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.
Why does it seem like fanaticism distorts a persons perception of reality?
Friday, The Pajama Pundit made a post on his blog that was mainly pointing out a post written by TheAmericanBoy. At some point in the day, members of the Team Sarah site, began inundating PJ?s post with comments, many of them fairly unfriendly.
The first mistake that many of the commenters made was not realizing that PJ had merely quoted a post from another blog. They attacked the post as if the posted words were PJ?s and not TheAmericanBoy. Several of the posts look like they are copied and pasted from a list of talking points.
Ever since the 2000 election there has been a slow building movement towards doing away with or changing the way the Electoral College system works. Maryland was the first state to do this in April 2007, although their law was conditional on other states passing similar laws. This is referred to as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Since then, Illinois, Hawaii, and New Jersey have also joined the compact. It now looks like Iowa may be following in this trend.
I understand the frustrations that came out of the close race of 2000. Had the compact been in place at that time Al Gore would have been our 43rd President. But doing away with the electoral college system in this way bothers me. Allowing the race for president to hinge solely on popular votes means that smaller states will have little to no say in the elections. States like California, New York, and Florida will always decide the outcome. The electoral college creates sense of equality among the states and I don?t like the idea of loosing that.