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.
Cash for Clunkers
The surge in US auto sales that has been a result of the government?s Cash for Clunkers program has prompted both Ford and GM to increase their planed production rates for the second half of 2009.
The No.1 U.S. carmaker said it would build 60,000 more vehicles than planned for the third and fourth quarters by increasing overtime, adding shifts at several North American assembly plants.
The move will bring about 1,350 hourly workers in the United States and Canada back to assembly lines, GM said.
There are obviously a lot of questions about the program, like will the growth in auto sales be sustainable or will it fizzle once the program runs out of cash again? How will the increases in production trickle down through the supply chain and thus to the rest of the economy? We have seen companies running side by side add on programs and matching programs which I think they can run with even after the end of the program, so I?m fairly optimistic, but like most things the government does, it?s still in essence a gamble. So far it looks like it?s paying off.