Marriage as the union ofaman andawoman inherently procreative held no discrimination as everyone and anyone could enter into it, except for those unions which harmed the procreative aspect. This was soundly based.
Now that we have altered marriage to be the union between two adults without the inherent procreative aspect, we have written into law discrimination against those who we judge to be too closely related and who are currently in other marital relationships. Without the inherent procreative aspect in marriage, there is absolutely no basis for this any longer, so why is it written in the law? Who are we to judge who should and shouldn’t marry? Why have we changed marriage to now hold baseless discrimination and prejudices where before there was none?
Now that the inherent procreative aspect has been removed from the very nature of marriage, we have *no right* to discriminate against ANY couples!
And many consider those that were opposed to changing marriage to taking out that inherent aspect of marriage to be the bigots! That is suchalaugh. For it is those who support the marriage law we have now who are the bigots, for they are discriminating against certain couples, with no basis for this discrimination!
DO NOT LIMIT THE RIGHT TO MARRY FOR ANY COUPLES!!! Because we have now removed the valid reasoning for any limitations (the inherent procreative aspect (too closely related, currently married to others)), so therefore these limitations are now simply based on prejudices and judgments. Therefore, in truth, it is those who support the law as it now stands who are the bigots, for they are supporting baseless discrimination.
And yes, if you accuse those who were.are opposed to the alteration of the marital union to no longer be founded on the inherent procreative aspect which only the male/female union has, thenImean you. You are the bigot. Not those you accuse to be bigots. Think about it. Think about it thoroughly.