stats for wordpress
<% unless FeatureFlag.disable_quantcast? %> <% end %>
 







Are you on Facebook?

Would you please click "like" in the box to your right, or

Visit us on Facebook!


The Six Reasons Gays Cannot Have Marriage

by David Badash on February 28, 2012

in Bigotry Watch,Marriage,News,Politics,Religion

Post image for The Six Reasons Gays Cannot Have Marriage

Minnesota For Marriage has been producing these weekly “marriage minutes” to totally spin their reasons why marriage must be reserved for “one man-one woman” only unions. This week, Kalley Yanta explains “How would redefining marriage impact your own marriage?” and gives the six simple (and stupid and bigoted and ignorant and false) reasons gay, lesbian, and bisexual couples cannot be allowed to have marriage:

 1. Sex between a man and a woman has the unique capacity to create a child.
2. Pregnancy can occur regardless of whether the couple intends to create a child
or not.
3. The new human life that is created is vulnerable and needs the protection of
adults.
4. The man and woman who created the new life typically have the most interest in
and are best at protecting and guiding that child.
5. They agree that they will both be legally responsible for any child conceived during
the marriage.
6. Couples must work for decades together to raise a child from conception to
adulthood.

See how easy and simple (and stupid and bigoted and ignorant and false) that is?

Here’s the video and the text from the weekly email newsletter:

The Question Is Not Whether A Definition Of Marriage Will Be Written Into The Minnesota Constitution. The Question Is Who Will Write It?
Which raises the question: “How would redefining marriage impact your own marriage?” which was the topic of last week’s Minnesota Marriage Minute.

CLICK HERE to view the video and share it with your family, friends and neighbors.

Marriage Is On Trial In Minnesota

As you may know, several bills have been introduced in the Minnesota legislature to redefine marriage. To read these bills click on HF 1710 and HF 1746.

More troubling, however, is a current lawsuit by three same-sex couples in Hennepin County District Court demanding that they be issued marriage licenses. The trial court properly dismissed the case, correctly ruling that the constitutionality of Minnesota’s definition of marriage had been decided by the Minnesota Supreme Court in Baker v. Nelson. The couples appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, and the three judges on that court overruled the decision and sent the case back for a trial.  Effectively putting marriage on trial in Minnesota.

Why Do We Have A Legal Definition Of Marriage?

Minnesota has a legal definition of marriage in recognition of society’s need to protect and promote the well being of children. Marriage as a social institution is found in all cultures and throughout history. It always provides recognition to a sexual union of a man and a woman directed toward the procreation and nurturing of children. Law is one way of stabilizing and protecting that social institution. The reasoning goes something like this:

1. Sex between a man and a woman has the unique capacity to create a child.
2. Pregnancy can occur regardless of whether the couple intends to create a child
or not.
3. The new human life that is created is vulnerable and needs the protection of
adults.
4. The man and woman who created the new life typically have the most interest in
and are best at protecting and guiding that child.
5. They agree that they will both be legally responsible for any child conceived during
the marriage.
6. Couples must work for decades together to raise a child from conception to
adulthood.

The short version of the argument can be summarized as: 1) Societies need babies; 2) Sex makes babies; 3) Babies need a mom and a dad; 4) Marriage is society’s attempt to insure babies have both a mom and a dad.

Please Make A Contribution!

Someone will define marriage. Please help us make sure it is decided by the people – not activist judges – by making a generous financial donation today. You can make a secure online contribution here.

Spread The Word

Redefining marriage will impact everyone. Please forward this email to all the people in your address book including friends, family, church members, neighbors and colleagues and ask them to sign up as a supporter of our campaign. It’s the quickest and easiest way to spread the word about the Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment and ask them to get involved.

Remember To Check Out Our Website

Check out our website at www.MinnesotaForMarriage.com. You can find some great information – like the Minnesota Marriage Minute – to share with your friends and family about our campaign. While on the website, make sure to connect with us on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, see our photo stream on Flickr, watch the Marriage Minute on YouTube and spread the word to your friends, and sign up to host a House Party to help recruit others to join the campaign.

Redefining marriage will impact all of Minnesota society because it will change the definition of marriage for everyone. Legal experts on both sides of the issue warn of an “immense volume of litigation” against individuals, small businesses and religious organizations. Please, don’t forget to spread the word about our efforts to your friends and make a generous donation to support our campaign!

