Hi there.
I am working on a paper and would like to get some input from a Christian perspective.

Marriage has changed over time from an institution which existed for the purposes of property transfer, establishing political ties, inheriting wealth, continuing bloodlines, etc. to what it is today. However, what it is today in Western culture is largely unclear to me.

I was raised Catholic. Not a go-to-church-on-easter-and-christmas Catholic, but very involved in my church. The emphasis, for me, was always on love. And I'm wondering if that was an accurate understanding.

Marry for love, not for money. Marry for love, not for power. Marry for love, not to please other people. And "love" was not simply an emotional thing- it had to do with emotions, of course, but it was also a matter of companionship and committment- that even when things were not easy or ideal, you worked together to make things work. Emotions may fluctuate over time, but you have made a promise to this one person for life. But the basis is on compassion and care for another, romantic love that manifests itself in a lifetime of self-giving and support for another person who you promise to remain faithful to.

Is this an accurate portrayal of what marriage is at it's core in accordance with Christian and Catholic beliefs? Love? Commitment? Respect?

How essential to marriage do Catholics and Christians consider procreation? Morally speaking (not legally), is divorce due to an inability to have children permissible? Or are couples encouraged (or even required?) to seek out alternatives (adoption, artificial insemination, etc.)?

It seems that procreation is often cited as an essential element of marriage (i.e. a large factor in the argument against same sex marriages). But if in a heterosexual marriage where having children is not possible, is it then permissible to dissolve that union?

Please be as detailed in your reasoning as possible. I am trying to understand what the current perspective on this is so I can reference it in my paper. I appreciate any feedback on this you can offer.

Your trying to address a lot in a short spanse here.

As far as the christian perspective goes in my opinion it is about the commitment of marriage and procreation. There are no guarantees in life so the absolute of having children isn't the dominant factor to holding a marriage together. After all if we are talking about the cycle of life in a marriage and till death do us part. Most couples surviving the years make it to a point where having children is no longer an option. Does that mean the marriage should be dissolved at that point? No it does not. The biggest changes effecting marriage at this time in many christian churches is what to do with those procreating outside of marriage. Many moons ago an unmarried woman was shunned for having a baby outside of marriage. In today's time and even in churches it is celebrated. To me that celebration (my opinion) is a stamp of approval and it has led us down the path to a higher divorce rate. Far too many expect perfection in a marriage as it matures. There is no honeymoon forever. There will always be highs and lows and it's the commitment that carries you through the rough seas of life. The marriage is and should be the lifeboat for lifes changing tides.

So to clarify, the emphasis is upon the commitment between the two people, not their ability to procreate? Is it ever morally permissible to leave someone because they are sterile/infertile?

So to clarify, the emphasis is upon the commitment between the two people, not their ability to procreate? Is it ever morally permissible to leave someone because they are sterile/infertile?

To me (my opinion) the answer is no. Otherwise you could include menopause as a justifiable way of seeking divorce. If it were just based on the ability to have children. Reality of life is that its not just the genes that make a parent it's the love given and the commitment.

The presumption is that when getting married children will follow in that relationship but reality tells us a different story.

Christian and Catholic beliefs
Btw, Catholics ARE Christians. The big division is Catholic and Protestant. Both groups are Christian.

Might your topic be too broad? Christianity includes not just the Roman Catholic Church but all the Protestant churches, and even the Catholic priests don't agree necessarily with the Pope.

I can't imagine any church finding it morally permissible to divorce someone who can't have children. Look at all the Churh run orphanages eager to find Christian homes for their children.

Sorry if I offended anyone by segregating Catholics from Christians- my intent was to separate Catholic Christians from other Protestant denominations. Not to imply that any group was less "Christian" than another.

I also have a hard time imagining a church giving the okay on a divorce based on inability to have children. Which, to me, seems to imply that the essential element to a marriage is the RELATIONSHIP between spouses, not their ability or inability to have children, correct?

And, if this is correct, why the opposition on behalf of many sects of Christianity to same sex marriage? Doesn't this seem to put forth a double standard? (If two people of the opposite sex fall in love, and can't have children, it is okay for them to marry, so long as the essential elements of love and commitment are present. If two people of the same sex fall in love, and can't have children, they cannot marry because the ability to procreate is an essential characteristic to marriage, regardless of the extent of their love and commitment to one another.)

