?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
15 October 2003 @ 05:42 pm
Am I anti MPW? You bet I am!  
Hinoai and Yume support my cause as well ^.^



http://www.marriageprotectionweek.com

Read it. Seriously, look at their page and see what we're protesting. I did. I wanted to be informed before I said anything, or stuck my foot in my mouth. I read through their webpage the other day at school, and it made me upset. So much so that it's ridiculous. If I'm going to get that upset in school, I should be mad *at* the school, or *at* the people in it. Not because I'm trying to know what I'm talking about before I talk about it.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031003-12.html

Now read the official statement by President Bush Especially these ones:

"Marriage is a union between a man and a woman."
"We must continue our work to create a compassionate, welcoming society, where all people are treated with dignity and respect."

Now, I will begin my rant. This only gets a once over, as I don't have the time to proofread. So this is my hard feelings on the subject. Marriage. When marriage was first pushed into the government by church bodies to become a legal status complete with benefits, it was a far different idea than it was today. Back then, marriage was not made for love. It was made for convenience, for building a family, for promoting the family name. Arranged marriages were common, and divorces were frowned upon. They were also intended so that resulting marriage could produce children and continue on the family and the human race.

Now, I ask. Does marriage still really mean the same thing today? In 2002, 306.6 people out of every thousand were married. In the same year, 145.3 people out of every thousand were divorced. Why all the problems people? If marriage was solely to promote a family, then why in the world all these problems? That rate is nearly 50%.

Let's suggest this.. is it such a stretch of the imagination to say that marriage now is arranged because of love? Times have changed, and so has society. Most couples that marry each other do it because they want to have a lifelong commitment to each other, and to have that commitment recognized by the government. A spouse is granted many rights, which includes hospital visits, tax breaks, and many many more.

President Bush suggests in his speech that the only proper way for a child to be raised is in a nuclear family. That is, a family with one mother, one father, and one or more children. Any other way is detrimental to our society. So, does that mean that the many friends that I have that weren't raised in that environment are no good? They're damaged goods? Hmm? What does that say about children where one parent has died, or the couple is divorced. Or the child is adopted? I could go on forever naming parental situations. Apparently nothing is good enough for him. But I guess that's what you get, seeing as how Mr. Bush had such a loving home life himself, what with his father always gone. Oh, but he *did* have a nuclear family. And he *did* become successful and rise to the presidency on his father's name and money. Gee, everyone knows that the best and most well-adjusted men in our country are all presidents! Can you feel my sarcasm?

So... according to Bush, we should protect the idea of marriage between just a man and a woman because that is the best way to raise a child. So......... what about the people that get married but do not intend to have children? By his own statements, their marriages should not happen either.

I realize that I rambled there, but I'm all a twitter about going to yaoicon bright and early tomorrow morning, so I just don't have the presence of mind to write something good. There's also a kitten purring up a storm in my lap and I have to leave for class in ten minutes. =P

To go on. I believe that marriage is about love. In today's day and age, anyone can have children, whether by artificial insemination or adoption, or a multitude of other options. On the marriageprotectionweek.com webpage, they denounce homosexuality and ANY marriage that is not a man and a woman. This is wrong. If you're going to limit marriage to just those that can produce children, then stop being fucking hypocrites and protecting marriages that won't result in either. Fairness for all, is what I say. Where in the world does it hurt you that a gay or lesbian couple wants to get married?

So yes.. done with my rant for now, as uncollected as it was. ^^;
 
 
 
Chisotahn / 記録係chisotahn on October 15th, 2003 08:17 pm (UTC)
Note to everyone who proffesses to believe in a God of love: Read the L-O-V-E part. And then act accordingly. KTHX. -_-;;

Fortunately, not all those who claim to be Christian ignore the bits about love and forgiveness and caring for thy neighbor. Oy. *sigh*
Brenda Laraglass_zero on October 16th, 2003 06:25 pm (UTC)
The whole Idea of Marriage to me never had anything to do with love, even now.

If I love someone we will be together, Love is enough, and I’m not going to tie them down. If we last together for the rest of our life’s Good for us. I don't think you need some other person to tell you and state that you love each other.

I can understand the symbolic meaning of union around it, but I think this doesn’t have much to do with the government. But more on the religion you practice as well. Unfortunately the religion most practiced in this current time and place, is one where such an institution is described as such between a man and a woman. But that's the way it was written. And only the pope has power to change such a thing. Very sad, yes. Not telling anyone to change there religion because of it, people will believe what they want to.

Though There are laws protecting against those that try to harm others because of there differences (I hate that word). Not to mention they pretty much did away with those stupid Sodom laws that some states still had. There is no law that says you can't love someone of the opposite sex or partake in sexual conduct with them anymore.

I don't think it's really up to any government officials to really change this, but more so with the church, or churches to either be willing to open up to such relationships.

I think that's why the government has been hesitant in really getting involved, because it's not a government issue, but a religious one, and we do have that thing of separation of church and state.

Marriage is not an institution overseen by the government, because I am sure the government could careless to who is sleeping next to you at night. Marriage is though a religious institution.

The way that I read what bush was trying to say, (the man is quite an expert in the communication field **note sarcasm**)is protection of the rights of those religions most widely practiced, being mainly Christianity, and other sorts of Catholicism, in order to protect the scriptures and beliefs observed. Which the religion dose state that a marriage can only happen between a man and a woman in order to bear children. He tried to make children a big part of it, which I can see in a way how this helps, but that's mainly society's fault though. A lot of children might get teased for having families that are different, but he did not state that these conditions where only gay couples, but also such as single parents, or those parents that are never home to the point that they might as well not be there.

When a child is developing all these conditions that seem abnormal can really affect the way a child develops into adulthood. Not saying that it shouldn't be done but more people need to be opened up before such things aren't criticized in order for such families to be viewed as healthy and loving. Though I have seen some gay parents that are more loving than those or a mother and father, trust me, my aunts one of them. But kids as well as grown ups can be cruel, and they are the ones that need to open up.

I think that protection peoples religious rights as well as children’s well being where the main interest in what bush was trying to do, but once again the man had no idea how to go about it and offended the masses. I don't think Bush is heartless, I think he's just dumb. I pity him sometimes and hope he doesn’t get elected again. I want a pres who sounds like he at least knows what he's talking about.

SO much more I want to say....but....yeah there is personal, realistic and philosophical and cross counter views I can take on this. But that would take hours to really converse about. =P

~Your permanently floating voter~