You poor misled romantic saps. Marriage has nothing to do with love or happiness. Just ask the unofficial Catholic leader Bill Donohue– who holds no position whatsoever in the church proper but still manages to embarrass Catholics the world over on a regular basis:
MEDIAite — Appearing on Current TV’s Viewpoint Thursday evening, Catholic League President Bill Donohue explained his opposition to the “bizarre idea” of same-sex marriage by noting that he believes marriage has nothing to do with love and happiness; but rather it is entirely about procreating.
“This idea of two men getting married is the most bizarre idea in human history,” Donohue told host John Fugelsang, adding that the purpose of marriage is a “duty” to procreate. “The whole purpose of marriage is to have a family,” he said. “It’s not about making people happy. It’s not about love.”
Yeah, he really said that ::Snicker:::
It’s entertaining to watch just how tied up in knots bigots are willing to be to defend an indefensible position. Plus, we are blessed to have complete idiots like Donohue for enemies.
Voltaire’s prayer has apparently been answered.
So, because my partner and I cannot have children (which sucks) we should scrap our engagement and not get married?
Rob, correct, you got it.
Nothing’s ever about love or happiness with these kind of people.
Yesterday, he made an asinine post to Newsmax (I got the update as I’m still subscribed to their mailing list; a relic from my fundie Catholic days when I took him seriously, now purely for schadenfreude value) claiming that his position is one of “marriage equity”, distinct from “marriage equality”.
It involves your typical lies and distortions (particularly where the studies are concerned; he admits that unity is the biggest factor, and then outright lies and says that they prove that gender is second most critical), all to try to claim that marriage is an issue of “fairness” or “justice”; both true, of course. He claims that in order to ensure “fairness”, we need to “mandate inequality”. I think even before I pulled the priestly wool off of my eyes, I’d have had a problem with an argument that patently idiotic.
My marriage wasn’t about love or happiness.
Apathy. Mainly apathy. The opposite of love isn’t hate; it’s apathy.
My divorce — that was about happiness.
Fixed that for him.
Apparently my wife and I should get divorced, since we’ve not managed to reproduce. As should anybody else who is,or is married to, a post-menopausal female.
@#7, Trebuchet:
Same case here; I’m 56, my wife is 47, so, no prospect of children.
That’s the thing I don’t get with these idiots. Are they really so locked into their tunnel vision that they can’t see that an argument that marriage is only for procreation works as well against any heterosexual woman over, say, the age of 45 wanting to marry as it does against gay people?