May God richly bless you and your family.

Sincerely,

John Helmberger
Chairman

 

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Friends:

We invite you to sign up for our new mailing list, and subscribe to The New Civil Rights Movement via email or RSS.

Also, please like us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter!

{ 5 comments }

SearchCz February 28, 2012 at 9:04 am

These are all super great reasons why its a good thing for procreating straight couples to marry. By all means it is a good thing to have laws that give couples the rights and responsibilities that might lend some stability to their union, and to the decades-long work they face in building their family and community. We get it: marriage is beneficial to the individuals, the family crated by their union, and the communities of which they are a part. The thing is:

1) This is the case for gay & lesbian couples as well, many of whom are raising children without any of the "stability" that the legal protections of marriage might provide.

2) This is the case for any other childless couple, many of whom are incapable of creating new life. Yet, the law makes available all the protections of marriage to these infertile couples.

3) What "MN FOR MARRIAGE" is really saying here, is that marriage must be witheld from couples incapable or procreation because it is valuable to couples who ARE capable of procreation. I don't think many people want the state deciding how many children they must have in order to be considered "married".

If this was really about the children, organizations like "MN FOR MARRIAGE" would be concentrating on the legal definition, rights, responsibilities and protections of PARENTHOOD.

Peter Blaise February 28, 2012 at 10:06 am

What an insanely inaccurate presentation, full of lies, hateful and bigoted presumptions and WORD SPIN:

No one is "redefining marriage" for everyone.

However, saying "… redefining marriage …" is a great way to spin it to get some people scared and call out the hateful bigot vote.

All any "gay marriage agenda" aims to do is remove government's and business's insistence on a "… genitals, please …" gender check on ANYONE, including you, and you … and you, before providing "… equal protection and due process …".

Cool or what?

In other words, if you are a man and you want to marry a woman, go ahead, our government and businesses don't care about your genders — nothing changes there.

And if you're a woman and you want to marry a man, go ahead, our government and businesses doesn't care about your genders — nothing changes there.

And so on, the POINT being, our government and businesses will finally be prohibited from providing different rights and services and privileges depending on your gender — no more "… genitals, please …" gender check on ANYONE before providing "… equal protection and due process …".

Do you get the picture, the US Constitutional (and Amendments) picture?

Do I have to repeat it?

Again?

This is an INCLUSIVE advancement in civil rights — the goal is to have NO ONE suffer the "… genitals, please …" gender check ever again.

No more second class citizens, ever, please.

Click!
Love and hugs,
Peter Blaise

HTJ February 28, 2012 at 10:49 am

The wedding industry in its narrowest definition generates nearly $50 billion every year for the economy, and according to an article by Beeck and Horn for the RMA Journal, "many small business operators depend on the number and extravagance of wedding events to distinguish a good year from a bad one." So, in other words, when the GOP takes a stand against gay marriage, it also stands against small businesses.
http://www.buzzlol.com/self-control-master.html

Huntercgo February 29, 2012 at 10:27 am

So in other words, human beings are nothing more than glorified cattle, to be used as breeding stock.

lepidopteryx March 15, 2012 at 6:29 pm

1. Sex between a man and a woman has the unique capacity to create a child.
–And allowing same sex couples to marry will change this how? Will all the "gay energy" in the air render hetero couples sterile? Will hetero couples stop knocking boots if same-sex couples get married?

2. Pregnancy can occur regardless of whether the couple intends to create a child
or not.
–If allowing same sex couples to marry would put an end to "oopsie" pregnancies among hetero couples, that might be a good thing, but I don't see it happening.

3. The new human life that is created is vulnerable and needs the protection of
adults.
–The same sex couples who marry and either have or adopt children ARE adults.

4. The man and woman who created the new life typically have the most interest in
and are best at protecting and guiding that child.
–As do the two men or women who either go through the rigors of in vitro, hiring of a surrogate, or adopting.

5. They agree that they will both be legally responsible for any child conceived during
the marriage.
–As do the same sex couples who have or adopt children.

6. Couples must work for decades together to raise a child from conception to
adulthood.
–Applies whether the couples have similar or different naughty bits.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post:

<% unless FeatureFlag.disable_quantcast? %> <% end %>