Gay marriage thread

[Serial_Apologist]

1970s, NOT 1970's.

See me.

Either will do. As also single or double quotes. One can use single quotes, double quotes for quotes quoted within single quotes, or single quotes for quotes quoted within double quotes.

Beyond that would be double quotes for quotes within quotes in single quotes within quotes within double quotes, and so on.

What would be incorrect would be use of single quotes and double quotes at the same level. Either start out with single or double quotes for quotes, never with both.

I went to an English public boarding school in the late 50s, when grammatical correctness was instilled with jesuitical thoroughness.

[Beef Oven]

Either will do. As also single or double quotes. One can use single quotes, double quotes for quotes quoted within single quotes, or single quotes for quotes quoted within double quotes.

Beyond that would be double quotes for quotes within quotes in single quotes within quotes within double quotes, and so on.

What would be incorrect would be use of single quotes and double quotes at the same level. Either start out with single or double quotes for quotes, never with both.

I went to an English public boarding school in the late 50s, when grammatical correctness was instilled with jesuitical thoroughness.

Either won't do. There is nothing to abbreviate between numerals and letters. No tuck this week for you, and extra cod-liver oil from matron.

[Mr Pee]

Either will do. As also single or double quotes. One can use single quotes, double quotes for quotes quoted within single quotes, or single quotes for quotes quoted within double quotes.

Beyond that would be double quotes for quotes within quotes in single quotes within quotes within double quotes, and so on.

[Julien Sorel]

Okay, okay , I finally confess ... I'm a cloak-and-dagger Jesuit priest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW4oyWJyh04

And there you go again. I said nothing about Jesuits; unlike the abysmal Ian Paisley I couldn't care less about sectarian squabbling between one set of petty minded thugs and another. You are so innately devious you'd deny we are in March if it suited you simply because you are innately devious. At least on this message board in the context of these discussions you are. Your religion has nothing to do with it. Your education has nothing to do with it. It's you.

[Pabmusic]

Can one of the eminent theologians explain something for me? It's a fact of biology that more than a third of natural conceptions fail to begin development, and are miscarried at a very early stage, even before the potential mother is aware that she has conceived.

However, the sperm has successfully fertilised the egg, and so, if we are to assume that a soul has been miraculously created, where does it go ?

Can I add to that: what happens with identical twins? In their case, they began as one fertilised egg that split in two (that's why they have identical DNA). If the soul is present at conception, does that split in two as well? Or does a new one appear for the second twin (and by what criteria is one considered to be without a soul anyway?).

[MrGongGong]

Can I add to that: what happens with identical twins? In their case, they began as one fertilised egg that split in two (that's why they have identical DNA). If the soul is present at conception, does that split in two as well? Or does a new one appear for the second twin (and by what criteria is one considered to be without a soul anyway?).

http://www.worldoftales.com/fairy_tales.html

[Pabmusic]

By them having the option not to be Catholics, one supposes. After all, it's all about being members of a club and having to agree to the rules, innit!

One thing that puzzles me is, does all this preordainment of marriage to procreation automatically demote infertile heterosexual couples in the Catholic view - or for that matter heterosexual couples choosing to adopt or foster for other reasons - to the level of gay couples (of either gender, natch) choosing to have their own children by means of artificial insemination?

Just interested to know.

And what about a couple of 70 year olds who get married?

[Pabmusic]

http://www.worldoftales.com/fairy_tales.html

After all these years wondering...

[scottycelt]

And there you go again. I said nothing about Jesuits; unlike the abysmal Ian Paisley I couldn't care less about sectarian squabbling between one set of petty minded thugs and another. You are so innately devious you'd deny we are in March if it suited you simply because you are innately devious. At least on this message board in the context of these discussions you are. Your religion has nothing to do with it. Your education has nothing to do with it. It's you.

Oh, I do wish my mum and dad were still around ... they'd be so, so proud of me.

[scottycelt]

And what about a couple of 70 year olds who get married?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,376083,00.html

Sorry for being really devious, Pab ...

[Pabmusic]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,376083,00.html

Sorry for being really devious, Pab ...

Then I shall rephrase - What about someone who's had a hysterectomy or vasectomy who wants to get married?

[Flosshilde]

Why are you telling me ...?

Because you asked.

[Flosshilde]

Either will do. As also single or double quotes. One can use single quotes, double quotes for quotes quoted within single quotes, or single quotes for quotes quoted within double quotes.

Beyond that would be double quotes for quotes within quotes in single quotes within quotes within double quotes, and so on.

What would be incorrect would be use of single quotes and double quotes at the same level. Either start out with single or double quotes for quotes, never with both.

Can we quote you on that?

[Julien Sorel]

And what about a couple of 70 year olds who get married?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,376083,00.html

Sorry for being really devious, Pab ...

You can't help it.

"Panwar, who has two adult daughters and five grandchildren, underwent in-vitro fertility treatment so she could produce a male heir."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,376083,00.html

"Pope Benedict XVI, speaking to members of the Pontifical Academy for Life earlier this year, addressed the issue of married couples struggling with infertility. He said, 'The Church pays great attention to the suffering of couples with infertility, she cares for them and, precisely because of this, encourages medical research.'

But he warned against 'the lure of the technology of artificial insemination,' which is not permitted by Catholic teaching. The Pope said to couples unable to conceive: '[Your] vocation to marriage is no less because of this. Spouses, for their own baptismal and marriage vocation, are called to cooperate with God in the creation of a new humanity. The vocation to love, in fact, is a vocation to the gift of self and this is a possibility that no organic condition can prevent. There, where science has not yet found an answer, the answer that gives light comes from Christ.'"

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/1774/church_teaching_on_in_vitro_fertilization.aspx#.UU6ws-j2LJw

[Julien Sorel]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,376083,00.html

Sorry for being really devious, Pab ...

"IVF is intrinsically and extrinsically wrong. For our contemporaries (and even our co-religionists), for whom might makes right, and who love not truth for its own sake but for the power that knowledge can bring, there is little chance of their coming to understand that a child 'has the right to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents' [Donum Vitae, 1987]. If they cannot understand that IVF, as the same Vatican document says, 'is in itself illicit and in opposition to the dignity of procreation and of the conjugal union, even when everything is done to avoid the death of the human embryo', nevertheless they may be brought to their senses when they see its inevitably evil consequences: millions have perished since 1969, when the first short-lived attempt at human fertilisation in vitro was achieved."


"And so, amidst all the positive publicity surrounding IVF, the Church remembers the millions who have perished and prays for the conversion of those parents who have been misled by public opinion into thinking that what they have done is lawful, reminding them that 'marriage does not confer upon the spouses the right to have a child, but only the right to perform those natural acts which are per se ordered to procreation.'"

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/morality/family/ivf.htm