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?
*MySmiley*
structured procrastinator
structured procrastinator
Let's ban all Christian Marriage.
- 07/08/2010 06:36:13 AM
1716 Views
Nice satire, but it raises another point for me.
- 07/08/2010 07:20:49 AM
1101 Views
Nice. *NM*
- 07/08/2010 08:58:20 AM
649 Views
That would only be appropriate if Christians wanted to ban secular unions of normal people.
- 07/08/2010 11:51:29 AM
1364 Views
Hey, look! There was a point over there!
- 07/08/2010 03:46:41 PM
1180 Views
Who else should make those decisions?
- 07/08/2010 08:00:39 PM
1125 Views
I'd totally...
- 08/08/2010 04:14:15 AM
1047 Views
I'd totally...
- 08/08/2010 06:17:30 AM
1206 Views
I used to think Joel was the biggest rambler on this site. I am seriously reconsidering.
- 08/08/2010 05:24:56 AM
1150 Views
And my assessment of one poster as the most content-poor, non-contributing slug is unchanged
- 08/08/2010 07:17:02 PM
1038 Views
*Shakes Head*
- 08/08/2010 06:23:47 AM
1011 Views
I highly doubt Cannoli is "scared" of homosexuals *NM*
- 08/08/2010 06:29:54 AM
572 Views
Perhaps not in the physical sense.
- 08/08/2010 06:35:53 AM
1110 Views
Re: Perhaps not in the physical sense.
- 08/08/2010 06:46:56 AM
1066 Views
Re: *Shakes Head*
- 08/08/2010 07:43:11 PM
1055 Views
I still do not see how you think marriage is a "pointless" institution
- 08/08/2010 08:05:45 PM
1157 Views
No, I was referring to same-sex marriage. Real marriage hardly counts as a novelty. *NM*
- 11/08/2010 02:28:43 PM
476 Views
This must be the "thought out reaction" I've heard so much about.
- 08/08/2010 10:45:59 PM
997 Views
You cannot be that stupid.
- 11/08/2010 03:10:55 PM
1279 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
1201 Views
A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
- 08/08/2010 11:51:24 PM
1029 Views
Plolygamy and incest are not on the same level of bad.
- 09/08/2010 11:00:07 AM
1088 Views
Is that assumption valid?
- 09/08/2010 11:36:26 AM
1013 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid?
- 09/08/2010 11:46:42 AM
1003 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid?
- 09/08/2010 12:07:22 PM
1113 Views
Not really
- 09/08/2010 01:20:46 PM
978 Views
Re: Not really
- 09/08/2010 01:27:04 PM
1106 Views
Spoken like someone who does not have to insure an employee's six wives.
- 11/08/2010 03:11:57 PM
1144 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
- 09/08/2010 11:25:39 AM
1047 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
- 09/08/2010 11:51:50 AM
1008 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
- 09/08/2010 01:18:35 PM
1102 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
- 09/08/2010 02:54:19 PM
1125 Views
It should be noted again...
- 09/08/2010 08:59:32 PM
1132 Views
and how is it not a right?
- 09/08/2010 09:19:12 PM
1019 Views
My definition of rights...
- 09/08/2010 10:47:16 PM
1133 Views
mmm, but the UN has legally stated marriage as a right.
- 10/08/2010 02:52:03 AM
896 Views
Article 16 probably not a great example
- 10/08/2010 03:44:04 AM
986 Views
- 10/08/2010 03:44:04 AM
986 Views
You could just as easily move the emphasis...
- 10/08/2010 04:08:46 AM
1132 Views
If we need a more specific resolution...
- 10/08/2010 04:22:12 AM
1315 Views
No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context
- 10/08/2010 05:25:57 AM
1012 Views
Re: No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context
- 10/08/2010 03:04:39 PM
1333 Views
That's really a ridiculous stance, you do realize.
- 10/08/2010 03:23:02 PM
946 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
753 Views
Re: No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context
- 10/08/2010 03:46:56 PM
1185 Views
It doesn't say a man can only marry a woman or vice versa, though.
- 10/08/2010 04:24:17 AM
1007 Views
I know, and that's been brought up before. But that's not my point.
- 10/08/2010 06:09:32 PM
985 Views
Re: I know, and that's been brought up before. But that's not my point.
- 10/08/2010 06:33:56 PM
914 Views
It's mentioned as a right in some SC decision quoted in that Walker opinion. *NM*
- 10/08/2010 06:51:13 PM
489 Views
To clarify for you
- 10/08/2010 05:36:14 AM
983 Views
The UNSC is actually the UN's enforcement body...
- 10/08/2010 07:16:31 PM
1376 Views
I'm not sure that I would call the Security Council the 'Enforcement Body'
- 10/08/2010 08:43:02 PM
987 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
1271 Views
What the UN thinks is *completely* worthless....
- 10/08/2010 06:43:15 PM
936 Views
Why don't YOU back up your assertion that the right to marry exists? *NM*
- 11/08/2010 03:16:02 PM
524 Views
The actual ruling on Prop 8 specifices marriage as a freedom, not a right.
- 10/08/2010 12:02:17 AM
1113 Views
Out of curiosity, what would you say to using the Ninth Amendment, possibly in conjunction...
- 10/08/2010 12:20:19 AM
1173 Views
Note it all you want...
- 10/08/2010 06:43:53 AM
866 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
559 Views
The best one yet.
- 10/08/2010 07:59:17 PM
1123 Views
Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane
- 10/08/2010 08:49:24 PM
981 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane
- 10/08/2010 09:03:11 PM
1099 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane
- 11/08/2010 04:35:03 PM
1004 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane
- 11/08/2010 04:41:23 PM
1134 Views
Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel
- 11/08/2010 05:06:47 PM
1103 Views
Re: Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel
- 11/08/2010 05:09:23 PM
1054 Views