Can someone explain? Am I missing something?

No it is not proper to divorce for any of the reasons you listed, In the bible, they only gave the reason of adultry and that was not even God will but an allowance that was made.

For a Catholic specific there is not really a good and acceptable reason for divorce, That does not mean a couple may not separate, get counseling or more

As far as my topic, I am writing a philosophy thesis on the interaction of morality and law, focusing in particular upon the issue of same sex marriage.

I am looking at the way in which the moral principles of fairness and equality inform our discussion and influence legal decisions regarding marriage- and, I feel that before I can approach that question, I need to understand what is ESSENTIAL to marriage and what is ACCIDENTAL. So far, it seems that the consensus is that love and commitment are essential characteristics, whereas the ability to procreate is an accidental characteritic (can apply but is not necessary).

The purpose of marriage is not procreation. It's unity; the two becoming one. That's how it is instituted in Genesis 3, and both Jesus and Paul repeated it. Procreation is, pardon me, a side-effect. The basic principle is, what God has joined together, don't tear apart.

It doesn't always work that way; it recently happened to me after 30 years of marriage, and I didn't have a whole heck of a lot to say about it. But that's the ideal in the Bible.

And, if this is correct, why the opposition on behalf of many sects of Christianity to same sex marriage?
I was born to a Missouri-Synod Lutheran (conservative church body) minister and his wife. That church body to this day does not accept and sanctify a same-sex union simply because God created male and female and then blessed their union. He created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, to be as one.

That seems to be the main argument by mainstream Christianity against allowing Christian marriage between same-sex couples.

I also have a hard time imagining a church giving the okay on a divorce based on inability to have children. Which, to me, seems to imply that the essential element to a marriage is the RELATIONSHIP between spouses, not their ability or inability to have children, correct?

And, if this is correct, why the opposition on behalf of many sects of Christianity to same sex marriage? Doesn't this seem to put forth a double standard? (If two people of the opposite sex fall in love, and can't have children, it is okay for them to marry, so long as the essential elements of love and committment are present. If two people of the same sex fall in love, and can't have children, they cannot marry because the ability to procreate is an essential characteristic to marriage, regardless of the extent of their love and committment to one another.)

Can someone explain? Am I missing something?

What your missing is that same sex coupling is according to the bible is a sin. That runs counter to the church's goal. They don't endorse sin. The only thing they endorse is the sinner in so far as you are suppose to love one another and forgive but that has limitations too. You can't forgive unless the person repents the sin. If you continue the sin your not repenting your procreating the sin. That is not a christian value.

There is a simaler thread being posted in another forum going on very near this subject. Here is a link to it.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/am-really-damned-being-bisexual-christian-590180.html

Love was not really the main issue, if you are looking at bibical times, arranged marriages were common, if luckly people may have learned to love each other, but commitment was what was done.

Also there was not a marriage by the state, as in the US, so the marriage was controlled by the church , not the state.

And there was no fairness or equal, women had no real status, often treated more like properly at times. During marriage in bible days, often marriages were arranged when children were very young.

Legal as for as the government is merely a form of control and has no bearing on religious means of weddings.
In the US, each state keeps control of marriage under the rules of that state. ( as the states were to keep control of most things, many which are lost)

The Catholic Church has over time allowed annulements ( they don't give divorce) for some reasons, this is not accepting those things. These allow members who are divorced due normally to no fault of their own to still partake of the sacraments.

Same sex marriage can easily become legal, according to the bible it can never be moral, But society has different levels of moral values, it is often that value accepted by soceity in general. But at the Church, moral is a strict line, not subject to variations

So what is the argument against same sex marriage, then, from the religious perspective?

That the Bible says it is a sin? That it is against God's intentions for humanity, as drawn from the creation story?

And, if it is indeed that specific to religious doctrine, rather than some practical purpose (like procreation) why do so many Christians argue against same sex secular marriages? If it is not religious marriage, but civil marriage, that individuals are seeking, on what grounds can Christians argue against them? It seems that arguing against civil marriage on religious grounds would be like arguing that the state ought to mandate attendance at church on Sundays?

So what is the argument against same sex marriage, then, from the religious perspective?

