Monday, February 05, 2007

Conservatives: Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is

From CNN Today: Ballot Measure: Straight couples, procreate or else

Basically, these people in Washington are saying, "OK, fine. If marriage is all about the procreation, let's see it." I think this is a great example of creative thinking and turning some one's words against them. I understand that most conservatives have other issues with gay marriage, but I feel like this addresses a large part of the argument. There are plenty of married couples without children in this world, and the number is rising:
  • In 1970, 27.4% of women ages 50-54 had at least one minor child of their own in their household. By 2000, it had fallen to 15.4%.
  • In 1976, one in ten women in their forties was childless. In 2004, it was almost one in five women who were childless.

So, there it is. Marriage isn't about procreation anymore. It's about a lot more than that, and if you don't agree, then sign onto this bill in Washington and see how many marriages become annulled, or even worse, how many married couples have children even though they didn't want to, just to prove that marriage exists only for procreation.

No worries- even the people who introduced this bill know that it's absurd. But they're making a point and they're making it loud and clear. Just the other day I was lamenting about how our generation lacks the passion and the energy that was found in the activists and protests of the 60s. These kinds of happenings gives me hope for our generation.

2 comments:

Robb Olson said...

ah. there is hope outside the invention of a time travel device. here's to our future!

Anonymous said...

I am curious about the stat
# In 1970, 27.4% of women ages 50-54 had at least one minor child of their own in their household. By 2000, it had fallen to 15.4%.
# In 1976, one in ten women in their forties was childless. In 2004, it was almost one in five women who were childless

Does "in their household" mean living with them or simply "their child"? I only ask because if it means living wih them that means less women are having children between the age of 32 and 36 years of age, and that does not seem relevant to the argument.

I will have to remember the title of a great book on the "sanctity" of marriage later, but from the back cover I got this quote "The senator is currently enjoying the sanctity of his 4th marriage". That is funny stuff.