Have a baby or your marrage is annulled

[Superflyer]

This is new initiative that the gay and lesbian alliance in Washington state is trying to get made into a bill.
Since gay marrage was turned down because as they said marrage is only for procreation, they then turned it around on the state and came up with this. If a couple does not have a baby within 3 years of getting married the marrage becomes annulled. Kind of funny and lame at the same time. Good luck getting the signatures to get this on the ballot.
Link (http://www.kndo.com/Global/story.asp?S=6026820&nav=menu484_2_8)

[CaramonLS]

Well its obviously a publicity stunt, they know full well it wont pass, but it does bring up a fair and valid point.

[MarchHare]

Well its obviously a publicity stunt, they know full well it wont pass, but it does bring up a fair and valid point.

Indeed. :D

I was married last December in a civil cermony conducted by a judge, not in a church. My wife and I have talked about it several times, and neither of us wishes to ever have children. So to the people who are opposed to gay marriage because you believe that marriage is a religious institution for the purpose of procreation and raising children, are you also opposed to my marriage? Afterall, it is neither religious nor for the purpose of child-bearing. Do you dare tell either me or my wife that we shouldn't be allowed to be married? Shouldn't a "civil union with all the same rights as marriage, but a different name" be good enough for us?

[Frank the Tank]

Their arguement is as sound as any religous persons arguement against gay marriage. Anything to open these idiots eyes is OK by me.

[B-RaD]

Meh, I see where the govt. has issues with this. If they allow anyone to marry anyone, they are giving lots of people trying to get into the country through this loop hole another chance. And if they can get married, they will want kids of their own, which i really dont agree with.
I dont agree with gay/lesbien marriage so i guess my opinion is bias but from a govt. opinion, its all about keeping america as the land of the good wholesome christian families. Eventually the marriages will be allowed because our society is all too "fairness" orientated anyways...

[Julio]

There is no 'loophole' where because you are married you are automatically allowed into either the U.S. or Canada. That pretty much went out with 1970's sitcoms.

[Frank the Tank]

Meh, I see where the govt. has issues with this. If they allow anyone to marry anyone, they are giving lots of people trying to get into the country through this loop hole another chance. And if they can get married, they will want kids of their own, which i really dont agree with.
I dont agree with gay/lesbien marriage so i guess my opinion is bias but from a govt. opinion, its all about keeping america as the land of the good wholesome christian families. Eventually the marriages will be allowed because our society is all too "fairness" orientated anyways...

How do two dudes getting married effect you in any way, shape or form?

[Burninator]

Meh, I see where the govt. has issues with this. If they allow anyone to marry anyone, they are giving lots of people trying to get into the country through this loop hole another chance. And if they can get married, they will want kids of their own, which i really dont agree with.
I dont agree with gay/lesbien marriage so i guess my opinion is bias but from a govt. opinion, its all about keeping america as the land of the good wholesome christian families. Eventually the marriages will be allowed because our society is all too "fairness" orientated anyways...
Why would you not want people traveling to other countries marrying someone and then having children when residing in your country? I don't see a problem with this.

[photon]

our society is all too "fairness" orientated anyways...

Yeah, fairness is a pain when it goes against what you want. :whistle:

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

How do two dudes getting married effect you in any way, shape or form?


In the same way that creating more families is an "attack on the family." There's no sense in trying to apply logic to the kind of culture-wars doublespeak that has taken over this issue.

[Frank the Tank]

In the same way that creating more families is an "attack on the family." There's no sense in trying to apply logic to the kind of culture-wars doublespeak that has taken over this issue.

I was hoping someone would defend the "sactitiy of marriage" so I could point out the stellar 60+% divorce rate. I mean, "traditional marriage" is working so well, why change that!?:D

[RougeUnderoos]

Eventually the marriages will be allowed because our society is all too "fairness" orientated anyways...

Interesting observation. Would you prefer our society had a little more unfairness going for it?

[RCGP]

why not just call gay marriage something like "manly love union". That way the marriage people can keep it pure or whatever, and the gay people can have their thing. Everybody wins.

