It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

No Children, No Marriage

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 03:12 AM
link   
Just wondering how many others have seen this CNN story on this new proposed law. The law would not allow anyone who could not procreate to get married. I have tried to find print articles on this topic, only to find several that were a few years old. This leads me to believe this isn't the first time this law has brought forth.

Now this is the obvious proof that the government is going to far with controlling our lives. What business would they have to try and pass this law? HOW and WHO would benefit from such a law?




posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 03:18 AM
link   
The Ultimate Discrimination August 2002

Fox News Story Current Story


Another Story

Just wanted to add some links to other articles on the issue.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 06:46 AM
link   
This is an obvious swipe at gay marriage.

By defining marriage as being restricted to those who can procreate, all gays/lesbians are automatically ineligible.

The fact that it has collateral damage to those who are simply sterile will (hopefully) ensure that it is never passed.



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 12:49 AM
link   
One of the articles mentioned gay marriage, maybe this could be the main reason for creating this. But to state this is an obvious swipe at gay marriage is ridiculous. Do you know how many heterosexual Americans that can't conceive. This would ultimately effect those people rather than the gays.

And yes I agree, I doubt (hopefully) that it would ever pass.



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 01:00 AM
link   
This is supposed to be a symbolic measure enacted by a gay organization because one of the main reasons homosexual couples are denied the right to marry is the fact that they can't exactly produce their own children; but there is a double standard here, because heterosexual marriages without children are fine and dandy.

Its trying to get the point across, that giving the old 'marriage is about making and raising children' argument is being selectively applied to discriminate against homosexuals.



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by BallOfPopulation

Its trying to get the point across, that giving the old 'marriage is about making and raising children' argument is being selectively applied to discriminate against homosexuals.


Well what is marriage? a monogamous partnership with someone with the eventual goal of raising a family, right?

You can have a monogamous relationship with someone without being married. For gays, marriage is truly symbolic. Wh ydo they insist on marriage? for benefits?

I still subscribe to the theory that gay marriage is an issue because of the high levels of HIV infected people in the gay community coupled with the high medical bills that insurance companies would have to pay if gays could have the same marriage benefits as anyone else. Morality has nothing to do with it. It is all about money.



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join