N.M. Republican Said Gay Men Should Stop ‘Whoring’ And Marry Women
The Republican New Mexico state senator leading the charge against same-sex marriage wrote a blog post in which he suggested gay couples in the state should stop “whoring” and marry local women instead.
State Sen. William Sharer wrote the blog post last Friday as county clerks began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in the state. He argued that defining marriage as something other than a union between a man and a woman could damage the basic foundation of society.
“Procreation through the natural acts of men and women is the unique aspect of marriage,” Sharer wrote in the post.
Marriage, Sharer argues, helps society avoid “violence and poverty.”
“If we wanted to purposefully establish a culture of poverty and violence we would work to arrange for most children to be born to single teenage mothers with little or no family support. - Oh wait, that is exactly what we have done,” Sharer writes.
Sharer’s post is full of historical references. He writes that “Marriage was a well established system long before any Bible totin’ Christian ever walked on this continent” and that the story of Pocahontas and John Rolfe was important because it was a marriage of love and also peace that linked the Powhatan Indians to the English colonists in Jamestown.
Sharer went on to say that Alexander the Great “may have engaged in homosexual activity, but he married a woman.”
[Alexander the Great] directed his officers to stop “whoring” around and find a local woman to marry.
WHY?
BECAUSE
“It is only through blood relations that hatred and war will end”. In other words, Alexander the Great thought that marriage was about creating and raising the next generation.
This is the reason for Marriage -
The creation and raising of children who have the best chance to grow to be peaceful, responsible citizens.
Sharer also suggested that defining marriage as something other than between a man and a woman could upend society.
“Marriage is important because it is the foundation of the family, the family of society. Marriage is a personal relationship with massive public significance,” Sharer wrote later on in the post. “Sex between a man and a woman produces babies - society needs babies - babies need both moms and dads.”
As marriage goes, so go the children, so goes the nation, so goes the world.
This is a simple foundational move. Defining marriage as virtually everyone on every continent and in every culture has always defined it.
Marriage in New Mexico is between one man and one woman, period.
Sharer and a group of Republican lawmakers in the state legislature are looking into legal action to prevent the six clerks who have begun issuing licenses to same-sex couples from continuing to do so.
Sharer had originally planned to file an injunction to stop Doña Ana County County Clerk Lynn Ellins, the first to depart from the state’s old policy, to stop issuing marriage licenses. But after other counties followed Ellins’ example, Sharer and his lawyers said they are reassessing their options.
Source is totally convinced by the logics.
Setting aside the homophobia (and there's quite a lot of it), am I the only person who can barely see beyond the irony of a Republican barking about how we have built a society where teenage mothers get little or no support?
State Sen. William Sharer wrote the blog post last Friday as county clerks began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in the state. He argued that defining marriage as something other than a union between a man and a woman could damage the basic foundation of society.
“Procreation through the natural acts of men and women is the unique aspect of marriage,” Sharer wrote in the post.
Marriage, Sharer argues, helps society avoid “violence and poverty.”
“If we wanted to purposefully establish a culture of poverty and violence we would work to arrange for most children to be born to single teenage mothers with little or no family support. - Oh wait, that is exactly what we have done,” Sharer writes.
Sharer’s post is full of historical references. He writes that “Marriage was a well established system long before any Bible totin’ Christian ever walked on this continent” and that the story of Pocahontas and John Rolfe was important because it was a marriage of love and also peace that linked the Powhatan Indians to the English colonists in Jamestown.
Sharer went on to say that Alexander the Great “may have engaged in homosexual activity, but he married a woman.”
[Alexander the Great] directed his officers to stop “whoring” around and find a local woman to marry.
WHY?
BECAUSE
“It is only through blood relations that hatred and war will end”. In other words, Alexander the Great thought that marriage was about creating and raising the next generation.
This is the reason for Marriage -
The creation and raising of children who have the best chance to grow to be peaceful, responsible citizens.
Sharer also suggested that defining marriage as something other than between a man and a woman could upend society.
“Marriage is important because it is the foundation of the family, the family of society. Marriage is a personal relationship with massive public significance,” Sharer wrote later on in the post. “Sex between a man and a woman produces babies - society needs babies - babies need both moms and dads.”
As marriage goes, so go the children, so goes the nation, so goes the world.
This is a simple foundational move. Defining marriage as virtually everyone on every continent and in every culture has always defined it.
Marriage in New Mexico is between one man and one woman, period.
Sharer and a group of Republican lawmakers in the state legislature are looking into legal action to prevent the six clerks who have begun issuing licenses to same-sex couples from continuing to do so.
Sharer had originally planned to file an injunction to stop Doña Ana County County Clerk Lynn Ellins, the first to depart from the state’s old policy, to stop issuing marriage licenses. But after other counties followed Ellins’ example, Sharer and his lawyers said they are reassessing their options.
Source is totally convinced by the logics.
Setting aside the homophobia (and there's quite a lot of it), am I the only person who can barely see beyond the irony of a Republican barking about how we have built a society where teenage mothers get little or no support?