(no subject)
Oct. 13th, 2003 03:13 pmAs
mephron noted, this is all you need to know about 'marraige protection' week.
Marraige in America should not be forced to one religion's standpoint, either de jure or de facto. Christianity is a good thing. I have no issues with Christianity, even if I think some of it's members can go rather against what its' founder had in mind. For that matter, I have no problems whatsoever with encouraging the idea of a lasting, monogamous marraige.
Limiting the scope of who is 'allowed' to enjoy a lasting monogamous marraige, however, I have a problem with.
Love is something we shouldn't ever try to forcibly legislate, and the fact that this 'marraige protection' mentality could also be used to prevent dissolution of abusive marraiges or divorces for legitimate healthy reasons is just as disturbing as the idea that anything other than a Christian heterosexual marraige is something that we as a nation should be attacking.
Marraige in America should not be forced to one religion's standpoint, either de jure or de facto. Christianity is a good thing. I have no issues with Christianity, even if I think some of it's members can go rather against what its' founder had in mind. For that matter, I have no problems whatsoever with encouraging the idea of a lasting, monogamous marraige.
Limiting the scope of who is 'allowed' to enjoy a lasting monogamous marraige, however, I have a problem with.
Love is something we shouldn't ever try to forcibly legislate, and the fact that this 'marraige protection' mentality could also be used to prevent dissolution of abusive marraiges or divorces for legitimate healthy reasons is just as disturbing as the idea that anything other than a Christian heterosexual marraige is something that we as a nation should be attacking.