Quote Originally Posted by Hajpoj
Wow you guys took that the wrong way. I'm trying to establish how the "sanctity of marriage" are never grounds to stand on when trying to suppress gay marriage.

The families that John McCain describe are very few compared to vast majority of Americans that have grown up in less than "standard" family arrangements, and society is still functioning fine because of it. It's preposterous for McCain to claim that protecting sanctity is important to society, when there is no evidence to support this.


ps. I'm a feminist and a womens studies major and no, the majority of these women that I'm describing are hard-working moms that have to deal with dead-beat dads. I'm not talking about those on welfare.

But lets go there: Poor mothers should starve while millions are wasted on a campaign(marriage) claiming something that is not? We "rich" already gave up our tax dollars, I'd rather see it feed people than wasted at this point...
First of all, it's no surprise that you are learning "feminist" theory in college. You are too young to remember when the overwhelming majority of children had a mother and a father in their homes, and divorces were a rare thing.

If a man and woman are not married, or have some kind of formal, legal agreement regarding children, why should the man have to pay for a child? There is such a thing as birth control and abortion. If a woman is not capable of supporting a child herself, those are the other choices.

If we MUST have divorces, then the father should get automatic custody of the children. The best way to solve the "dead beat dads" issue is to give them back their roles as provider and head of the household - so that it becomes integrated into our society again. Men should have rights along with responsiblities. Most fathers have very little of the former.

Just for the record, I don't care for the religious "sanctity" argument. It has nothing to do with religion - it's a question of logic and compassion.