[Burninator]

why not just call gay marriage something like "manly love union". That way the marriage people can keep it pure or whatever, and the gay people can have their thing. Everybody wins.

Because they want equality. Calling it "manly love union" is just segregating them again.

[burnin_vernon]

I was hoping someone would defend the "sactitiy of marriage" so I could point out the stellar 60+% divorce rate. I mean, "traditional marriage" is working so well, why change that!?:D

Or sacred bonds like those found on shows like "who wants to marry a millionaire?"

[MarchHare]

why not just call gay marriage something like "manly love union". That way the marriage people can keep it pure or whatever, and the gay people can have their thing. Everybody wins.

See my other post above. Should my wife and I -- a non-religious couple who will never be having children -- be forced to call our marriage a "hetero love union"?

[Antithesis]

Well its obviously a publicity stunt, they know full well it wont pass, but it does bring up a fair and valid point.

Does it really? I'm not against gay marriage but I don't see how it's a fair or valid point. In a heterosexual marriage, people at least CAN give birth to children that they produced. This is not possible in a homosexual marriage.

It also is a ridiculous statement on other levels: what about those who intend to have children but not within the first three years?

What about those who do try to have children but are not able to for three years?

I understand anything that 'makes the churchies look bad' goes over really well here but I do have to challenge your contention that this is anywhere near a fair or valid point.

[MarchHare]

Does it really? I'm not against gay marriage but I don't see how it's a fair or valid point. In a heterosexual marriage, people at least CAN give birth to children that they produced. This is not possible in a homosexual marriage.

It also is a ridiculous statement on other levels: what about those who intend to have children but not within the first three years?

What about those who do try to have children but are not able to for three years?

I understand anything that 'makes the churchies look bad' goes over really well here but I do have to challenge your contention that this is anywhere near a fair or valid point.

Either marriage is solely about child-bearing or it isn't. If it is, then logically those people who oppose gay marriage should also oppose couples who choose not to have children (like my wife and I) or couples who are not capable of having children (infertile and refuse to adopt) getting married. If marriage is not about child-bearing, then why be opposed to gay and lesbian couples getting married when they love each other and want a lifetime commitment together? Other than bigotry and hatred, of course.

[Antithesis]

Either marriage is solely about child-bearing or it isn't. If it is, then couples who choose not to have children (like my wife and I) or couples who are not capable of having children (infertile and refuse to adopt) should not be permitted to marry. If marriage is not about child-bearing, then why be opposed to gay and lesbian couples getting married when they love each other and want a lifetime commitment together? Other than bigotry and hatred, of course.

Just because a marriage isn't about having children "right now" does not necessarily indicate that it never will be, thus this statement is neither valid nor fair.

I am not against gay marriage ... I am all for it, but championing this as some kind of zinger that there is simply no answer to is absurd in my mind. Like I said, I think this is purely another case of "anything that makes churchies look bad is teh awessome!!!111!!!!one1!!" on this site.

I don't take issue with the assertion that the church's opposition to gay marriage is absurd because I agree with that assertion. What I take issue with is people saying that this is anything but some kind of juvenile attempt at being witty.

[Sylvanfan]

Does it really? I'm not against gay marriage but I don't see how it's a fair or valid point. In a heterosexual marriage, people at least CAN give birth to children that they produced. This is not possible in a homosexual marriage.


Not neccessarily, say one of the partners in the marriage is sterile or barren? Than you have people who apparently got married for no reason because they can't conceive their own child naturally they need the *******ization of science to interfere.

This initiative does put an extreme spin on things, but it does present the issue in a new way that most probably never thought of.

I have no problem with gay marriages myself, but at the same time I don't think they should be able to put in legislation to force a church that doesn't want to recognize something as a biding marriage to perform the ceremonies.

[Antithesis]

This initiative does put an extreme spin on things, but it does present the issue in a new way that most probably never thought of.

I agree with your points 100% ... I think I may have fleshed out my own a bit better in another post.

