How do I love marriage? Let me count the ways.
By on Apr 18th, 2006 at 2:30 pm
How do I love marriage? Let me count the ways.
Coloradans for Marriage is a right-wing group “pushing an anti-gay amendment in their state. To support their cause, they’ve created a list of all the great things about marriage,” mcjoan writes at DailyKos. “It’s, um, a bit sparse.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
A bit sparse is an understatement.
That’s all the website says.
Here, I will start the list:
People won’t have to hire hookers.
You can grow old together and change each others diapers.
When you get older, you can start wearing matching outfits.
April 18th, 2006 at 2:35 pmThat’s so funny, the page is blank.
The greatest thing about marriage is:
Wait…it will come to me…um…well…
Take it away, Spudge!
April 18th, 2006 at 2:43 pmUse leftovers more effectively, day in and day out.
April 18th, 2006 at 2:45 pmHave someone to blame when stuff goes wrong.
Two words – “Got Fiber?”
Continuing from Spudge_Boy:
April 18th, 2006 at 2:45 pm4. We can hate queers together!
If you’re a republican in congress or the white house, how about this one:
5. You’re spouse can’t be legally compelled to testify against you.
6. You can collect twice the graft by placing your spouse on the payroll.
April 18th, 2006 at 2:47 pmMany on the right have argued the need to pass a constitutional amendment making marriage only between one man and one woman. Underlying the motivation is the oft heard argument that the family needs to be protected from secularism and a leniency towards social issues that conflict with religious or Biblical doctrine. Absent from the argument is the obvious disconnection between the amendment and actually protecting the family. Here’s the issue. The proponents argue that allowing same sex marriage will harm families as it defies both religious and historical convention in the practical definition of a family. Many argue that a child cannot be properly raised in a same sex family and therefore providing legal recognition to such arrangements is tantamount to promoting the demise of the family.
I’ve listened long and hard to these arguments with a strong sense of doubt for both the legitimacy of the argument as well as the motivations behind the argument. When I find myself in such dilemmas, I would suggest that exploring and pursuing the theory to its extreme conclusion will often illuminate the truth of the matter. So in my truth seeking exercise, I begin with looking at one man and one woman literally…meaning that if one accepts the Bible and religious doctrine as the origin of the argument, then it requires only one man and one woman…period. Not one man at a time or one woman at a time…or trading in one man for another or one woman for another…but each man must join only one woman and visa versa. I find it interesting that nothing is ever inserted into these proposed constitutional amendments that would fully uphold this underlying Biblical and religious principle. If in fact preserving and protecting the family is the purpose, then failing to fully address the issue leaves the motivations of the proponents open to skepticism. Further, the data is far more conclusive as to the damages that result from divorce and single family parenting than any of the data relative to damages inflicted upon children raised in committed same sex relationships. Where’s the outrage?
Now in fairness, there are some on the right, who support a one man and one woman amendment, that also argue that extramarital relationships are bad, that divorce is wrong, and that broken homes are injurious to children and the family. However they do not seek to add provisions to their amendments to address these issues…issues that are equally, if not more clearly outlined in religious doctrine than those that are reported to denounce same sex relationships. One must then examine why. There are numerous possibilities, albeit none as noble as the rhetoric and banter used to oppose same sex marriage. One explanation is the lesser sinner proposition…the argument that a failed marriage, adultery, or divorce between a man and a woman is a lesser sin than any same sex union. Honest Biblical scholars would acknowledge the weakness of this argument. Another possibility is that it’s better to set the bar for others in order to avoid examining your own failings. In reality, the identified explanations only serve to heighten the likelihood that dubious motivations lurk beneath this inconsistent approach to protecting the family and upholding Biblical principles.
The cynic would likely go further and demand that the hypocrisy be challenged. The cynic might insist that those of principle must indeed modify their behaviors and begin to demonstrate the sincerity of their beliefs by immediately acting to effect the intended result…saving the family and the institution they put forth as sacred and certain. The cynic might then choose to take the offensive and demand that the well documented history of doctrinal disregard exhibited by numerous heterosexuals is deserving of proactive and preemptive legislation or a constitutional amendment. In fact the cynic might go so far as to ask the proverbially pregnant question…is this push to save marriage and the family from same sex unions simply bigotry at work? Call me a cynic.
read more observations here:
http://www.thoughttheater.com
April 18th, 2006 at 2:48 pm#6 – Cynic. ;)
April 18th, 2006 at 2:51 pm7) You can set your spouse up to take 15% off the top of your campaign contributions as their “finders fee”.
8) You can show off your “spouse” at all campaign rallies but later have your gruelling, sweatty workout with your consultant Jeff Gannon…..
April 18th, 2006 at 2:53 pm6. Makes a great disguise.
April 18th, 2006 at 2:56 pm8) You can show off your “spouse†at all campaign rallies but later have your gruelling, sweatty workout with your consultant Jeff Gannon…..
