....insert description here....
Gay Marriage and other means of diminishing the institution
Published on January 5, 2004 By fugmulch In Current Events
As some may know, Mass is in the throws of the debate over gay marriage. Mass State Supreme Court says legalize it, Mass congress is debating the issue as well as using civil unions, the Mass Attorney General wants civil union, religious groups want all homosexuals to go away forever, etc. The list is endless.

Well, I think we should up the ante and take this federal. Why let the states muck around willy-nilly when good ol Uncle Sam can step in.

Gay marriage detracts from the institution of marriage. Well then, I say lets take a look at other things that also demean marriage. How about celebrity overnight (or pre-lunch as it may be) marriages? Or Elizabeth Taylor, how many husbands has she had?

I propose that we make marriage between celebrities illegal, immediately.

What about divorce? That is pretty bad also, isn't it? Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the nation at about 2.4% per annum. Nevada has the highest at about 9%.

I say, we take away the right of the state of Nevada to issue marriage licenses. Too many divorces, makes marriage look bad.

The Mass State Attorney General argued, in court, that the primary purpose of marriage is procreation. This is one of his core arguments against. Lets run with this, why stop at gay marriages? Women over 50 can't have babies (at least not reliably yet), so why are they getting married?

No marriages to women over 50, no more, problem solved.

Oh yeah, how about those people who get married then don't have children? Lets get them also. All married couples must produce 2 children by their 5th year of marriage. If by the end of 5 years they have not, they will be forced to adopt 1 or 2 children to make up the difference, or their marriage is immediately terminated.

Yeah, I think that will help protect marriage as we know, and love, it.
Comments
on Jan 05, 2004
There is no secular argument for keeping marriage between a man and a woman. As long as one accepts that homosexuality is an acceptable practice for those with the inclination, then there is no reason to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples.

Just as C.S. Lewis a half a century ago, felt that the state should not interfere with divorce because Christians believed that divorce was wrong, I believe that there should be no restriction against gay marriage. There has been the distinction between a religious ceremony and a civil ceremony.

The big if, however, is whether or not society considers homosexuality acceptable. As of yet, most people do not accept it. So no matter what the argument, the government is probably not going to get ahead of the people.
on Jan 06, 2004
I agree with you, however I think you took my ramblings too seriously.
on Jan 07, 2004
How about this? Since the primary object of marriage is procreation, why not then stipulate that the only time a married couple can have sexual relations is when they intend to procreate? How popular would marriage actually be to anyone then?
on Jan 07, 2004
I like it, now we just need to solve the problem of sex outside of marriage. How about the mandatory use of chastity belts by all? Huzzah!
on Jan 07, 2004
"Since the primary object of marriage is procreation"



Wow....learn something new everyday. I thought it was the union of two people......my marriage vows and license said nothing about "procreation"

Though, I guess that would end the "gay marriage" debate, then...


on Sep 21, 2004
Brittney Spears gets married for the 4th time, and only second time this year!

Now Brittney is 22, legal marriage is 18, so by the time she is 65, at her current rate, she will have been married 47 times!

go Brittney!