Well, the only extra information that I'd present is "why the Church teaches what they teach". After that, the conclusions drawn as to whether the teachings are abitrary or capricious could still remain, although we'd have all the info as to the basis for the teaching, I'll cite the pertinent Catechism if you're so disposed.<quoted text>
I *know* that the "religious" figures believe their moral teachings and so forth to be superior; I've witnessed this repeatedly (and haven't you?). I'm saying that they have a PROFOUND BELIEF in their knowledge of "what is right," and I have now (possibly for all time) labeled it BS.
I do wonder, though, whether Zmuda felt "forced" into the situation -- not by them, certainly, but by his beliefs. He wants to teach in that setting. He will be forced, literally *forced*, NEVER TO MARRY if he wants to do so. The heterosexual next to him does not have that restriction.
I am reading and reading and reading and reading everything you say and everything wondering says and something inside me will *NOT* allow me to be on board with this.
And ya know what's funny?
It feels like a *deeply held moral conviction*. It feels deep, and true, and strong, and I feel I would be wrong-headed and doing a disservice to the very notion of morality to agree with all of this.
It's *not* the contract, in this case -- at least not entirely. It's the *situation the contract creates*, and -- as I just said to wondering -- for NO REASON anyone can point to, for NO REASON any antigay person can apparently present in court for "gay marriage" purposes because they are really, almost laughably losing those cases left and right now.
Something is wrong with this situation and my feeling about that won't go away. And it has to do with the fact that Mr. and Mrs. Smith are not affected by this issue, but Mr. and Mr. Smith are, and *no one has a really, really true or good reason* for this.
No one can provide one.
Literally no one.
Literally no one.
Is that, perhaps, my issue? That the terms of the contract smack me as *literally* arbitrary? The "church" would scream about that, but that's exactly what I see.
I guess at this point, because you are thoughtful and cool, I am continuing to attempt to articulate so that perhaps you come up with SOMETHING I can grasp at. I simply don't see this.
RE: "never to marry"-yeah, that's a toughie. Catholic clerics and religious deal with that.