We're all having a good laugh about that Washington ballot initiative to annul the marriages of hets who don't have kids. But I think that some people who criticise it now agree with it more than they'd like to admit.
This is from Matt Friedeman, one of the more moderate Agape Press columnists:
I recently heard a program on American Family Radio in which a number of family counselors were asked, "Would you marry a young couple that was determined not to have kids?" Having never considered that question, I listened intently on my side of the radio. To my astonishment, every counselor interviewed said they would not marry such a couple. After all, biblically, procreation is a God-ordained purpose of marriage.Interestingly, I have never known a pastor to broach the subject, much less take such a stance.
Interesting indeed, Mr. Friedeman. Now tell the Evergreen State to sign the petition!
Share
Like what you read? Subscribe to The Bilerico Project by Email.
Want others to read it too? Use the buttons and links here to share this entry with others. (Move your cursor over a button or link to learn more about it.)
5 Comments
« The Black Youth Project: Now that's something worth talking about | Home | Thank you Sir, may I have another? »
One of the things I think could be pretty interesting about this debate is if we actually started talking about the history of marriage.
Check out the Wikipedia entry for the history of marriage. Somehow, I get the feeling that there is a vague notion out there that the Happy Days version of the 50s era family is pretty much how things were throughout history, until very recently when everything started changing. When, in fact, things have always been changing to one extent or another.
Doug | February 10, 2007 9:58 PM
Reply to this comment
Absolutely. We can't fear change if we realise that everything is always changing.
Alex Blaze | February 10, 2007 10:47 PM
Reply to this comment
I never knew exactly what "agape" meant, so I went to the dictionary. It has more than one meaning--one is religious: "the love of God or Christ for humankind," "the love of Christians for other persons" and so on.
The other is "wide open," which refers to a certain body part that is "agape" in order to accommodate their heads.
Jeff Newman | February 10, 2007 11:22 PM
Reply to this comment
That's hilarious, Jeff.
I wonder if we gathered up all those "family counselors" and asked them if they'd counsel a gay couple to get married what they'd say. Then tell them they get to choose one - a no kids hetero couple and a gay couple. I'd bet they wouldn't have a problem with the hetero couple then...
Bil Browning | February 11, 2007 10:09 AM
Reply to this comment
As a child-free, hetero couple married for 10 happy years, I'm not surprised to hear that response from counselors.
My hubby and I were soundly rejected by 3 different family physicians when we went in to ask for vasectomy. We had already been together for 6 years prior to the wedding and we agreed that we were not parenting material.
When we started trying to find a physician to perform the surgery, we heard all the usual garbage: "you'll change your mind," "what if one of you remarries and wants kids," "that's selfish of you," "who will take care of you in your old age?" etc., etc.
Everyone wants to push kids on you in this state, and most insist that by not having a kids, you're "making the biggest mistake of your life." This is insulting to our intelligence.
Why does this group of religious zealots insist on forcing their narrow-minded opinions on everybody else?
I'd be curious to know how many of the aforementioned counselors had their own family/marital problems; closeted sexuality issues; religious axes to grind, etc. .
Physician - heal thyself - and stay out of our bedrooms and wombs!
Speedway Democrat | February 12, 2007 3:26 PM
Reply to this comment