Comment by kindness — April 18, 2006 @ 2:53 pm
…..who will never be able to play the ‘I’ll cut you off if you don’t divorce your wife and marry me’ card.
April 18th, 2006 at 2:58 pmHaha. I had to take a screen capture of that, in case I need to show it to people in the future.
April 18th, 2006 at 3:08 pmMakes you wonder if the group is fake, or if the website got hacked.
April 18th, 2006 at 3:11 pmActually, there are a lot of great things about marriage, which is presumably why so many gay couples want to tie the knot. But it seems to be the burden on them is to think of things that would only apply to hetero couples. Hence the sparsity.
April 18th, 2006 at 3:17 pmIt is like Kinky said – Why shouldn’t they (gays) have to suffer like the rest of us!!
April 18th, 2006 at 3:19 pmI don’t think gays should have to get married.
Wasn’t there something about cruel and unusual punishment?
April 18th, 2006 at 3:27 pmMaybee the hetero’s don’t really like marriage all that much?
April 18th, 2006 at 3:52 pmhey jules, how’s that kinky thing working out? that guy’s a jewel, and a rare one…
April 18th, 2006 at 4:13 pmback in the 70s i had a good friend very into KFand the texas jewboys…a hoot…
i saw an interview on 60 minutes (i think) and it was great, but he made me feel real bad with one comment – that people who declaw cats deserve a special place in hell…aaarrrgh!!! i went through a serious anquish when i had to make up my mind to declaw a new kitty – after having my first cat tear up some fine things – and then i find out i’m goin to hell…sheesh…but i don’t regret it now and the cat’s fine and still has back claws and she knows how to use them!
excuse the ramblin’…
1. You can have sex everyday with another person without fear of catching a disease.
April 18th, 2006 at 4:22 pm2. You can file joint tax returns and pay less tax.
No one has surpassed Bierce’s definition of marriage from the Devil’s Dictionary:”The state or condition of a community consisting of a master a mistress and two slaves,making in all,two.”
April 18th, 2006 at 4:38 pmthere is nothing wrong with marriage, Marriage for Everyone!!!
April 18th, 2006 at 4:42 pmYep, that’s about it.
April 18th, 2006 at 4:50 pm#18 – 1. You can have sex everyday with another person without fear of catching a disease.
Comment by Goebbels
You know, that only works out if the person you’re having sex with everyday is the person you married. Just sayin’
April 18th, 2006 at 5:11 pm#18- Your spouse can still cheat on you while you’re married. You can have sex with someone you trust without fear of getting an STD. Marriage doesn’t stop STD’s.
April 18th, 2006 at 5:56 pmcommitment and monogamy stop STD’s.
=)
April 18th, 2006 at 7:07 pmi still say the greatest threat to “traditional” marriage is heterosexuals ….
April 18th, 2006 at 7:31 pmAnd here I thought condoms and pennicillan stopped STDs.
April 18th, 2006 at 8:49 pmI say, it’s 2006 and face it, things are NOT the same as it has been for “thousands of years” as stated in their Talking Points. Besides, they even state in their own words “We should not ignore what thousands of years and all cultures have taught us about marriage” [my italics]. Notice the word “taught”. Aren’t we always learning as humans? That’s what makes us grow.
What we are learning today is that marriage, which was based on having sex for procreation and fealty, has grown into a union for lifelong companionship and fealty. It’s not about having sex: we don’t need marriage to get it anymore, and the stigmatizing is non-existent (well….if the neo-conservatives have their way….).
That is what these “thousands of years” are teaching us. I sense those who don’t want to learn and grow as the human species are the ones most resistent to change, based on fear.
April 18th, 2006 at 10:07 pmLOL
April 18th, 2006 at 10:57 pm#18 – infidelity and the Alternative Minimum Tax. Remember, nothing is certain in this life except death and taxes.
April 18th, 2006 at 11:47 pmI guess the Web master got his job because he was Bush’s attorney.
April 19th, 2006 at 8:14 amI suspect that there is little to nothing — not any more, at least — good about marriage qua marriage. It’s a social construct that has outlived its purpose, and the only reason so many people “want” it is that they have been conditioned to want it.
Similarly, they have been conditioned to unthinkingly accept the existence of a god. And of the universal goodness of money. And so on. Key word: unthinkingly.
Just my opinions.
April 19th, 2006 at 9:45 amSex Free Sex Pictures Office Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 18th, 2008 at 12:24 amSex Girls Having Sex Rough Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 23rd, 2008 at 6:15 pmSex Gay Sex Anime Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 25th, 2008 at 4:49 amYoung Girls Youngest Boys Gallery Young Girls Naked
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 25th, 2008 at 10:28 amKds Bbs Pics Underage Porn Kid Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 27th, 2008 at 2:18 am