Marriage, an institution like Bellevue?
Contrary to the wingnuts on the right who argue that same sex marriage is a threat to heterosexual marriage a new study contradicts the idea that if Heather and her two mommies move in next door my marriage to Mrs. Curmudgeon will go bye-bye. Apparently it's singles who are the problem. You know who you are. Ordering out all the time. Having absolute control of the t.v. remote and thermostat. Cleaning the bathroom only when people ask about your bold decorating choice of "black tiles." Leaving your dirty laundry on the floors so as to have easy access to them when you dress. Having sex when and where you want, sometimes even with another person. Actually, it doesn't sound so bad now that I put it that way.
What we need here to protect the institution of marriage is a constitutional amendment against single people. That would be a start. Or perhaps since divorce is the real reason why marriages end a constitutional amendment against divorce. Problem solved. Given the growing influence of the "sun revolves around the earth that was created by an Intelligent Designer" crowd outlawing divorce is more likely. I can see a hit reality show out it now, "Begging for Annulments." Guest hosts may include Newt (3 marriages) Gingrich and Rush (3 divorces) Limbaugh. I barely can afford one wife and certainly not an ex-wife so don't worry Mrs. Curmudgeon, you, me and my dirty socks on the floor will grow old together.
BONUS POSTING: Two years after Pearl Harbor do you think FDR just wanted to get on with his life? Maureen Dowd, whom I got turned on to, writing-wise Mrs. Curmudgeon, put down the phone please, hits it out of the ballpark today. Another must read here.
BONUS POSTING II:
We are disagreeing. We are failing to reach compromises. But we are not killing each other.
-- Iraq Minister of Planning Barham Salih, Aug. 16, 2005
A pair of car bombs exploded Wednesday morning at a bus station in central Baghdad, killing at least 43 people and wounding 88, Iraqi police said. Aug. 16, 2005
What we need here to protect the institution of marriage is a constitutional amendment against single people. That would be a start. Or perhaps since divorce is the real reason why marriages end a constitutional amendment against divorce. Problem solved. Given the growing influence of the "sun revolves around the earth that was created by an Intelligent Designer" crowd outlawing divorce is more likely. I can see a hit reality show out it now, "Begging for Annulments." Guest hosts may include Newt (3 marriages) Gingrich and Rush (3 divorces) Limbaugh. I barely can afford one wife and certainly not an ex-wife so don't worry Mrs. Curmudgeon, you, me and my dirty socks on the floor will grow old together.
BONUS POSTING: Two years after Pearl Harbor do you think FDR just wanted to get on with his life? Maureen Dowd, whom I got turned on to, writing-wise Mrs. Curmudgeon, put down the phone please, hits it out of the ballpark today. Another must read here.
BONUS POSTING II:
We are disagreeing. We are failing to reach compromises. But we are not killing each other.
-- Iraq Minister of Planning Barham Salih, Aug. 16, 2005
A pair of car bombs exploded Wednesday morning at a bus station in central Baghdad, killing at least 43 people and wounding 88, Iraqi police said. Aug. 16, 2005
posted by Crankyboy at 9:48 AM
3 Comments:
I was glad to see your sense of humor return, only to be shaken back to sober reality with your bonus postings.
Yes, the way to protect the institution of marriage is to outlaw divorce - but as you imply, why do that when it is so much easier to blame Heather's mommies for the downfall of that institution.
(Also, the "single" you describe in your first paragraph sounds eerily like me... I'm going to check for hidden cameras when I get home tonight).
With the way they use religion, it's no wonder it's all twisted beyond recognition!
They're so good at portraying everything they don't like for religious reasons as a threat - and we're so lame in buying it. I remember when allowing people to marry outside of their "race" was going to destroy marriage. That was a felony in at least 12 states in the 60's. If thay had any real interest in saving the institution, they would stop cheating, but that's not going to happen.
Yup. It's true and we are spreading our agenda like germ warfare. Living in sin in monogamous Loooong term relationships, not breeding, and spending our disposable income like we are gay!
We see mothers and fathers propagating the species with their little attempts at immortality and think: being able to go out at a moments notice, stay out late (because there is no baby sitter to be considered), take a spontaneous trip, buy that ridiculous gadget we don't really need, leave the breakables anywhere we please AND keep the bar full stocked and unlocked (for our WHOLE lives), well it's not a bad way to live.
I believe you should protect the institution of marriage. I wish the same sex partners had gone after couples rights. For Me if no one else. Why should I have to have a piece of paper. Yeah, so binding that the divorce rate steadily increases. We use to have such a thing as common law. Now this state doesn't even have that.
Post a Comment
<< Home