That the Bible says it is a sin? That it is against God's intentions for humanity, as drawn from the creation story?
Both of those.

why do so many Christians argue against same sex secular marriages?
Christians object to the use of the word "marriage," believing that word is unique to the religious ceremony. On the other hand, the term "civil union" is a ceremony sanctioned by the government.

Not trying to be argumentative- just probing for more info from people--

But it seems that, in a secular setting, and in particular a diverse society like that which exists in the US, specific religious prohibitions should not impact the development of laws which impact the general population. If your religious beliefs are not mine, then why should my life be limited by them?

If there is no relevant difference between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple, which it seems we've established that there is not, then what makes it permissible for the government to provide the benefits of marriage to one couple but not the other?

If there are relevant differences, please explain. It just seems that, from our conversation thus far, we've come to a sort of consensus that the essential characteristic of marriage is a loving, committed relationship. If couples, both gay and straight, can have that, on what grounds is it argued that both cannot marry in a civil ceremony which grants them the same benefits from the state and federal government?

Why, then, aren't religious folks opposed to heterosexual atheists who say that they are "married", esp. if the ceremony is performed by, say, a judge?

Or are they? Maybe I'm not aware...

Please understand it is far more than marriage, From the denomination view of my and many ( if not most) christian faiths, it is not just marriage, it is the entire homosexual relationship that is wrong.

They have just accepted defeat that in American and many countries, it has been accepted by either court action or moral degrade. Most would prefer to do away with public homosexual if not all homosexual relationship. We see it as a immoral issue.

Marriage is just the next battle line that has been drawn since currently making the relationship itself illegal is not possible.

Civil union is merely a compromise that some have accepted when it appears they may lose or they get tired of being called names.

To most Christians marriage is a union done before God, that the state has taken control of for its own control.
Example to me a couple married without a license by a pastor is just as married, they just don't have legal rights as a couple.

So when given a "civil union" that gives them the same legal rights, it is not enough for many of the gay groups, who wish to push the issue.

For me, the issue is really a mute issue, since for me, it is the homosexual issue itself, one that is to my faith, against Gods will. So if it is allowed, I would wish on them all the same obligations that others have to worry about,
Divorce agreements, having to pay alimony, chlid support when they are allowed to adopt and more.
In fact, since they don't have that "legal" right but get to live in their relationship anyway. In fact I would wish on them and the hetro couples who live together, either common law marriage, or a common law civil union. Since I don't think that any of them should have a free ride without having to pay for their life choices.

So I think to many they have lost sight of the real fight, since it was lost by today's society,

on what grounds is it argued that both cannot marry in a civil ceremony which grants them the same benefits from the state and federal government?
Many Christians argue that God's intention is to join only a man and a woman in marriage. Same-sex couples need not apply for that privilege and right. As Chuck said, there is grudging acceptance by liberal Christians of a civil union for same-sex couples, but that union does not usually confer the same rights as does a marriage.

Why do you believe homosexual relationships should be illegal? Please explain what you understand to be the social consequences that warrant prohibition of homosexual relationships?

And are you saying that if society does not completely outlaw homosexual relationships (which, I don't see how it can when the opposition is based on religious criteria and we do not live in a theocracy), then same sex civil marriages ought to be legal?

(This was in response to Fr Chuck, by the way. Sorry Wondergirl, your response must have come in while I was writing!)

Why, then, aren't religious folks opposed to heterosexual atheists who say that they are "married", esp. if the ceremony is performed by, say, a judge?

Many of them are. There's even a faction of Christians who believe homosexuals must undergo counseling and return to the heterosexual lifestyle they supposedly forsake when "choosing" homosexuality.

Wondergirl-
I guess I just can't make sense of religious opposition to same sex marriage when a religious marriage is not what same sex couples are seeking? If the argument is that joining people in that manner is not "god's intention"... it seems that no one is asking god to join anyone, but instead looking for the state to offer equal benefits to gay folks in a relationship that is, as far as I can tell, just like a heterosexual couple's relationship. So how does the religious element of this argument even come into play at all?

