![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
juldeaIn recent days, both President Bush and Governor Romney have attempted
to make a case for defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman
on the grounds that marriage exists mainly for creating and raising
children. This platform is a slap in the face to the thousands if not
millions of childless or childfree couples in the United States. Many
married couples either choose not to have children or physically
cannot, and the current rhetoric insinuates that their marriages lose
validity because of a lack of offspring in their lives. An infertile
couple is no different with regards to procreation than a homosexual
couple - and yet I see no section of this amendment requiring
prospective spouses to prove their fertility in order to receive a
marriage license. If the talking heads are going to base the
definition of marriage on ability to breed, logic dictates they take a
stand against childless couples as well as homosexual couples.
Choosing to exclude only one of these groups without mentioning the
other simply makes obvious the true agenda behind the exclusion - a
veiled attempt to lower a segment of our population to second-class
status simply because of whom they love.
My Name
Somerville, MA
Contracts Administrator
26 years old
to make a case for defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman
on the grounds that marriage exists mainly for creating and raising
children. This platform is a slap in the face to the thousands if not
millions of childless or childfree couples in the United States. Many
married couples either choose not to have children or physically
cannot, and the current rhetoric insinuates that their marriages lose
validity because of a lack of offspring in their lives. An infertile
couple is no different with regards to procreation than a homosexual
couple - and yet I see no section of this amendment requiring
prospective spouses to prove their fertility in order to receive a
marriage license. If the talking heads are going to base the
definition of marriage on ability to breed, logic dictates they take a
stand against childless couples as well as homosexual couples.
Choosing to exclude only one of these groups without mentioning the
other simply makes obvious the true agenda behind the exclusion - a
veiled attempt to lower a segment of our population to second-class
status simply because of whom they love.
My Name
Somerville, MA
Contracts Administrator
26 years old
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
on 6 Jun 2006 18:35 (UTC)no subject
on 6 Jun 2006 18:40 (UTC)no subject
on 6 Jun 2006 18:42 (UTC)no subject
on 6 Jun 2006 18:48 (UTC)no subject
on 6 Jun 2006 18:48 (UTC)http://www.wdxcyber.com/nmood13.htm
no subject
on 6 Jun 2006 18:49 (UTC)no subject
on 6 Jun 2006 18:53 (UTC)I'd rather just get my tubes cut, personally. I suspect, however, that once I get off the hormanal BC, my ragin PMS and endometriosis like symptoms will come back.
no subject
on 7 Jun 2006 11:27 (UTC)I have a friend who was spayed recently, for, I suspect, less than necessary reasons. Apparently total hysterectomies are more common than needed. Menopause is no good at 23.
(Yet if you ask them to spay you they won't.... Sheesh!)
no subject
on 6 Jun 2006 20:16 (UTC)