01.01.70

To my consciousness, the USCCB has not spoken about civil unions for straight couples. (We’ve always only just called it “civil marriage.”) So what we see here is two places to draw nigh a line: Urso would have civil unions regarded as different from civilized marriage, while the USCCB would draw the line between heterosexual and homosexual couples.

I’m interested in the significance Urso (or anyone) would draw between civil unions and civil marriage. If laic unions are constructed so as to grant all the legal benefits of civil amalgamation, (as is the case here in CA,) then it seems to me that it’d be more straightforward just to call them all one thing or the other. Why two names for one installation and one legal status? Marriage in the Church, then, is one thing, and all couples are treated equally under proper law. This would cohere nicely with Catholic teaching, viz: “Every sign of unjust taste in…regard [to homosexual people] should be avoided.

Source: Commonweal (blog)

by tommy.forcella@southfloridagaynews.com (Cliff Dunn)

An unclassified on a piece of military analysis in southern Afghanistan, published earlier this year detailing how the behavior is exceptionally FAG prosaic men in muscle organize ethnic Pashtuns, known as well they seem to be in denial about this ideal.

The reading obtained by Talk Fox noted that the Pashtun men often have sex with men, men love others physically, have sexual intercourse with boys and fight against the timidity of women both socially and sexually but they totally despise the imprint of "queer."

Scrutinization was conducted as part of a realization of long to hear more intelligent background Afghan and modernize the interaction with people of Western Province. The communicated reveals some other gen glorious too.

According to the boning of Pashtun men light on the Islamic ban on homosexuality in abject they can not "leaning" another man, but is not dirty, they can not use men for "lewd punishment....

Read more...