[RougeUnderoos]

Does it really? I'm not against gay marriage but I don't see how it's a fair or valid point. In a heterosexual marriage, people at least CAN give birth to children that they produced. This is not possible in a homosexual marriage.



Well they can cover half of it and then have a child.

I also think it's a valid point. If it is true that the procreation point was used to argue against same-sex marriage it should apply to hetero marriage as well.

It's a piddling little argument, which is fitting because it's a piddling little bogus excuse to continue discriminating against a certain group of people. If this preserving procreation business is really what they are after they should be denying marriage licenses to anyone (gay or straight) who will not or can not have kids. But of course they won't deny straight people the right to marry because this is not about procreation at all.

[MarchHare]

Just because a marriage isn't about having children "right now" does not necessarily indicate that it never will be, thus this statement is neither valid nor fair.

My marriage is not about having children "ever", not just "right now". The same can be said about one of my uncles and a coworker and their wives.

So if all of us are allowed to get married even though we're NEVER going to have children, why be opposed to homosexual marriage (I realize you aren't and are just playing devil's advocate) solely on the grounds that marriage is for child-rearing?

The usual argument against gay marriage boils down to the following:

Marriage is a religious institution and has been for thousands of years.
So are you also opposed to non-religious heterosexual couples getting married? Or just the evil fags?

Marriage is about procreation and raising children, and homosexuals can't do that.
So are you also opposed to heterosexual couples who can't or choose not to have children getting married? Or just the evil fags?

[Cube Inmate]

The usual argument against gay marriage boils down to the following:

Marriage is a religious institution and has been for thousands of years.
So are you also opposed to non-religious heterosexual couples getting married? Or just the evil fags?

Marriage is about procreation and raising children, and homosexuals can't do that.
So are you also opposed to heterosexual couples who can't or choose not to have children getting married? Or just the evil fags?

Hey March...

Can you do one of those for the "slippery slope to polygamy" argument too? I want to see how you can fit the phrase "evil fags" into that one.

[Agamemnon]

Just because a marriage isn't about having children "right now" does not necessarily indicate that it never will be, thus this statement is neither valid nor fair.
The statement is completely valid. Many anti-gay-marriage people are using marriage = childrearing as the basis of their argument. If this is a legitimate point, then they should also be against marriage of heterosexual couples who do not intend to procreate. Seems obvious...

I don't take issue with the assertion that the church's opposition to gay marriage is absurd because I agree with that assertion. What I take issue with is people saying that this is anything but some kind of juvenile attempt at being witty.
Meh... I don't think its immature or juvenile. The 'marriage = procreation' point has been used exhaustively to combat gay marriage rights. If the pro-gay-marriage crowd can eliminate the validity of this point, then they're one step closer to convincing the masses that they should be allowed to get married/unioned/partnered, whatever they choose to call it.

[Antithesis]

My marriage is not about having children "ever", not just "right now". The same can be said about one of my uncles and a coworker and their wives.

OK, then I will counter your point with my own: my wife and I have been married for 2.5 years. We are trying to have a baby but she is not pregnant. Therefore, we will not have children within this prescribed 3 year period, so our marriage should be annulled?

I guess what I take issue with is the statement that this is some kind of killer argument when it is not. In my mind, the way to fight something you think is absurd is not by being absurd yourself, and I hope I've illustrated why I think this is an absurd argument. If the argument was "Well, some people never have children, so marriage can't be purely for procreation," then I would be on-side: a solid argument.

Of course, it is a piddling argument against a piddling argument :D

[MarchHare]

If the argument was "Well, some people never have children, so marriage can't be purely for procreation," then I would be on-side: a solid argument.


Keep in mind that nobody is seriously proposing that heterosexual couples who don't have children within three years of marriage should have their marriages annulled. This is simply a publicity stunt to, as you put it, show how absurd it would be if the same standards people apply against gay marriage ("Marriage is for having children. Homosexuals can't have children. Therefore, homosexuals can't get married.") were also applied to heterosexual marriage. It puts a new spin on the argument.