Marriage under attack again

[coordinatesales]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250411,00.html

People sometimes say that extending traditional marriage to include gay/lesbian couples in no way 'threatens' traditional marriage. Yet here is an example of people pushing that agenda to the extent that it DOES endanger traditional marriage.

OLYMPIA, Wash. — Proponents of same-sex marriage have introduced a ballot measure that would require heterosexual couples to have a child within three years or have their marriages annulled.
The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance acknowledged on its Web site that the initiative was "absurd" but hoped the idea prompts "discussion about the many misguided assumptions" underlying a state Supreme Court ruling that upheld a ban on same-sex marriage.
The measure would require couples to prove they can have children to get a marriage license. Couples who do not have children within three years could have their marriages annulled.
All other marriages would be defined as "unrecognized," making those couples ineligible for marriage benefits.
The paperwork for the measure was submitted last month. Supporters must gather at least 224,800 signatures by July 6 to put it on the November ballot.
The group said the proposal was aimed at "social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation."

Cheryl Haskins, executive director of Allies for Marriage and Children, said opponents of same-sex marriage want only to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
"Some of those unions produce children and some of them don't," she said.

[oloenneker]

I heard about this nonsense this morning on the news. Who in their right mind is going to sign a petition for for such a thing?

Who is the government to say wether I and my wife should have kids? It is really none of their business wether I want to procreate or not.

I understand that it is some sort of "back door" towards banning the gays from getting a "civil union", and that just a stupid.

The Part about this stupid idea is that it is put forward by "conservative Christians"... And they are probably Republicans to boot. What a hypocracy!! I thought that Repubs where all for less government control!!! Now they want to control if I am gonna have kids simply because I am married to my wife?

The measure would require couples to prove they can have children to get a marriage license.

What about Seniors getting married? How about Divorcee's with children re-marrying? The list could go on.

Stupid, and it'll never pass anyways! Although, the scary part is: They might actually get the required signatures for it to be a ballot measure, where it will die a quick death.


Just as you "righties" claim that there are "wingnuts" among the "libs", here is a shiniing example or "wingnuts" on the "right"...

And I agree, this ballot measure, which would never pass, would threaten tradditional marriage.

[bluestone]

I say fine, if a straight couples marriage is anulled after three years because they can't or won't procreate with each other, then a gay couples marriage should be anulled because they can't or won't procreate with each other too.

Stupid argument and premise

[oloenneker]

I say fine, if a straight couples marriage is anulled after three years because they can't or won't procreate with each other, then a gay couples marriage should be anulled because they can't or won't procreate with each other too.

Stupid argument and premise

It looks like you're a supporter of this flawed logic.

On the other hand, whats to stop the gays fom "adopting " a child? Or in the case of Lesbians, getting artificially inseminated? Does that not satisfy the requirement?

It'll never fly....

[bluestone]

No not a supporter, and no does not qualify, I said procreate with each other.

This is an asinine political stance from the outset

[Special Ed]

I can't believe that law is even being considered....

Washington State.... What a mess!

[chillbilly]

[QUOTE=oloenneker;1366597]

The Part about this stupid idea is that it is put forward by "conservative Christians"... And they are probably Republicans to boot. What a hypocracy!! I thought that Repubs where all for less government control!!! Now they want to control if I am gonna have kids simply because I am married to my wife?

You want to back up your claim that this legislation was brought forth by Christians and/or Republicans?

Wanker makes a claim that Republicans "probably" introduced the bill and then he expounds on what they "probably" did with more idiotic rhetoric.
If you can't show who brought the bill forward, just shut your pie hole.

Just as you "righties" claim that there are "wingnuts" among the "libs", here is a shiniing example or "wingnuts" on the "right"...

It always amazes me how deep the hatred for religion and the republican party runs.
Like I said before, if you don't have any facts about who is responsible for bringing the legislation forward, just shut your ignorant piehole.

[oloenneker]

[QUOTE=chillbilly;1368404]

You want to back up your claim that this legislation was brought forth by Christians and/or Republicans?

Wanker makes a claim that Republicans "probably" introduced the bill and then he expounds on what they "probably" did with more idiotic rhetoric.
If you can't show who brought the bill forward, just shut your pie hole.

It always amazes me how deep the hatred for religion and the republican party runs.
Like I said before, if you don't have any facts about who is responsible for bringing the legislation forward, just shut your ignorant piehole.

You know what, Chill, I am SO wrong about this one. Knee jerk reaction, and a stupid one at that.

You win...

I realized that it was the PRO Gay Marriage people bringing this about....

MY mistake... ( but it does sound like something you right wing wacko's would try and slip the wool over the Americans with...)

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...nokids06m.html

[bluestone]

News flash from the United Soviet Socialist Republic of Vermont, Komrad Bluestone reporting; Vermont announced today 1/8/07 it's lawmakers will revisit the " gay marriage" issue.

I see another social engineering breakthrough brought to you by the ultra leftist state supreme court of VT. Hold on, this will most likely become law in this state, ( the state that brought you the civil union ) and set precident that will be used across the country!

P.S. I live way to close to Cambridge MA.

[chillbilly]

[QUOTE=oloenneker;1368905]

You know what, Chill, I am SO wrong about this one.
Knee jerk reaction, and a stupid one at that.

Agreed. Quite stupid. You'll get no argument from me there.

You win...

I win? You don't get it do you?
You perpetuate a myth with intellectual dishonesty about not one, but two groups you despise and then you topple your King and say, "I lost".
I couldn't give a sh-t about winning or losing here ole or eliciting a concession from the likes of you.
I do care that your reckless fabrications can cause damage to those you attack though.

And people like you are the first ones to be outraged by persecution.......Go figure

I realized that it was the PRO Gay Marriage people bringing this about....
MY mistake... ( but it does sound like something you right wing wacko's would try and slip the wool over the Americans with...)

Of course it does ole. Thanks for your half-assed apology. It goes hand in hand with all of your half-assed commentary about America, religion and politics.

[ladyfire3374]

Silly me!

I thought the only thing "endangering" marriage was divorce.

[chillbilly]

Silly me!

I thought the only thing "endangering" marriage was divorce.

Nah. If that was the case, most people wouldn't marry multiple times after multiple failures.

[chillbilly]

I don't know, but my guess would be that gay relationships fail about as frequently as straight ones fail.
Most people just pick themselves up and try again.