Definition of Marriage

May 13th, 2009

For several days now, I?ve been in a running argument with an individual who goes by the name of ?On Lawn? over in the comments sections of the blog ran by anti-gay equality group National Organization for Marriage. In several comments here, here, and here, this person seems to imply that procreation, or at least the potential for procreation, is a requirement of marriage. I?ve tried several times to get this person to explain this concept but they keep brushing off the question calling it absurd. When I tried to point out that there is no link between marriage and procreation they came back with this.

Well, there shows the damage they want to do to the institution. If marriage can?t look equally at the interests of all involved in the practice of human mating, then you tell me what can.

Prehistoric humans didn?t marry before they mated, they just found a bush did it. When you look at the whole of human history, marriage is a relatively new creation, only being a few thousand years old. Our very existence proves that marriage is not a requirement or an essential element of the human mating process.


Read more

< |||| > 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Senator Harkin: Fair

160px-tom_harkin_official_portraitI find myself not too happy with Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) today. It appears that on Wednesday he went on to the liberal talk radio show of Bill Press and said?

BILL PRESS:? Alright, well good for you. You know, we gotta work on that, because they are just shutting down progressive talk from one city after another. All we want is, you know, some balance on the airwaves, that’s all. You know, we’re not going to take any of the conservative voices off the airwaves, but just make sure that there are a few progressives and liberals out there, right?

SENATOR TOM HARKIN (D-IA): Exactly, and that’s why we need the fair — that’s why we need the Fairness Doctrine back.

As B-Diddy has pointed out before, there is definitely a core group of Democrats that seem to interested in bringing the Fairness Doctrine back in some form or another. Fortunately, Obama has gone on the record against it and as Michael Calderone points out on Politico?

It seems that a lot of Democrats talk up the issue, but then there isn’t any legislation that follows.

Just to be safe though, when I get home from work tonight I will be writing a nice long letter to Senator Harkin letting him know that this Iowan is no where near close to supporting a legislative move that I feel is tantamount to censorship, regardless of how much I would love to see King Limbaugh or Bill O? be taken off the air. Radio talk shows and TV Political commentary shows are balanced by their ratings and advertising dollars. The government has no place in dictating fairness against broadcasters any more than it has with saying I can?t get married.

Cross posted on The Pajama Pundit

  • Annette, Missouri

    You know I am wondering if they are really just trying to stir things up. Since this is such a talking point for the right wing nuts and they have been attacking everyone in Congress over the Recovery bill and the President, this is a way to change the subject.

    What better way all of a sudden than to bring up such a hot button topic as the Fairness Doctrine…lol That just sets Rush, Sean, and Bill’s hair on fire more than anything… so why not..changes the subject doesn’t it…lol

  • Vast

    Maybe, but then I can’t remember Harkin doing something, just to stir the pot, before.

Categories