Aside from the sex of the partners (which I don't think anyone has yet established definitively as a RELEVANT difference between heterosexual and homosexual couples), what difference is there between a gay couple and a straight couple that warrants a difference in treatment on the part of the STATE and FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS? I can understand a religion which is not accepting of homosexuality refusing to perform a religious ceremony to wed a gay couple- (although I cannot wrap my mind around why God would consider selfless and committed love to be sinful)- But, all the same, how does that RELIGIOUS objection translate to a LEGAL objection? It is still unclear to me.

Ah, the ex-gay movement... I am familiar with it. I wasn't aware that Christians were fighting just as hard against non-Christians calling their unions marriage, though. Do you have anything to document this? Not doubting you, but it would definitely be an interesting read... plus I'd need to cite my sources for my paper!

Because in many religious view points homosexual relationships are morally wrong, the same reason we don't accept pedophiles, or theft, or murder, or underage sex and the such.

And the issue is that beyond what most today try to say, the US laws were based a large part on Christian or at least religious moral values.

And there is no reason that the moral values of the majority of a nation in a Republic can not be the controlling values.

And this is where Christian falls short, if they would vote according to moral values, then no elected official would hardly get into office unless they supported those values.
Even at 51 percent of a population, actually only about 25 or 30 percent of our population would be needed if they all would actually just vote and vote on a moral platform.

But the division of faith from a First Baptist to a Freewill Baptist, to a Assembly of God to Lutheran to Catholic stops them from accepting this, but the fact that government schools teach incorrectly what the separation of Church and State are, so they think now it is wrong to vote with moral values.

If for example, all Pro Life churches ( baptist, Lutheran, Catholic, Orthodox, Assembly of God and others) all voted, every adult member went to the polls this next election and only voted for pro life people running, and then in the next voted them out if they did not vote correctly in congress,

Abortions would soon be against the law. The same with any moral issue, Christians could easily control the country if they merely worked together.

I wasn't aware that Christians were fighting just as hard against non-Christians calling their unions marriage, though.

My mistake. I misread "heterosexual" as "homosexual." I did go to WorldCat, ArticleFirst, and ERIC, though, just to check for books and papers re Christians against atheist marriage, but didn't find anything.

Wondergirl- Thank you for the clarification and for looking into that so extensively!

Why then, do you suppose, Christians are against homosexual civil marriages being called "marriage" but not against atheist marriages being called "marriage" when neither one denotes anything religious? If marriage has a religious connotation, wouldn't it make sense to argue against referring to anything that is non-religious as "marriage"?

Fr. Chuck-
"Because in many religious view points homosexual relationships are morally wrong, the same reason we don't accept pedophiles, or theft, or murder, or underage sex and the such."

All of these things listed, sans homosexual relationships, I can see being considered immoral and wrong because of the impact they have on both those involved and other individuals within society.

What are the negative effects of committed homosexual relationships that would cause it to be grouped with things like murder?

Wondergirl- Thank you for the clarification and for looking into that so extensively!

Why then, do you suppose, Christians are against homosexual civil marriages being called "marriage" but not against atheist marriages being called "marriage" when neither one denotes anything religious? If marriage has a religious connotation, wouldn't it make sense to argue against referring to anything that is non-religious as "marriage"?
As long as the atheist couples are male-female pairings, Christians probably don't have much of a problem with that, don't worry about calling it a "marriage."

These might be worth obtaining --

Copyright: © Taylor & Francis Group
Author(s): Moskowitz, David ; Rieger, Gerulf ; Roloff, Michael
Affiliation: Department of Communication, University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, USA; Department of Psychology, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA; Communications Studies Department, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA
Title: Heterosexual Attitudes Toward Same-Sex Marriage
Source: Journal of Homosexuality 57, no. 2 (2010): 325-336
Additional Info: Taylor & Francis; 20100201
Standard No: ISSN: 0091-8369
Language: EN
Database: ArticleFirst

Copyright: © University of California Press
Author(s): Badgett, M. V. Lee
Title: Will Providing Marriage Rights to Same-Sex Couples Undermine Heterosexual Marriage?
Source: Sexuality Research & Social Policy 1, no. 3 (2004): 1-10
Additional Info: University of California Press; 20040901
Standard No: ISSN: 1553-6610
DOI: 10.1525/srsp.2004.1.3.1
Language: English
Database: ArticleFirst

