Have a baby or your marrage is annulled - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Superflyer · 02-06-2007, 01:18 PM

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

CaramonLS · 02-06-2007, 01:22 PM

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

MarchHare · 02-06-2007, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

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

Indeed.

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 · 02-06-2007, 01:49 PM

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 · 02-06-2007, 02:05 PM

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 · 02-06-2007, 02:09 PM

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 · 02-06-2007, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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...

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

Burninator · 02-06-2007, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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...

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 · 02-06-2007, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B-RaD

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

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

Iowa_Flames_Fan · 02-06-2007, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank the Tank

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 · 02-06-2007, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

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!?

RougeUnderoos · 02-06-2007, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B-RaD

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 · 02-06-2007, 03:24 PM

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 · 02-06-2007, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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

burnin_vernon · 02-06-2007, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank the Tank

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!?

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

MarchHare · 02-06-2007, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 02-06-2007, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

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 · 02-06-2007, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antithesis

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 · 02-06-2007, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarchHare

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 · 02-06-2007, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antithesis

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.