Then you’ve answered your own question. Marriage is a legal contract between two people who choose to engage in an exclusive, domestic, economic, and sexual relationship with each other. Why limit it between a man and a woman?

d0d0ng: “Both are morally offensive. You cannot force your lifestyle on believers of traditional marriage either.”

Only according to your faith. No one is forcing you to marry a gay man, but by preventing gay marriage YOU are the one enforcing your beliefs on them.

Traditional marriage is based on faith and morality draws that line. That is what you are missing. A loving relationship between lesbians or homosexuals is no different from loving relationship in an incestous relationship (father and minor daughter). Both are morally offensive. You cannot force your lifestyle on believers of traditional marriage either.

“”"So you’re assuming that we all want to get married to the same sex and only the lack of an official ceremony is preventing us? Let them get married so that partners can enjoy legal benefits of living and raising families together. It is of no danger to straight marriage.

Funny how the people “defending marriage” are the ones who want less people to get married. Besides, no one is forcing any church to marry off gays.”"”

You are missing my point In fact, I’m not “defending marriage” in the sense that conservatives do. I don’t even have a strong opinion for/against homosexual marriage. I’m just saying the fact that homosexual marriage does not serve any procreative role, and hence does not support the propagation of the human species. But of course, marriage in our time is not just for procreation; nor is procreation solely done by married couples.

It is a reflection of the growing concern of the Catholic church globally not just the Philippines. Despite its vast power and influence in politics, the embedded church doctrine in Art II section 12 & 16 as state policy have brought on economic hardships due to unchecked population growth and weakened family as basic unit when parents seek job abroad producing generation of parentless children.

The Church is not democracy and it will sought to implement its will. The president can kill the RH bill even if it ever survive the house. There is no question about that.

But at what long term cost when in the business of saving souls and losing its flock?

There is reason to frame issue based on what’s going on in the US. Despite liberalism and church scandal, the faithfuls have not abandoned the church. The cafeteria Catholics are not faithless. In California, they cling to the marriage of man and woman despite court ruling and fight for parental notification in state mandated abortion right. The greater strength of the church is in its people when it put its faith on the line.

http://genius-master18.blog.friendster.com/2008/09/god-bless-you-mama-mary-loves-you/

The CBCP does not want a discussion of the features of the RH bill. Fr. Bernas’ article in the Inquirer is a great example. It is well-written and engaging BUT it is distracting. DEATHS is like the Bernas article. No mention of what is right or wrong about teaching 13-years and older kids which between holding hands, a kiss, or sperm-contact with-egg-cells results in babies and “why do they make condoms anyway???”