A Challenge

[acdntlpoet]

In light of recent discussion on other forums of which I am a member, (as well as: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/print/20060603.html) I would like to pose a challenge:


The Challenge: Adequately explain how constitutionally allowing gay marriages threatens heterosexual marriages.
Sub-Challenge1: Conversely, explain how constitutionally -banning- gay marriages works to strengthen heterosexual marriages.
Sub-Challenge2: Break your response into separate political and theological arguments.

Any response must be coherent, logical, and not based solely on Biblical law taken from Leviticus.
The best, rock-solid explanation gets the prize.

The Reward: The New Kids on the Block "Hangin' Tough" CD, slightly used… a “Superior Coaches” keychain... plus whatever pocket change I may have on me, which I will be adding to daily until a winner is found. (Current coffers are at a whopping total of 56 cents).

What I hope to accomplish here is to simply get you thinking… and keep me thinking as well. Hopefully sometime within my lifetime I will see the masses realize that there is no threat and marriage will be legal regardless of gender.


…And don’t even get me started on this “pre-pregnant” crap which the CDC is putting forth as guidelines for all women AND health care organizations (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR2006051500875_pf.html). Being treated as “pre-pregnant” is offensive to any Child Free (by choice) couple.

Comments

Re: Let me give it a try:

[kij66.livejournal.com]

"Only by clearly and consistently indicating the wrongness of homosexual relationships can men and women be induced to have sex with each other at all"

ROFLOL I'll admit it, up until that point, you were starting to scare me!

Re: Let me give it a try:

[acdntlpoet.livejournal.com]

Yup, I'm with Karen on this.... I trust Vinnie is indeed being as sarcastic as I think he is ... (not sure if this disqualifies him for the NKOTB though, as it IS the best response so far! :) )

Re: Let me give it a try:

[vinnie-tesla.livejournal.com]

Laugh away.

Men and women, from childhood on, have very different biological and social imperatives. They are naturally disposed to different reproductive strategies; men are (on average) larger and stronger; the relative levels of various hormones, the difference in the rate of maturity, and many other factors make it far, far easier for women to get along with other women and men to get along with men.

Men, after all, know what men like far better than women do; women know how women think and feel far better than men do. But a man and a woman come together as strangers and their natural impulses remain at odds throughout their lives, requiring constant compromise, suppression of natural desires, and an unending effort to learn how to get through the intersexual swamp.

--Orson Scott Card (http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html)

Re: Let me give it a try:

[acdntlpoet.livejournal.com]

But on the same hand, Orson has also stated:
"Regardless of their opinion of homosexual "marriage," every American who believes in democracy should be outraged that any court should take it upon itself to dictate such a social innovation without recourse to democratic process."

While in his writings it is obvious he disagrees with homosexual marriages, he also doesn't seem to agree with constitutionally banning or allowing them either.

He goes on to write:
"Civilizations that enforce rules of marriage that give most males and most females a chance to have children that live to reproduce in their turn are the civilizations that last the longest. It's such an obvious principle that few civilizations have even attempted to flout it.

Even if the political system changes, as long as the marriage rules remain intact, the civilization can go on."

So if we take Orson's ideologies at face value, my wife and I would fall into the same category as homosexual marriages since we have decided to not pro-create, which is seemingly the entire argument FOR only heterosexual marriages. Since marriage is only, according to Mr. Card, about providing the ability to mate and create children to ensure the survival of the society, any marriage which does not produce children would be as much of an aberration as he seems to believe homosexual marriages are.

While the genetic survival theory is fairly solid at its base ideas, the fact that marriage is ONLY about pushing the civilization's survival forward by another generation is preposterous. The times have changed in the past 400 years. People now often marry out of a new concept called "Love" and many do this without any intent on pro-creating.

So, to outlaw homosexual marriages based on the concept that they harm the possibility of civilization's survival because they do not produce children would also require banning heterosexual couples from marrying if they have chosen a Child-Free lifestyle.

Re: Let me give it a try:

[kij66.livejournal.com]

"would also require banning heterosexual couples from marrying if they have chosen a Child-Free lifestyle."

Shhhhhhh!!! Good gods man, DON'T GIVE THEM ANY IDEAS!!!!

Re: Let me give it a try:

[acdntlpoet.livejournal.com]

If "they" are having this much trouble with a homosexual marriage ban, there is no way a hetero-child-free marriage ban would become a reality.

Re: Let me give it a try:

[liadan-giolla-b.livejournal.com]

If "they" are having this much trouble with a homosexual marriage ban, there is no way a hetero-child-free marriage ban would become a reality.
*********

"They" don't need to ban childfree marriages. "They" just need to ban birth control and abortion. No more childfree marriages, unless one or both are infertile. But then they can get a Handmaid to bear a child for them...