In the catholic teaching, the purpose of marriage between a man and a woman is for procreation.

What if the two can't just have children?  Did they defy the purpose of marriage then? (This should be covered in another topic though, not here.)

What if two persons in love just don't intend to raise children, for any reason,  be it weird, unacceptable or acceptable (free will, remember?) ?  Should that mean they should not seek marriage by church?

I think this is where civil marriage comes in.

Civil marriage is not about procreation.  It is about giving protection to spouses.


Which everybody, everyone in any romantic relationship, should have. Regardless of sexual orientation. WHETHER IT BE FOR STRAIGHT COUPLES OR NOT-SO-STRAIGHT, LEGAL RIGHTS FOR SPOUSES SHOULD BE PROVIDED BY GOVERNMENT.


When I saw this video, I was moved. And I was thinking, any one who has been or is into a serious romantic relationship will be moved after seeing this, regardless of religion or doctrine one has been molded in.

I've always been all about free will and against any form of discrimination.  Sex orientation included. 

Even criminals, those whose violations are transgressions also against the law of heavens--- the 10 commandments,  have human rights.  Their issues are even worst than gays' issues.  And yet, gays are much condemned by the religious so much so that their legal rights are denied by the government?  Which part in the 10 commandments are violated when one chooses to be in a romantic relationship of the same gender? There's none there.

GAYS SHOULD  BE PROTECTED TOO BY THE GOVERNMENT, the same protection that straight peeps have.  They are no criminals.  They deserve equal rights in the law of men.

Popular posts from this blog

Beauty in Vulnerability

Senator Miriam Fought For the OFWs in Her Last Few Months at the Senate