Gay Marriage -- A Modest Proposal by Bruce Majors <http://www.facebook.com/bruce.majors1> on Wednesday, November 10, 2010 at 12:48pm
Many defenders of traditional marriage, from deep writers like Dr. Leon Kass to incisive commentators like Ann Coulter, argue that marriage has a teleology. It is not merely a contract between two (or more) adults in which they arrange their property, promises of fidelity, survivorship and guardianship issues, etc. It is primarily for the care and raising of children. Individuals, they say, make have a variety of types of relationships, but marriage is for the creation of a home, ideally with a mother and a father, where children are loved and educated by a parent of each gender who is biologically predisposed to love them because they are genetic offspring. I don't disagree with any of that. So let's say that gay people can only have civil unions or domestic partnerships, which will include all the rights about property and medical care and inheritance that exist between (married) heterosexual spouses. UNLESS they adopt children (or one gay partner adopts the biological children of his or her partner). And then they can marry. Of course then we will need to make the same situation available to heterosexuals. Heterosexuals will have to be given fertility tests when applying for a marriage license. If both partners pass they may marry. (We will be liberal and allow fertility challenged couples to obtain a license if they can demonstrate financial ability to pay for IVF, donor eggs, etc.) Otherwise heterosexuals may only become domestic partners or civilly united, until they demonstrate that they have initiated adoption proceedings. Comments? Questions? http://www.facebook.com/notes/bruce-majors/gay-marriage-a-modest-proposal/448490667685 On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 2:02 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > The sorry aspect of all this is most people are live and let live > people. If homosexuals quietly did their thing without forcing universal > societal acceptance no one would care what they're doing. > But when they force their agenda's acceptance on others--another case > of the minority dictating to the majority--they shouldn't be surprised at > the backlash. And lefties use the courts to win battles they'd never win at > the ballot box. > Because so many homosexuals are avant garde about their agenda it's no > wonder there's so much animosity waged against them. > > Bill > > After all it is those who have a deep and real inner life who are best able > to deal with the irritating details of outer life. > > - Evelyn Underhill > > In a message dated 11/10/2010 1:51:59 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > [email protected] writes: > > It's so funny to watch these retards > > They are boycotting Target too because it didn't support some gay issue. > They used to like Target and promote it above WalMart > > Soon they will be reduced to buying groceries at Citgo. > > -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
