minxcomix
SHARE THIS PAGE View Viral Dashboard ›
    • minxcomix

      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.

    • minxcomix

      It clarifies that the reason why we (used to) support the marital relationship is because only the union ofaman andawoman can create children and for the sake of the children we encourage kid’s parents to stick together by supporting such unions. This does not mean that all marital unions will have children, just that we understand that 1)only the male/female union creates children and 2)people who enter into marital unions usually have sex. So therefore we used to support marital unions for the sake of the children that may or may not come asanatural result.
      Now many of us are very confused as to why we allow our government to violate our constitutional right to privacy and regulate our personal relationship. There is no basis for such an invasion any more since we have allowed them to remove the reason why marriage was regulated.

    • minxcomix

      The wrong people are being accused of bigotry on this thread. Marriage as the union of a man and a woman 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 when marriage was defined as inherently procreative.
      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 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 such a laugh. 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. Those that support the law as it now stands are bigots.
      And yes, I mean you.