Weekly updates. No pestering. Just the good stuff.
A 2003 document, “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons,” sheds light on the Church’s definite stance on the possibility of same-sex civil unions.
Our best chances of understanding capital punishment lie less with rehabilitating a social order grounded on hopes for mere security and stability, and much more with re-envisioning the state and its duties as but one side of an authoritative coin.
Fighting to ensure due respect for the sanctity of life should not lead us to canonize human life as the ultimate moral value, as if the final destiny of the human person was simply to go on existing without reference to any further end or purpose.
As yet another state legally recognizes same sex marriage, it’s important to take a step back and consider the nature of marriage–and why the state should be interested in it in the first place.
Maybe everything was fine in Savar up until the point of impact, and maybe everyone at work that day was there on the basis of entirely rational decisions. But we can’t know that, and any-job-is-better-than-no-job offers no evidence that we could.
The plain reality is that nothing has proven as effective for raising up men and women equipped to compete in and contribute to society than the traditional, intact, monogamous family, and contrary to a recent article in The Economist, legally redefining marriage would undermine it.