose, siblings could marry siblings. "Marriage" could become meaningless. And I additionally believe single-sex parenting should be a last resort only, since it could deprive a child of a mother or father.
-
T commented on the article |
Weekly religious services help teach me compassion for friends, gay freinds included. Religion helps teach me to care for the handicapped, including one of my immediate family members.
Considering gay marriage, I try to disregard religious teachings in the interest of fresh conscientious reflection on the issue. Current laws don't permit anyone to marry anyone else he/she chooses. For example, large portions of society scorn marriage between siblings, minors, first cousins and same-sex couples.
If a son is raised solely by two fathers, he may grow up to accidentaly fall in love with his own mother, whom he never knew. Without cautious marriage practices, he could marry her and conceive her children, his own half-siblings.
Perhaps some religious traditions have prevention of incest as their purpose. I'll grant that this is an extreme hypothetical example to prove a point.
I endorse the celebration of all loving relationships. But a relationship with a biological family member is an example of a loving relationship which is not meant to be expressed with sexual love.
-
T commented on the article |
Auntie Hosebag,
You assume I know nothing about abuse. You assume you know my gender.
Then you decide what I do and do not know about events in my own life.
I apologize if I caused you to lose your temper and argue in such a hypocritical manner.
Every child should have a mother and a father; that's my conviction. You're free to disagree.
-
T commented on the article |
Auntie Hosebag,
You've made several assumptions about me in your response. But I don't really mind them, or your insults, because I expected no less when I chose to post my viewpoints on this webpage.
I expect to be in the minority here. I suspect your view that marriage should be outlawed is also in the minority here and in broader society.
Laws should should provide the same rights to married people and unmarried people, maybe in civil unions. But there is a danger that systems could develop which would extend the definition of marriage so far as to make marriage meaningless.
I know straight women who entered into a domestic partnership with each other strictly for the financial benefit. Is this an abuse? Traditional marriage can already be abused this way. Why broaden the possibility of abusing the system?
Anyway, since traditional marriage is bad in your view, why should we call gay relationships marriage? These relationships are admittedly different.
-
T commented on the article |
Historically, society strives to provide both male and female parent role models for the next generation. Of course, it's inevitable that numerous families fall short of this ideal. But when we set up a system that purposely excludes the possibility of some children ever having both a mother and father in their lives, we will be drastically changing the fabric of society.
Barren couples should have the right to marry because they would have kids if they could. Or they could adopt and provide a child with a mother and father.
Single parenting still holds out the hope that the parent may remarry, thus providing a parental role model of each gender to the child/children.
Depending on the scenario, and their relation to the child, gay individuals are probably the best parenting option for children in many cases. But don't support any system that would deny a child access to both his biological parents when possible. That goes for children in heterosexual adoptive homes too. But even if the parents are adoptive, children will still want both a mother and father.
-
T commented on the article |
I don't question gays' parenting abilities. But I doubt a man's abililty to ever be a mother, and I doubt a woman's ability to ever be a father. Nature and tradition deserve at least some consideration. For me, marriage is partly about the willingness to raise children with a partner. And I am not willing to raise a child in a same-sex parent environment when better options exist.
-
T commented on the article |
Equality is important. Do all children have equal rights to a mother AND father? Wouldn't same-sex parenting deny children this right? I can't endorse a system that would deny children a mother and father.
Impact
0 Actions
0 Recruits