Marriage, and Ethics, and Taboos, and Incest and "Unacceptable Intrusions Upon the Right to Sexual Self-determination"

Is the form we call  "marriage" a consequence of natural law?

Or is the form which is now under assault, one woman married to one man, an artificial construct, either of society or religion?
Those who would so limit the definition are held in much contempt by the chattering class. They.... we, are cruel, hate-filled, small-minded, bigots, homophobic, and most damning of all, "on the wrong side of history."

It seems to me that in order to endorse homosexual unions as marriage one must propose that the old way is just an accident of societal mores, and consequently that any definition of marriage is indeed artificial.

This would not just apply to the sex of the members of the construct, but their numbers as well.
The state would have no basis on which to limit it to "two."

If the civil government can force an adoption agency to agree to place children with gay couples or cease operation, why not with a straight threesome? why shouldn't committees adopt?

And why not with a sister and brother?
In fact, why shouldn't two sisters marry each other?

Laws banning incest between brothers and sisters in Germany could be scrapped after a government ethics committee said the they were an unacceptable intrusion into the right to sexual self-determination.

“Criminal law is not the appropriate means to preserve a social taboo,” the German Ethics Council said in a statement. “The fundamental right of adult siblings to sexual self-determination is to be weighed more heavily than the abstract idea of protection of the family.”

Their intervention follows a notorious case in which a brother and sister living as partners in Saxony had four children together. The couple had been raised separately and only met when the brother, identified only as Patrick S, was an adult, and his sister Susan K was 16.

I don't know the science of it, perhaps long-standing claims that a ban on incest is a matter of health are superstition - the Hapsburg lip isn't such a danger, is it?

But if the most forceful argument against laws which limit the degree of consanguinity acceptable in a legal marriage is that they constitute an "unacceptable intrusion" into a purported "right to sexual self-determination" are any laws governing sexual conduct that takes place out of the public eye wrong?

(Th silly LGBT, or LBTG or whatever it is, community's claim that there is some dissonance or hypocrisy in not allowing gay marriage while at the same time not outlawing zoophilia is is dishonest on the face of it - they like to pretend that they simply are in pursuit of freedom to behave as they wish, but what many really seek is endorsement of their behavior. I don't really care what goes on in your barn, but you aren't insisting that Trigger be your plus one at a family wedding, right?)

News polls show a majority of American Roman Catholics believe Ice Cream Should Have No Calories... oh, and that...

...women should be allowed to become priests.

I'm not sure why a ceremony conducted in a United Church of Christ, by an Episcopalian minister is covered by a purported news organization as if it had anything to do with the Catholic Church, but they're kinda funny in Sarasota.

Do they bother to report on other individuals who leave one faith for another?

Or who otherwise ignore the tenets of their putative faith?
"It is widely reported that Jenna Q pewsitter slept in on Sunday."
"Local Baptist Man Fudges on Tax Return"

I'm tired of the "openness to divorced Catholics, openness to gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual people," meme.

The Church is open to all of them.
Also to drug addicts, cranky old ladies, felons, TV meteorlogists, serial twerkers,...

Oh, did I misunderstand?

Ahh...
You aren't interested in Her being "open," you don't care about being welcomed -- you want endorsement.

You want Mom's approval, not of yourself, but of your transgressions, whatever they may be.

You want Dad to say, not "Bring my finest robes, kill the fatted calf!" but, "No, son, you were right, what a fool I've been, I wish I had had the smarts to squander my money on dissolute living and gone through my property with loose women.
"Hey, I got an idea, grab your older brother and the three of us will hit the whorehouse."

Whiskey Tango Hotel

When the actual facts don't support the narrative you've chosen....
What to do, what to do?

It's not surprising that a man of Gingrich's ambitions would be drawn to the grandeur of worship at the basilica.

Look, I can't think of anything I like about Gingrich.
I don't agree with his politics.
I can't imagine circumstances under which I would vote for him.
I think him, (for no specific reason, just a visceral reaction,) smarmy.
But, HUH?
WTH kind of indication of a man's ambition is it, that he is drawn to a rite, and a celebration of that rite, that makes all men equal; makes him subordinate to a much greater reality, to greater Person, (to three Persons,); is liturgical and therefore limits his autonomy...

And how about George Sanders estate?

Is this a great county, or what?
Anybody can sue anybody for anything.
Oh, wait, it's not in this country... the rest of the world has become as litigious as we.
I think they should sue Sir Walter Scott while they are at it, and Ciaran Hinds.

LONDON: The heirs of Knights Templar have initiated a legal battle in an attempt to force the Vatican to restore the reputation of the disgraced order that was accused of heresy and dissolved seven centuries ago. In a lawsuit, the Association of the Sovereign Order of the Temple of Christ, whose members claim to be descendants of Knights Templar, has called on Pope Benedict to recognise the seizure of assets worth £79 billion. According to the association based in Spain, when the order was dissolved by Benedict's predecessor Pope Clement V in 1307, more than 9,000 properties, countless pastures, mills and commercial ventures belonging to knights were appropriated by the Roman Catholic Church. But they claim that their aim is not only to reclaim damages but also to restore the "good name" of the Order of the Temple, the Daily Telegraph reported. The Knights Templar, which existed for approximately two centuries in the Middle Ages, was founded in the aftermath of the First Crusade of 1096. Its main purpose was to ensure the safety of Christians who made the pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The Order was endorsed by the Vatican around 1129 and became a favoured charity. But when the Holy Land was lost, support for the organisation faded. And rumours about the Templars' secret initiation ceremony created mistrust, and King Philip IV of France pressurised Pope Clement V to dissolve it in 1307.

Umm... appropriated by "the Catholic Church?" aren't/weren't the Knights Templar part of the Catholic Church?... maybe a wholly owned subsidiary or some such?