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.
Yesterday the Treasury announced that it would let 10 of the largest TARP recipient banks to start paying back as much as $68 Billion of the $200 Billion that was given out. While this is definitely a good sign we are not yet in the clear.
While the collapse of the U.S. banking system is no longer seen as an imminent danger, access to the capital markets remains difficult and bank balance sheets are clogged with troubled loans and other assets. Most of the nation’s 8,000 banks are being hammered by the recession, and the number of bank failures is expected to climb. The 10 banks seeking to return government money will be able to continue leaning on the U.S. government in other ways, including by issuing debt guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.