TV Schedule

Civil Rights Fiight of our Time


  3. embed code
  4. hollyg
  5. related topics
No one ever points out that straight folks have messed up the institution of marriage far more than anyone else ever could. Britney Spears, anyone?
hollyg

4 responses // Civil Rights Fiight of our Time

  • I agree! Marriage is nothing but an extension of a religious contract that has seeped into our legal system. It is hardly a separation of church and state in itself, so why are we allowing our government to recognize it at all? AND, like you said, it barely even has any religious credibility any more either, so let's just abolish it and start over with a new system in which we are all on a level playing field. You rock!!
    inetnate
  • very well put! I think the religious right should talk to their flock about the extremely high divorce rate rather than the "threat" of gay marriage.
    sarahbelle
  • @inetnate

    Bingo. Marriage should be totaly within the domain of religious institutions. IF it was up to each church to decide who could and couldn't get married we wouldn't have this problem. Why should married people get tax breaks anyhow? (No, I'm NOT being sarcastic. Individuals or couples (straight or gay) who are raising/prepraing to raise children should get tax breaks, but in the modern world there's no reason to give a bonus to folks just for being married.
    noahjn
  • A very persuasive argument. I hope you continue to spread the word. I too have always been bothered by the argument from opponents of same-sex marriages who claim to oppose it because it cannot result in procreation.

    I have always felt that those who have tried to defend marriage on the basis of procreation is that it is a failed argument. Sadly it has been accepted by many courts in the United States. Ultimately, it is a flawed. If that is the purpose if marriage, then in order to "defend" marriage, why do we not propose a constitutional amendment indicating that any marriage that does not produce children within three years is thereby NULL AND VOID. I wonder how popular that would be? Along with that, tubal ligations and vasectomies would be banned by constitutional amendment because they do not allow for procreation in heterosexual marriage.

    Further, heterosexual senior citizen couples in which women who are beyond menopause must also be banned from entering into marriage because they cannot produce children. Condoms must be banned for sale and use in the United States, along with birth control pills and all other forms artificial contraception. Any doctors or patients who attempt to use these items must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

    Families come in all shapes and sizes. It is not for others to decide what is or is not a loving family for someone else.

    As much as they forget, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution reads, in part: "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Last I checked, homosexuals are, in fact, persons. Therefore, they too are granted equal protection under the law.
    bully2

Add your response

Login/Registration is required to add a response.