Here are more Minnesotans explaining why they are voting for marriage in November:
Learn more at MinnesotaForMarriage.com
Marriage is about uniting the complementary sexes, man and woman, the only way that human beings reproduce. It is about the creation of offspring, establishment of responsibility for those who do the creating, and establishment of rights and protections for those who are created.
Same-sex couples never procreate, so they are, de facto, ineligible to marry.
If same-sex couples want special rights, marriage is the wrong venue for them to obtain them. You don't dismantle a law to pacify a group of individuals to which the law does not apply. You either create a new law that leaves the existing law alone and establishes new rights, or you find an existing law, such as adoption law or foster parenting law, which is more in line with the type of rights being sought and the nature/status of the parties involved.
Well said, Overcame SSA.
@ OvercameSSA, is that you Resist?
I finally got around to reading your long posts under the April 19 Blog “A story you've never heard me tell, NOM marriage news” at: http://www.nomblog.com/21907/#comments.
I was never able to get through Alice's posts without becoming discouraged with the limitations of this kind of communication. But I got hooked on your posts and found myself jumping over the others to read on. There are to many good points to comment on. But I just had to come here and say, wow! Great stuff of Truth! And you, are a heterosexual to the marrow of your bones! When many people don't even know what it is. (Can't blame them with today's education.) Heterosexuality is not first a desire for sex – it is the desire for ones own children; which at its best, or simply in truth, includes the desire of the other biological parent, for that person makes up part of the child as well. And part of the family. Excellent stuff!
On another note, you wrote to Alice: “What interest would the government or society have in unions between any two people? None. It's the potential for procreation that creates the interest.”
This is where my argument comes in: that much, if not most, of the push for this cultural change is coming from financial interests. The financial possibilities for economic gain through procreation markets (just to name one of the markets) is enormous. And the laboratories have already invested so much research and money that they are now expecting financial returns, as they always do. Government (especially American, and western pure aggressive capitalist government) is very interested in new economic (and technological advantage) opportunities; insisting that this is best for its society. Increasing the potential for procreation to new and before ignored markets, indeed creates an interest for the government. Just one example of the sales opportunities is the more and more university educated, well payed professional single woman approaching their 40s, desiring child more so than they do sex.
Inventing, discovering and advancing cutting edge technologies is excellent, but putting it out on the market this way is not. So yes, we should be talking about outlawing such things. But how to be heard when the western world is so desperate to stay on top of the world money game at any price? Scraping and scratching for any advantage. It does seem that America is ready to sell its soul.
And at this time what these people want and need more than anything else, in order to put into full exploitation mode the new cultural change markets, is the word 'marriage'!
And I believe that with the idea already being ingrained in everyone's mind (by their opponents non the less) that marriage is the thing that connects children to parents. Well taking the word marriage will only be that much easier. For what else does a baby making laboratory and its customers want, other than to “connect babies to parents”. They, and marriage, are in the same business as it were...
But when reading something else in your post. I thought for the first time that maybe what marriage supporters mean when talking about connecting babies to parents, was the idea of biological connection. If that is the case, I did not catch it. And thats coming from someone on your side.
I think marriage is above and before all else, simply the word that is used to name the complete ONE-human-species, which is the man and woman united. And even in a world with all different combinations of families and baby getting possibilities; it is this that remains unchanged. And is what we want to protect above all else. The expression of ONE-human-species is quite awkward and 'almost' silly (though it does express a reality). So I agree with you, 'marriage' is a much better way to define it.
why should we have to go into the details of the definition if any of its eventual larger definitions all start out with: “a union between a man and a woman...” That is marriage.
Thanks again for your April post. Enjoy the family; the kids sound lucky; good for them.
FYI Good News, there is actually one one human species... it just has two biological sexes.
That is right Bryce. And we call it marriage. You see now why two of the same sex cannot be married (why they cannot be the ONE-human-species. Because it is impossible).
And you see that there is no hate or prejudice, only an observation. And that it is worth clearly pointing out this unique union to our growing children. And that it has nothing to do with the subject of homosexuality.
Hey Good News -
Yes, it's me, the "Poster Formerly Known as Resist," lol. Changed my name because an SSM-er thought it implied that I was still resisting SSA; whereas what I was doing was encouraging others to resist.
Much thanks for your kind words about my posts. I'm intrigued by your government economic interest theory, though I don't think we'll hear anyone admit that interest anytime soon. But I also think that a lot of the economic activity that you speak of is already taking place; e.g., many single women are conceiving from sperm donors using Petri dishes. I'm having trouble drawing the connection between so-called same-sex "marriage" and these economic interests, unless you mean that redefining marriage is just another means of forcing a cultural revolution that turns kids into commodities.
You'll notice that in more and more of my posts I use the word "offspring" instead of children. Personally, I believe that children have one mom and one dad; one set of parents. Those kids who have been adopted have "adoptive parents" or "step parents." But alas, the LIbs have redefined "family" and redefined "parent." But they haven't redefined "offspring" yet. And I like that word better than "biological parent" because that term implies that there are different kinds of parents and there are not (in my opinion). Parents are the people who conceive and create a child.
I think I understand your one-human-species approach to marriage: A man is incomplete by himself, for without a complementary mate he is unable to complete by himself the most human function of all: reproduction. It is only with a mate with whom he can join and reproduce that completes a man; and that union with a woman forms the whole of the human species. Did I get that right?
I'll get back another day. Short on time. Maybe I'll hit the subjects on different posts along the way in the future.
But I am only working on all these ideas, as our whole civilization seems to be. We never had to prove what marriage was in the past...
I will say here that I have been working with the word offspring myself for a few months. Because, and in line with your importance put on biological and psychological link, I can for myself see the possibility of envisioning the child as being literally a physical part of the parent. As an arm or a leg. Of course this part also has a mind and is not physically attached to the parent (but rather, it springs off of him). As a human grows he gets taller, he grows hair, a beard, breast, new teeth. And in the natural coarse of things he grows a child, off of himself. An offspring. They are one; but the parent as the tree and the child as the branch. And more so, as you well expressed, the three, become one: mother, father and child. In all other family constrictions we as a society are simply doing the best we can to recreate that, for the health of the parents, but mostly and absolutely for the child involved. And also, as you said, for the health of the surrounding families and children as examples so as not to stray to far from the biological family structure and toward the village or chaos. Yes I like the word 'offspring'.
By the way, I did understand that Resist was a call of encouragement to others.
Wow. So an individual human being is not a member of the human species until they are in a married relationship with another human being. So logical.
An individual is a complete human being of course. And fully part of the human species. But he is only half of the human species. And two woman do not make up a whole human species. But a woman and a man do. In coming together they make up the ONE-human-species. But I agree with you, it would be much easier if we just called it... marriage.