Saturday, September 23, 2006

"Kenton Ngo you're my hero"

Been pretty darn busy lately. When I have visited the blogsphere, my attention has been elsewhere from the amendment. So I've somehow managed to miss the Virginia4marriage hand advertisement till now.

What struck me about the pro Marshall-Newman amendment ad was how it didn't beat around the bush about the fact that this is a specific religious groups' agenda being put into our constitution... but Ngo's protection joke made my day.

Something I can't get my head around is how some proponents constantly insistence that gay marriage is wrong because the purpose of marriage is reproduction. I can understand (regardless of how much agree or disagree) their insistence that children should be born in wedlock, but not that this is the purpose of marriage. It's always struck me as more of a perk than the purpose.

I've been to quite a few weddings. A couple of them were less conventional, but most were pretty standard Southern Christian weddings. I've listened to a lot of wedding vows. Some were traditional, some written by the bride and groom, but not a single one mentioned childbearing. Some used possessives (usually mutual though), but at the core of all of them was love and commitment.

...to love and to cherish, to have and to hold, in sickness and in health, as long as you both shall live?

Or the similar

...to love and to honor, to have and to hold, in sickness and in health, till death do you part?

At no point in any marriage have I heard the minister mention childbearing, only love. The closest you can come to saying that they do so is that it is traditional to consecrate the marriage by having sex on the honeymoon. This consecration however seems more tradition (and logical since most religions forbid sex prior to marriage), and is never mentioned in the actual ceremony. In fact, the official consecration is usually a kiss, an act of affection.

Marriage is about love and commitment, not reproduction. If it were you would have to not only forbid the right to marriage from homosexuals, but also from all who'd wish not to have children and all who are incapable of reproduction. But wait... wouldn't that be unconstitutional? And isn't it really none of your business what they do with their bodies and their marriage?

2 Comments:

Blogger Cory Capron said...

Oh, and for those wondering, I haven't quit working against the amendment. I feel there are enough great people (Note to self: UPDATE LINKS!) blogging it without my ramblings. However, I compared it to Virginia law at an open mic at PVCC, thrown by the PVCC Student Republicans (official name?) who were an awfully nice lot. I wish more people had taken advantage of their effort to celebrate the anniversary of The U.S. Constitution by promoting free speech. I'm also planning to give a lecture and discussion at my old high school in the following weeks if we can work our schedules out.

9:55 AM  
Anonymous Kenton Ngo said...

Why thank you :)

11:10 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home