Have a baby or your marrage is annulled

[Antithesis]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

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]

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.

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]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

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]

Originally Posted by Antithesis

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]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

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

[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.