Author Of Controversial Newsweek Article (Religious Right Unhappy) Discusses Marriage & The Bible

You'll find the video, the original Newsweek article and a Politico article discussing the Religious Right reaction if you .

PS---It's interesting how every right wing group co-opts the word "family" to use in their title, i.e. Family Research Council, Focus On The Family, etc. Then again maybe interesting isn't the word I'm looking for...

a straight married couple decides not to have children?

We don't want kids (as in ever). We didn't want them before we met, and we don't want them now or down the road.

And it's always a little insulting when someone says "you'll see, you'll change your mind". I understand why the feel compelled to say it (the loud drumbeat of biology that's amplified by society) but it's still annoying.

my niece is 25 and engaged and says she does not want children.

sorry you didn't have more"? my answer "no".

People who say it's wrong to ONLY have one kid, because he/she will be "lonely". I guess if you lock the kid in the basement, but there are schools, friends, playground, etc.

:)

and 13 when my baby sister was born. they were not my friends. they are now, but i had to make my own friends. it was not a problem.

My brother is almost 7 years older than me and we HATED each other growing up. He treated me terribly (as many older brothers do) and it wasn't until we were in our 20's that we started to develop any kind of actually productive relationship.

are those who can procreate, then no woman past menopause should be allowed to marry.

Sheesh. Our child-bearing decisions are personal.

I don't know if you saw Jon Stewart this week when Mike Hucksterbee was on shilling his new book?

Well, Stewart deftly drew Hucker into a dialogue about gay marriage rights and Huckster brought out all of the old rw argumetns that went unchallenged in the dumbya, post 9-11, blame the gays and gay bashing-is-a-sport era.

This time someone had an answer to the lame logic of marriage being instituted solely for procreation, Jon mention that gay couples and gay singles do rasie children and do a dandy job of it and he also brought up the menopause and infertility issue. Really, huckster was nearly boo'ed down by the audience, or more accurately, Jon was cheered to the rafters.

It's all so obvious their lies, so biased, so illogical and yet, it will have to be said a couple of hundred million times until everyone across this nation understands the big lie that it is.

"You'll see, you'll change your mind". It's what childfree people call a "bingo" and hearing it gets real old, real fast. It would be nice if the childed and wannabe childed could accept that for whatever reasons, some people don't want and aren't going to have children because they DON'T want them. Kind of a shame there is no childfree forum here...oh, well, I can dream *sigh*.

I'm not straight myself but neither my spouse nor I have EVER wanted children and it gets particularly tiresome when other gays and lesbians "bingo" us.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Also, if kids are the sole reason to marry, then all unwed parents MUST marry. :evilgrin:

Also, for equal application of the law, if having kids is the sole reason for marriage, require proof of fertility before a civil marriage can take place.

What's fair is fair. :evilgrin:

that actually effects them.

Just like they would never ban divorce (which one could make a case might be an actual threat to the "sanctity of marriage").

it always comes down to their own "liberal" interests:

divorce
contraception
abortion
pre-marital sex

Yet, some of these same rebellious folk may then rear up on their hinders and start whinnying about gay marriage rights:

"Oh, THAT's just wrong."

"Oh, THAT's immoral."

"Oh, the good book tells us it's..."

the hypocrisy of these religious right and truth to tell, a fair number of liberals always amazes me--especially the latter. THEY expect us to be on board in support of their issues, but many do not feel constrained to return the favour, often citing the very excuses you list above. But hey, premarital sex (straight of course), out of wedlock babies, abortion, whatever, that is OK because as you have pointed out, benefits THEM.

I'm on board for things like women's rights, freedom of choice, some children's issues, etc. because I feel that until all of us have full rights, none of us do. However, I am getting tired of supporting straight issues and not seeing any reciprocity, (Note: this is not meant for all liberals as I have great straight liberal friends who are wonderfully supportive...it's the hypocrites that bug me).

A prime example of that is Jon Meacham and Newsweek taking a principled stand.

But, as individuals, we are probably more likely to make an impact on our civil rights issue, than say the economy and global warming - that will require the efforts of the incoming administration and the power of the Presidency.

In the meantime, we continue to read about women being beaten for being lesbians, couples risking losing their rights to raise a child, internment camps for gays, forced medical treatment for gays, a whole host of disturbing and nearly psychotic news that flows in every week.

The right wing has been waging war against us for decades, this time they have gone too far.

I am fighting for my life with my partner, for our rights as a family and for everyone of us in our GLBTQ community.

I am not even asking others outside of our community to fight for us, although if they chose to joing us, it is appreciated, but I don’t understand why some would disparage our own battle for our own civil rights.

I understand it is often misrepresented rhetorically as , "Don't tell me what my number one issue should be."

WTF? I don't think anyone is.

But don't judge me because it is my number one issue.

Our GLBTQ fight for civil rights is a long one, it has been placed on the back burner far too long and as someone recently said wisely, "You can't be a liberal without being for civil rights."

But I find it especially aggravating when it's based on some specific interpretation of holy books (as it is in this case).