"Family is composed of a mother and a father, and usually but not necessarily, children..."
...is Ken Epp's (Edmonton--Sherwood Park) argument. A mother and a father, but not necessarily children? Doesn't "mother and father" sort of necessarily imply children? This gets to the core of these ridiculous arguments about children I've been hearing all night. There are many heterosexual couples who aren't mothers and fathers. Children are not the reason men and women get together; sex is. Children are just a byproduct of that, and you don't have to be married to have children.
7 Comments:
"GASP"
Did you say s-e-x ?
How ridiculous to be standing up for parents without children?
We're not talking divorce rights here, folks, we're talking people.
Do half of Harper's minions and hangers-on even know what the deal is?
The last stupid thing I heard from them was about how children with too many parents suffer...
Go figger, I guess
"Children are just a byproduct of that [sex]"
Yep, that's all children are! Just a side effect of orgasms.
Wow.
Are you telling me that children aren't a byproduct of sex? I think biology teachers would disagree.
They're not the "byproduct of sex," they're the purpose of sex, biologically.
They're not the "byproduct of sex," they're the purpose of sex, biologically.
The purpose of sex? So are you saying that all the guys who hang out at the dance clubs on the weekend are looking to meet a girl to take home and knock up? Their isnt some other "biological" need being served there?
Oh, that's right, God (or Darwin- whatever you believe) created sex for the young men who want to get their jollies from the young women at dance clubs, and not for the propagation of the species. Right.
I'm pretty sure Charles Darwin didn't create sex...
Post a Comment
<< Home