Ok, more on gay marriage, the issue of the day week month year generation.

Brock Sides, the other half of Signifying Nothing, notes someone’s withered and old opinion that the benefits of legitimate families be extended only to those with children. This definition of marriage isn’t exactly the newest idea. Relevant Canon Law, quoted in a 1995 exchange:

Sterile partners can indeed marry and actually must have sex to consummate the marriage. Marriage without procreation is not a sin. For example, the elderly (presumably infertile) can marry. The church does forbid the impotent from marrying. The church defines impotent as the inability to have sex. [As an editorial note, this also applies to the perpetually frigid women out there too. - Jay]

Canon law 1084:
“#1 Antecedent or perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, which is either absolute or relative, by its very nature, invalidates marriage …
#3 Sterility neither prohibits nor invalidates marriage, with due regard for the prescription of Canon 1098.”

Canon 1098 refers to entering marriage by deception, ie. the marriage is invalidated by deceiving your spouse about your fertility status. I would agree that the church has an excessive stress on the procreative aspects of sex relative to the unitive. But even this is a big change from earlier teachings. Try reading some St. Augustine. He thought that couples should give up sex during menstruation, pregnancy and completely after menopause, since conception wasn’t possible. This atmosphere persisted in the church for centuries.

Aren’t you just glad the United States isn’t officially Catholic? Now, imagine if Breederism were to enter the realm of public, versus personal morality, therefore dictating the rule of law. Britney Spears would have to publicly insist that she is a virgin.

Makes David Brooks seem a bit more progressive now, does it?