Author(s): Regan Jr. Milton C.
Title: Same-Sex Marriage and Communal Dialogue.
People either assert that marriage is ordained as heterosexual by God and / or nature, or claim that it is a universal right that should be open to all couples. Is there room for dialogue?
Source: The Responsive community : rights and responsibilities. 8, no. 4, (Fall 1998): 56
Additional Info: Center for Policy Research,
Alt Journal: Key Title: The Responsive community
Standard No: ISSN: 1053-0754 CODEN: RECOEZ
OCLC No: 22448114
Database: ArticleFirst

Author(s): Krause, Harry D
Title: Essay - Marriage for the New Millennium: Heterosexual, Same Sex -- Or Not at All?
Source: Family law quarterly. 34, no. 2, (2000): 271
Additional Info: Section of Family Law, American Bar Association,
Alt Journal: Key Title: Family law quarterly Preceding Title: American Bar Association. Section of Family Law. Proceedings of the section
Standard No: ISSN: 0014-729X
OCLC No: 1568788
Database: ArticleFirst

Title: The case for same-sex marriage :
from sexual liberty to civilized commitment /
Author(s): Eskridge, William N.
Publication: New York : Free Press,
Year: 1996
Description: 296 p. ; 24 cm.
Language: English
Contents: Civilizing gays, civilizing straights -- History of same-sex marriage -- Debate within the lesbian and gay community -- Mainstream objections to same-sex marriage -- The constitutional case: the right to marry -- The constitutional case: discrimination -- Epilogue: fear of flaunting -- Appendix.
Standard No: ISBN: 0684824043; 9780684824048 LCCN: 95-51540

Abstract: Suddenly, thanks to a surprising decision by the Hawaii Supreme Court, the issue of same-sex marriage is sweeping the country. Two-thirds of all Americans are reportedly opposed to the idea - but the discussion has just begun. Should the institution of marriage be redefined and expanded? Or should the state continue to restrict the choices of its gay and lesbian citizens? In this timely book that just might change the law of the land, William Eskridge offers arguments that will be controversial among both gays and straights. First, he demonstrates that only the modern West has failed to provide some form of sanction for same-sex unions. For those who claim that marriage has never been anything but heterosexual, Eskridge's historical evidence presents a profound challenge. Second, he argues that legalizing same-sex marriage would help civilize gays. Whether because of the biology of masculinity or the furtiveness of illegality, gay men have been known for their promiscuous subcultures. Promiscuity has encouraged a cult of youth worship and has contributed to the stereotype of homosexuals as people who lack a serious approach to life. It is time for gay America to mature, and there can be no more effective path to maturity than marriage. Third, same-sex marriage would help civilize America. A civilized polity assures equality for all its citizens. Without full access to the institutions of civic life, gays and lesbians cannot be full participants in the American experience. Gays and lesbians love their country, and have contributed in every way to its flourishing. Along the way, Eskridge discusses the controversial issue of raising children in gay households. Finally, in an Appendix, he includes letters from a broad cross-section of American clergy - Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish, evangelical, traditional, and modern - in support of legalization. The Case for Same-Sex Marriage will catalyze arguments from coast to coast and stand at the forefront of political controversy for a long time to come.
SUBJECT(S)
Descriptor: Gay couples -- Legal status, laws, etc. -- United States.
Lesbian couples -- Legal status, laws, etc. -- United States.
Same-sex marriage -- United States.
Couples homosexuels -- Droit -- États-Unis.
Couples de lesbiennes -- Droit -- États-Unis.
Homosexuels -- Marriage -- États-Unis.
Geographic: USA
Note(s): Includes bibliographical references (p. 269-287) and index.
Class Descriptors: LC: KF538; HQ76.3.U5; Dewey: 306.848
Responsibility: William N. Eskridge, Jr.
Vendor Info: Baker & Taylor YBP Library Services Baker and Taylor (BKTY YANK BTCP) 25.00 Status: active
Document Type: Book
Entry: 19951220
Update: 20110325
Accession No: OCLC: 33983606
Database: WorldCat

