The video that shocked | Regina Leader-Post
However, the issue of same-sex marriage isn't ultimately about equal rights, bigotry, hatred, or even about homosexuality. The issue is about the definition of . The B's are homosexual faggots with dirt on their fingernails that transmit diseases." Mr. Lukiwski stood in the House of Commons on Friday to. REGINA — Conservative MP Tom Lukiwski may have been let off the hook by his to “homosexual faggots with dirt on their fingernails that transmit diseases. 14 Tory MLAs or staffers convicted in relation to misuse of communication funds, .
He could do this for six hours: Not that they have anything to hide — perhaps they do, but certainly in these cases that I've illustrated they haven't, because they did nothing wrong.
But it wouldn't be politically acceptable to have. Even his opposition foes appeared to share some appreciation for his antics.
Gay Men’s Relationships: 10 Ways They Differ From Straight Relationships
When the mic was turned over to another Tory, they would sometimes interject and demand to hear, "More! One of those opposition MPs with whom he shared a love-hate relationship was Michel Guimond. But the Bloc Quebecois member summed up the frustration of other opposition members last February as they endured the latest Lukiwski monologue.
Such a concept is easy to understand when you consider the essence of marriage. For a valid marriage to take place, the union must be free, total, faithful, and ordered toward procreation. All these characteristics are necessary. For example, who would consider a marriage to be valid if the husband forced the woman to marry him?
Controversy continues over Lukiwski videotape
What about a couple who agreed to marry and have children, but refused to be faithful? According to the Church, these would not be real marriages, even if the couples had legal marriage certificates.
Similarly, if two people cannot have the kind of sexual relations that are designed to give life, they are incapable of marriage. In fact, the Church also believes that heterosexual couples are incapable of marriage if they are impotent. Not to be confused with sterility a condition in which a couple is able to have intercourse but unable to have childrenimpotency means that a person is incapable of having intercourse.
Ever since the beginning, the marital embrace has been an essential and integral part of marriage. This is how a marriage is consummated. Just because two people are engaging in some kind of sexual embrace, it does not make them one flesh. For example, if a husband and a wife only engaged in the kind of sexual activity that a same-sex couple engaged in, the husband and wife would not have consummated their marriage.
The reason why only male and female bodies are capable of becoming one is because they are made for each other. Consider what happens when the cord of a lamp is united to a power outlet. Because the two were made for each other, light is created. The same is true with sexual complementarity and the creation of human life. Because members of the same sex have bodies that are not created to receive one another, they physically cannot express the vows of marriage.
This inability of the bodies to become one expresses the deeper reality that they were not meant to give themselves to each other in marriage.
Therefore, the Church has no authority to marry a couple who cannot speak their wedding vows through their bodies. A nonmarital relationship cannot be declared a marriage.
This is not easily understood by a culture that separates sex from marriage. Not surprisingly, the culture that first demanded sex without marriage now demands marriage without sex. However, if a husband and wife are unable to have children because of sterility, they would still be truly married because they are still capable of becoming one flesh.
The comparison of homosexual couples to sterile heterosexual couples falls short because sterility is a dysfunction for heterosexual couples, but is natural and necessary for the homosexual couple. Their sexual acts, just like homosexual acts, are ordered against the transmission of life. If they set their wills against life, then the Church says that no marriage ever existed between them.
They walked into the church as two singles, and they left as two singles. Marriage is not something that was invented by the Catholic Church—or by the government. In fact, the traditional view of marriage as the life-long, faithful union of one man and one woman pre-dates Christianity, and can be found in civilizations throughout history. The reason for this is simple: For example, one of the vignettes concerned a couple called Amy and Jennifer.
Instead, Jennifer would rather go shopping or watch a romantic comedy.
Controversy continues over Lukiwski videotape - The Globe and Mail
So was I an Amy or a Jennifer? After considered analysis I decided my enthusiasm for the Fast and the Furious franchise made me more of an Amy. But what about my girlfriend?
Could she be an Amy too? How would sociology deal with that? This is typical of the way in which women can never give you a straight answer and a very Jennifer thing to say.