You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
Society has already manuevered into a hole. Let's not dig deeper.
Wow. the University of St. Thomas is wasting money on this prof. This opinion is so riddled with holes picking it apart would only validate it and it's far from worthy..
1.) Children are not the singular goal of marriage. 2.) Healthy responsible sexual activities can and do take place outside of marriage. 3.) Increased poverty, the widening gap between the rich and poor, increased violence, nor any of your other spurious claims are even remotely related to the subject of marriage. 4.) Limiting or restricting the rights of other Americans has absolutely no place in our State Constitution.
Didn't St. Thomas used to be a Catholic institution??? They look pretty much like a miniature Notre Dame now. Any professor that teaches heresy at a Catholic institution should be .. #1 .. fired ... and #2 ... if they're Catholic, they should be excommunicated.
"We recognized that the only responsible way to engage in sexual activities is in a relationship committed to lifelong self-gift and sexual fidelity, a commitment protected by the community -- hence, marriage."
Why shouldn't we expect, or at least encourage, same-sex couples to commit to lifelong, monogamous relationships? Wouldn't allowing same-sex marriage help achieve this? How does excluding same-sex couples from marriage help opposite-sex couples manage their sexual activities responsibly? By excluding same-sex couples from marriage (and offering them no meaningful alternative), you send a message that it's OK for gay people to have as many sex partners as they want, and that you don't care what consequences (such as contracting an STD) they suffer for having them.
"Rules exist not to ruin our fun, but to protect the institution, the couple, the children and society."
Many same-sex couples are raising children, often the children opposite-sex couples don't want. Why shouldn't these families have the protection of marriage? Why should society not be allowed protect itself from the consequences of child-rearing same-sex couples who break up?
"Children today live in socially sanctioned fear that their parents will leave -- assuming they have both parents. If this happens, they live in turmoil, shuttling between several residences, or are left without supervision. They live with an increased chance of poverty and a decreased chance of success at school and in life."
Does marriage ensure children that their parents won't leave? There's no requirement for married couples to live together. Many unmarried opposite-sex couples raise kids too; I doubt those kids fear one of their parents will abandon them just because they're not married.
"Society overall has suffered increased poverty, a widening gap between rich and poor, increased violence, decreased productivity and the loss of neighborhood cohesion -- directly attributable to the destruction of a true marital sexual ethos."
I seriously doubt that any of society's ills (much less all of them) can be laid at the feet of "the destruction of a true marital sexual ethos." But if they could, isn't it possible that allowing same-sex couples access to marriage could help stabilize the institution and, therefore, help society recover from these problems?
"Instead of reinstalling the barriers, those who want to keep their watery 'freedom' yell, 'Blow up the dam!' "
Hardly anyone wants to blow up the dam. Rather, they simply want the same access to the water behind it that everyone else already has.
Indeed, reinforce the importance and value of commitment by letting gay couples also marry. We do need that sense that a marriage is to be worked through, fought through, loved through and in. I know many gay couples who have been together for 15, 20 years, as long as some of my other straight-friend couples, and for far, far longer than some other friends. Let them into the civic benefits and the social recognition as good examples of what commitment can do.
I am one of those Catholics who knows that gay people are as God made them, not "disordered." If my Church cannot recognize gay marriages, so be it. But, I am a citizen of a country that treasures freedom and equality - as citizens, we need to recognize their equality under the law.
What? Opposite-sex marriage isn't working out very well in our society, so the answer is to prevent gay couples from marrying?
Maybe a better idea is to figure out what in our society is putting so much pressure on marriage in general and work on that.
Anyway, nobody asked a Catholic philosophy professor. Nobody is saying anything about which marriages the Catholic Church should or shouldn't recognize. We're talking about a civil contract, with large economic ramifications. It's a totally different thing.
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks