Marriage is not a right, it is never referred to as such in the Constitution. And now, as secular Americans outnumber believers, join me, sisters in brothers, in passing our law to ban the depraved practice of Christian Marriage from our fair state.
Though there are some among you who, of course, wish to make even the practice of Christianity a crime, such a law would never pass in todays society. They are people, after all, and they have rights, granted right there in the constitution. They are free to do whatever depraved things they wish with other Christians, so long as we don't have to see it.
But there is no right to marriage, and so this should not be granted to them. We will pass our law defining marriage as a contract between two atheists. Allow them their social unions, if they must, but marriage is to be denied them.
Our reasons are simple. Christians teach Christianity to their children. And why would we want that? Christians are well known as teachers of intolerance, aggressors in wars, and destroyers of cultures. We have the "missions" to the Native Americans, the snipers outside of abortion clinics, a laundry list of wars that can be laid at their feet. They even have a doctrine all their own which they go so far as to insist should be obeyed above even the laws of the lands, making them ideal seditionists.
Without the taint of Christian Marriage incorporating strange customs, odd dress, and weird words into what is a government approved socio-economic partnership, we will gain a cessation to their endless cries of judgment and intolerance, and will know that the children will be raised without such horrible influences. True, some children may yet be raised by Christians, but they will do so in the knowledge that their parents are not in full compliance with their own teachings, and so shall this great aggressor and oppressor of peoples finally be confined, so that those who follow its depraved ways will harm no one except each other.
Ignore the cries of those who claim that selecting a certain lifestyle preference for exclusion from what to others is a basic socio-economic institution raises a dangerous precedent. We are the people of the United States of America and we live in a democracy, and we have learned well to fear the teachings of Christ and those who follow him. We will pass this law, and decry any who stand in our way as anti-democratic activists.
It is the will of the people that matters. Right?
Though there are some among you who, of course, wish to make even the practice of Christianity a crime, such a law would never pass in todays society. They are people, after all, and they have rights, granted right there in the constitution. They are free to do whatever depraved things they wish with other Christians, so long as we don't have to see it.
But there is no right to marriage, and so this should not be granted to them. We will pass our law defining marriage as a contract between two atheists. Allow them their social unions, if they must, but marriage is to be denied them.
Our reasons are simple. Christians teach Christianity to their children. And why would we want that? Christians are well known as teachers of intolerance, aggressors in wars, and destroyers of cultures. We have the "missions" to the Native Americans, the snipers outside of abortion clinics, a laundry list of wars that can be laid at their feet. They even have a doctrine all their own which they go so far as to insist should be obeyed above even the laws of the lands, making them ideal seditionists.
Without the taint of Christian Marriage incorporating strange customs, odd dress, and weird words into what is a government approved socio-economic partnership, we will gain a cessation to their endless cries of judgment and intolerance, and will know that the children will be raised without such horrible influences. True, some children may yet be raised by Christians, but they will do so in the knowledge that their parents are not in full compliance with their own teachings, and so shall this great aggressor and oppressor of peoples finally be confined, so that those who follow its depraved ways will harm no one except each other.
Ignore the cries of those who claim that selecting a certain lifestyle preference for exclusion from what to others is a basic socio-economic institution raises a dangerous precedent. We are the people of the United States of America and we live in a democracy, and we have learned well to fear the teachings of Christ and those who follow him. We will pass this law, and decry any who stand in our way as anti-democratic activists.
It is the will of the people that matters. Right?
Eschew Verbosity
Let's ban all Christian Marriage.
- 07/08/2010 06:36:13 AM
1692 Views
Nice satire, but it raises another point for me.
- 07/08/2010 07:20:49 AM
1073 Views
That would only be appropriate if Christians wanted to ban secular unions of normal people.
- 07/08/2010 11:51:29 AM
1340 Views
Hey, look! There was a point over there!
- 07/08/2010 03:46:41 PM
1138 Views
Who else should make those decisions?
- 07/08/2010 08:00:39 PM
1095 Views
I'd totally...
- 08/08/2010 04:14:15 AM
1026 Views
I'd totally...
- 08/08/2010 06:17:30 AM
1177 Views
I used to think Joel was the biggest rambler on this site. I am seriously reconsidering.
- 08/08/2010 05:24:56 AM
1122 Views
And my assessment of one poster as the most content-poor, non-contributing slug is unchanged
- 08/08/2010 07:17:02 PM
1018 Views
*Shakes Head*
- 08/08/2010 06:23:47 AM
984 Views
I highly doubt Cannoli is "scared" of homosexuals *NM*
- 08/08/2010 06:29:54 AM
560 Views
Perhaps not in the physical sense.
- 08/08/2010 06:35:53 AM
1083 Views
Re: Perhaps not in the physical sense.
- 08/08/2010 06:46:56 AM
1039 Views
Re: *Shakes Head*
- 08/08/2010 07:43:11 PM
1030 Views
I still do not see how you think marriage is a "pointless" institution
- 08/08/2010 08:05:45 PM
1132 Views
No, I was referring to same-sex marriage. Real marriage hardly counts as a novelty. *NM*
- 11/08/2010 02:28:43 PM
467 Views
This must be the "thought out reaction" I've heard so much about.
- 08/08/2010 10:45:59 PM
977 Views
You cannot be that stupid.
- 11/08/2010 03:10:55 PM
1255 Views
There's a lot of ridiculous arguments here, but I'll focus on just one of them...
- 11/08/2010 03:38:05 PM
1171 Views
A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
- 08/08/2010 11:51:24 PM
1003 Views
Plolygamy and incest are not on the same level of bad.
- 09/08/2010 11:00:07 AM
1065 Views
Is that assumption valid?
- 09/08/2010 11:36:26 AM
991 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid?
- 09/08/2010 11:46:42 AM
978 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid?
- 09/08/2010 12:07:22 PM
1088 Views
Not really
- 09/08/2010 01:20:46 PM
955 Views
Re: Not really
- 09/08/2010 01:27:04 PM
1083 Views
Spoken like someone who does not have to insure an employee's six wives.
- 11/08/2010 03:11:57 PM
1118 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
- 09/08/2010 11:25:39 AM
1026 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
- 09/08/2010 11:51:50 AM
984 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
- 09/08/2010 01:18:35 PM
1072 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
- 09/08/2010 02:54:19 PM
1099 Views
It should be noted again...
- 09/08/2010 08:59:32 PM
1110 Views
and how is it not a right?
- 09/08/2010 09:19:12 PM
991 Views
My definition of rights...
- 09/08/2010 10:47:16 PM
1110 Views
mmm, but the UN has legally stated marriage as a right.
- 10/08/2010 02:52:03 AM
874 Views
Article 16 probably not a great example
- 10/08/2010 03:44:04 AM
964 Views
- 10/08/2010 03:44:04 AM
964 Views
You could just as easily move the emphasis...
- 10/08/2010 04:08:46 AM
1108 Views
If we need a more specific resolution...
- 10/08/2010 04:22:12 AM
1290 Views
No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context
- 10/08/2010 05:25:57 AM
980 Views
Re: No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context
- 10/08/2010 03:04:39 PM
1306 Views
That's really a ridiculous stance, you do realize.
- 10/08/2010 03:23:02 PM
921 Views
The point is that marriage IS a right, one which cannot be denied based upon sexual orientation *NM*
- 10/08/2010 07:04:16 PM
741 Views
Re: No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context
- 10/08/2010 03:46:56 PM
1160 Views
It doesn't say a man can only marry a woman or vice versa, though.
- 10/08/2010 04:24:17 AM
985 Views
I know, and that's been brought up before. But that's not my point.
- 10/08/2010 06:09:32 PM
959 Views
Re: I know, and that's been brought up before. But that's not my point.
- 10/08/2010 06:33:56 PM
893 Views
It's mentioned as a right in some SC decision quoted in that Walker opinion. *NM*
- 10/08/2010 06:51:13 PM
479 Views
To clarify for you
- 10/08/2010 05:36:14 AM
961 Views
The UNSC is actually the UN's enforcement body...
- 10/08/2010 07:16:31 PM
1353 Views
I'm not sure that I would call the Security Council the 'Enforcement Body'
- 10/08/2010 08:43:02 PM
953 Views
The fact that it is capable of authorizing the use of military force makes it an enforcement body
- 10/08/2010 10:33:59 PM
1243 Views
What the UN thinks is *completely* worthless....
- 10/08/2010 06:43:15 PM
913 Views
Why don't YOU back up your assertion that the right to marry exists? *NM*
- 11/08/2010 03:16:02 PM
514 Views
The actual ruling on Prop 8 specifices marriage as a freedom, not a right.
- 10/08/2010 12:02:17 AM
1094 Views
Out of curiosity, what would you say to using the Ninth Amendment, possibly in conjunction...
- 10/08/2010 12:20:19 AM
1152 Views
Note it all you want...
- 10/08/2010 06:43:53 AM
843 Views
No, they seek to expand the terms of the partnership. Homosexuals can & do get married normally *NM*
- 11/08/2010 03:14:25 PM
547 Views
The best one yet.
- 10/08/2010 07:59:17 PM
1101 Views
Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane
- 10/08/2010 08:49:24 PM
959 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane
- 10/08/2010 09:03:11 PM
1072 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane
- 11/08/2010 04:35:03 PM
967 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane
- 11/08/2010 04:41:23 PM
1107 Views
Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel
- 11/08/2010 05:06:47 PM
1083 Views
Re: Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel
- 11/08/2010 05:09:23 PM
1034 Views
