And islam will be right there, with its Saudi-financed mosques in major cities and small university towns.
Something the “It-doesn’t-affect-my-marriage-or-your-marriage-personally” crowd needs to read.
He forgot to add that if you teach traditional values to your children that you could in the eyes of the law you could now be seen as doing your children harm. This would give grounds to take your children away from you and put them up for adoption.
Oh and those children will be needed for all the adoptions that will be wanted by couples who could not produce their own children.
Don’t kid yourself this is the MAIN objective of this legislation. The entire goal behind it is to break up the traditional family.
Something very odd is going on here.
Anthropologists have traditionally categorized societies at the most basic level by their marriage customs, as these are the most basic institutions of society.
Yet here we are in the process of drastically altering our own marriage customs to ones never seen before in any human society, assuming all the time there will be no unforeseen negative effects.
This is societal hubris of the very highest type.
The ONLY point I can concede to the Gay Rights group, is the legal issues around a committed gay relationship. Issues that are automatic for a heterosexual marriage, require extraordinary (not superhuman, but more than anyone else requires) legal steps.
A Gay couple buy a house and start a business, one dies - unless a will is given, the surviving mate may find himself fighting his deceased family for half of his own home and/or business
A Gay couple have a car accident. One is seriously injured, the other member cannot give medical permission to allow emergency surgery, or in some states, even visit his mate in intensive care.
These, and similar other issues are the ONLY points I can concede. That’s why I prefer to use the term ‘Civil Union’ instead of “Marriage”, as the latter infers spiritual and religous aspects that are reserved by God, for a Man and a Woman. A “Marriage” exists to form families, that is the entire point of a “Marriage”; this point is not possible for a gay couple. IMHO, they have no more claim to a “Marriage” then they do to claim an Agricultural Excemption on their taxes - they do not meet the minimum qualifications of being capable of the potential of producing children.
I have no problem with legal equality - but “Marriage” is not the same thing as a “Civil Union”. A “Civil Union” is all that they are qualified to apply for. IMHO.
bookmark for later.
Where was the author of this piece when those "incredibly important societal purposes" were being nullified, one by one, over the liberalization of our laws and mores over the past fifty years?
Even now, EVEN HERE, were I to list what the now eliminated, but still real benefits of government sponsored marriage are--I'd be shouted down as a pre-historic, politically incorrect brute, so slowly has the pot been brought to boil.
Go back 40, 30, even 20 years ago - who would have every thought we’d ever be having a national debate over what is the definition of marriage? I’ll bet that 99% of people would have said it’s one man, one woman, period. The other 1% would think it’s just fine if someone wants to marry a rhododendron.
L
bump for reading later