I’ve become convinced that we need to strike the phrase “traditional marriage” and replace it with “natural marriage.” For one thing, this change will drive the gay activists crazy, raising immediately the one argument they find most impossible to answer— that as a mechanism for preserving the species and raising a new generation, same sex unions are undeniably unnatural…. Rather than placing us in the uncomfortable, reactive position of trying to defend “tradition,” the new term “natural marriage” will force the other side to try to assert the obviously absurd proposition that it’s just as natural for a same-sex couple to raise somebody else’s baby as it is for a heterosexual couple to raise their own.
July 29, 2006
And, just like that, we have a new and different excuse for hating those who think and live differently
0 TrackBacks
Entry TrackBack URL: http://whatwouldjackdo.net/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/244
5 Comments
Leave a comment
Help WWJD Pay Its Bills!
My niece is a lesbian, legally married to her partner and they are the adoptive parents of two boys. Since it's obvious that asshat Medved knows absolutely nothing about the subject, I'd invite him to spend an hour or two with that family, except that I wouldn't want to contaminate their home with whatever disease it is that afflicts him and others who possess so much hatred. On the other hand, my family pretty much just ignores these idiots. Let them wallow in their own self-righteous ignorance while the rest of us get on with our lives.
If two individuals want to enter into a binding civil agreement, they should be able to do so. It's really none of our government's business who marries who. Yet, like many other aspects of our lives, our government sticks is nose into private matters by regulating, defining, and controlling what should be a personal matter. And, as usual, the results are less than desirable.
IMHO, No lifelong partnership between two people should begin with the words:
It's none of their business.
Now, that last statement is nonsense. People tend to think that marriage is none of the state's business UNTIL there is a divorce, or child custody battle, or joint ownership of a home or other goods, or joint credit, or joint guardianship of children or even pets, or of course probate of an estate on death. THEN all of a sudden: "Hey, what about my *marriage*, don't I have legal rights?"
In other words, it's no business of the government's...until it's convenient for the partners and then it's all the government's business retroactively? Stuff and nonsense.
It is a fantasy, even a non sequitur, to pretend that a *legal* institution is no business of the government's. It is a contract, and government enforces contracts, QED. Marriage is not private, never has been, and so long as the married people *themselves* are the ones counting on marriage for legal protection, it is fruadulent and hypocritical to pretend it could be private.
Some Guy and I could enter into a legally binding contract, and if either of us failed to live up to our agreement, the other could use the civil justice system to seek relief. The government would not be involved until the appropriate time.
Assuming that it is necessary or beneficial for the government to regulate marriage is a popular paradigm, but fundamentally nonsensical.
I need to rush out and buy a lotto ticket immediately. Bob and I actually agree on something. Must be some sort of cosmic event that can only portend good fortune.