Title: Gay marriage /
Author(s): Burns, Kate,; 1963-
Publication: Detroit : Greenhaven Press,
Year: 2005
Description: 107 p. ; 24 cm.
Language: English
Series: At issue; Variation: At issue (San Diego, Calif.)
Contents: A legal history of same-sex marriage battles in the United States / NOLO Law for All -- Gay marriage should be legal / John Kusch -- Gay marriage should not be legal / Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith -- Gay marriage would promote social stability / Samuel G. Freedman -- Gay marriage would harm society / Sam Schulman -- Same-sex marriage would benefit children / Anne Pollock -- Same-sex marriage would harm children / Maggie Gallagher -- A constitutional amendment against gay marriage is wrong / Dale Carpenter -- A constitutional amendment against gay marriage is necessary / First Things -- Canada's same-sex marriage law should not be opposed in the name of religion / Tarek Fatah and Nargis Tapal -- Religion will be undermined by the Massachusetts same-sex marriage law / David Limbaugh -- Why gays should oppose same-sex marriage / Judith Levine -- Why gays should support same-sex marriage / Richard Goldstein -- The gay marriage debate exposes heterosexual hypocrisy / Froma Harrop.
Standard No: ISBN: 0737723769 (lib. Bdg. : alk. Paper); 9780737723762 (lib. Bdg. : alk. Paper); 0737723777 (pbk. : alk. Paper); 9780737723779 (pbk. : alk. Paper); Stock no: 1233798 LCCN: 2004-47445
Abstract: Authors debate the legalization of gay marriage, the issue of a constitutional amendment against gay marriage, and the effects of same-sex marriage on society.
SUBJECT(S)
Descriptor: Same-sex marriage.
Same-sex marriage -- Religious aspects.
Same-sex marriage -- Law and legislation.
Gay parents -- Family relationships.
Note(s): Includes bibliographical references (p. 99-103) and index.
Class Descriptors: LC: HQ1033; Dewey: 306.84/8/0973
Responsibility: Kate Burns, book editor.
Vendor Info: Ingram Quality Books, Inc. Baker and Taylor Baker & Taylor Baker & Taylor YBP Library Services (INGR QUAL BTCP BKTY BKTY YANK) 29.95 21.20 Status: active active
Document Type: Book
Entry: 20040402
Update: 20100710
Accession No: OCLC: 54931657
Database: WorldCat

I searched ArticleFirst and WorldCat using "homosexual marriage" as keywords and listed only the ones that seemed on topic. Other keywords would bring up many more articles and books, I'm sure.

Wondergirl- Thank you for the clarification and for looking into that so extensively!

Why then, do you suppose, Christians are against homosexual civil marriages being called "marriage" but not against atheist marriages being called "marriage" when neither one denotes anything religious? If marriage has a religious connotation, wouldn't it make sense to argue against referring to anything that is non-religious as "marriage"?

I will take a stab at answering this one if its OK.

The government has an interest in a marriage as one of its likely outcomes is children thereby increasing the population. That holds true in the traditional marriage format. So if athiests were to marry by government sanction then there is a good chance there will be offspring. It is in the next generation the wellspring of hope becomes eternal. Even non religious parent can and do have religious children.

So in the format of marriage they aren't breaking any religiuos laws as it wouldn't be sinful for them to multiply.

If your religious beliefs are not mine, then why should my life be limited by them?


This one begs the question. Should your choice of a sexual lifestyle be an over riding factor as a place of preference ?

With the exception of marriage (defense of marriage act) in what way has your life been limited ?

Hi there.
I am working on a paper and would like to get some input from a Christian perspective.

Marriage has changed over time from an institution which existed for the purposes of property transfer, establishing political ties, inheriting wealth, continuing bloodlines, etc. to what it is today. However, what it is today in Western culture is largely unclear to me.

I was raised Catholic. Not a go-to-church-on-easter-and-christmas Catholic, but very involved in my church. The emphasis, for me, was always on love. And I'm wondering if that was an accurate understanding...

Hi Margog,

No. Marriage has always been a covenant relationship between man, woman and God. Marriage, in the Catholic perspective, matrimony, is the office of motherhood. "Matri" mother. Mony "office". When Catholics bind themselves in the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony, they vow to bring up children for God.

The other concerns you bring up are largely social and political. As for the Catholic Church, what God has brought together, let no man tear asunder.


Please be as detailed in your reasoning as possible. I am trying to understand what the current perspective on this is so I can reference it in my paper. I appreciate any feedback on this you can offer.

I hope that helps.

Sincerely,

De Maria