Rotflmao

uscitizen

uscitizen

Villified User
Washington Same-Sex Marriage Proponents: Require Heterosexual Couples to Have Kids or Face Annulment

Monday, February 05, 2007


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."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250411,00.html
 
Yeah... THIS will certainly help their cause. Why not just pull a Jonestown and end their stupidity. The ONLY thing they will accomplish is pissing people off who otherwise may have supported them.

Marriage is a religious ceremony. I thought the left wanted complete seperation of church and state? Leave marriage up to the religious organizations. If the government wants to have cival unions for ALL couples who either choose not to get married or are not allowed to be married in order to allow for the same benefits they provide to married couples then that is fine.
 
Marriage is a contract between two people.
If only a religious ceremony then why can non religious people perform the ceremony ?
It can ALSO be a religious ceremony.
 
"If only a religious ceremony then why can non religious people perform the ceremony ?"

Marriage is a religious ceremony that the STATE bastardized into something of their own. They did not use to have to have a marriage license. It was a holy union between a man and a woman.

That is not to say you are incorrect in how it is done now. I am just saying that if they want to end the stupid debate, just seperate the government from marriage and be done.
 
yeah we should go back to the olden days when we could have many wives and have them stoned to death if they cheated on us ;)
It was a purely religious ceremony then.
 
uscitizen said:
Marriage is a contract between two people.
If only a religious ceremony then why can non religious people perform the ceremony ?
It can ALSO be a religious ceremony.
Click to expand...
That was his point. Marriage should be the religious ceremony, any other ceremony should be for a Civil Union, a contract relationship.
 
He stated that marriage is a religious ceremony, I say that it is not , it is a legal ceremony. wishful thinking will not change that.
 
uscitizen said:
He stated that marriage is a religious ceremony, I say that it is not , it is a legal ceremony. wishful thinking will not change that.
Click to expand...
However legislation could. Instead of putting the religious name on the contract ceremony it would simply be the same for all couples.

Honestly, I really don't care. In this case you are being "conservative", a we cannot change attitude. Many people have proposed this solution, and IMO it is a valid solution that respects those of religion and the rights of others at the same time. Basically it would be a reasonable compromise that allows the secularists to live with the religious and each to have their day.
 
Damocles said:
However legislation could. Instead of putting the religious name on the contract ceremony it would simply be the same for all couples.

Honestly, I really don't care. In this case you are being "conservative", a we cannot change attitude. Many people have proposed this solution, and IMO it is a valid solution that respects those of religion and the rights of others at the same time. Basically it would be a reasonable compromise that allows the secularists to live with the religious and each to have their day.
Click to expand...

Yes but many on the right cannot live and let live. They have to mandate their "morals" to the rest of us. sigh....
 
Superfreak said:
Yeah... THIS will certainly help their cause. Why not just pull a Jonestown and end their stupidity. The ONLY thing they will accomplish is pissing people off who otherwise may have supported them.

Marriage is a religious ceremony. I thought the left wanted complete seperation of church and state? Leave marriage up to the religious organizations. If the government wants to have cival unions for ALL couples who either choose not to get married or are not allowed to be married in order to allow for the same benefits they provide to married couples then that is fine.
Click to expand...



Your statement shows that you are ignorant to the civil side of marrage. One can go to any notary in Florida and get married as long as the state issued them a proper liscense. It does not have to have anything religous about it. Once that civil ceramony is done there are MANY MANY civil advantages that couple enjoys that have nuthing to do with religen.

Now I understand that for religous people, marriage can have a religous componant, but it does not have to.

I got married with 0 religous componants to the wedding. My brother-in-law, a lawyer by trade, with 0 religous training performed the ceramony. It was done on a golf corse. We had a party afterward. Now, my wife and I own land as a married couple... which offers lots of protections. If we divorce (something we wont do) or seperate the law will say how we devide the assets, if one of us dies, social secutiry will provide extra money to the one who had less comming to them. If one is killed or injured due to negigance to another the law allows for compensation to the spouse. There are many MANY civil advantages to being married to your life partner that not connected in any way to religen.


Clearly Marrage always has a legal componant, and CAN if you choose, have a religous one!
 
Last edited:
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.

What a bunch of theocrats. I guess no older couples over the age of 50 can marry each other, then.
 
They make a good point, if liberals were acting as badly as the social conservatives this is what they would be proposing.

What the theocrats wont admit is that they are engaging in social engeneering.
 
Or women who have had histerectomies or men with a vasectomy, etc.

That group seems to have cranial -anal-itis.
 
Jarod said:
Your statement shows that you are ignorant to the civil side of marrage. One can go to any notary in Florida and get married as long as the state issued them a proper liscense. It does not have to have anything religous about it. Once that civil ceramony is done there are MANY MANY civil advantages that couple enjoys that have nuthing to do with religen.

Now I understand that for religous people, marriage can have a religous componant, but it does not have to.

I got married with 0 religous componants to the wedding. My brother-in-law, a lawyer by trade, with 0 religous training performed the ceramony. It was done on a golf corse. We had a party afterward. Now, my wife and I own land as a married couple... which offers lots of protections. If we divorce (something we wont do) or seperate the law will say how we devide the assets, if one of us dies, social secutiry will provide extra money to the one who had less comming to them. If one is killed or injured due to negigance to another the law allows for compensation to the spouse. There are many MANY civil advantages to being married to your life partner that not connected in any way to religen.


Clearly Marrage always has a legal componant, and CAN if you choose, have a religous one!
Click to expand...
You missed the point entirely. He proposes making it so that "marriage" be a religious ceremony, and that all other ceremonies be "civil unions" and therefore all people, including gay couples would have the same rights while the religious can have their "marriage".

So, you are arguing the current state rather than facing the proposed change. You too are being a conservative on this issue. We can't change a thing, except the way I want it to be changed....

The RR want to change it so that Gays cannot be "married" at all, the Left wants to change it so that everything is considered a "marriage".

In this case there is a reasonable alternative. Get government out of the religious terminology. Issue Union Licenses, allow them to any adult couple, and if you want a "marriage" go to a church.
 
Damocles said:
You missed the point entirely. He proposes making it so that "marriage" be a religious ceremony, and that all other ceremonies be "civil unions" and therefore all people, including gay couples would have the same rights while the religious can have their "marriage".

So, you are arguing the current state rather than facing the proposed change. You too are being a conservative on this issue. We can't change a thing, except the way I want it to be changed....

The RR want to change it so that Gays cannot be "married" at all, the Left wants to change it so that everything is considered a "marriage".

In this case there is a reasonable alternative. Get government out of the religious terminology. Issue Union Licenses, allow them to any adult couple, and if you want a "marriage" go to a church.
Click to expand...


I am all for that. Its what should happen. I would still consider myself married, but the government can change the name to civil union if they want, it will mean the same thing to me. I think it would really piss off the Reilgous conservatives, because they are against gay people getting the same rights as "married" people.

But the way the term "marrage" is used today I belive is always civil and sometimes religous.

I dont care what you call it, but I think Gay people should have the same rights as stright people when it comes to forming families, and having social protections. I think most religous conservatives would be against that. We are just talking semantics here. I dont care if you change the name, just keep the effect the same!

Churches can still refuse to have ceramonies for anyone they want. THey already do. I would not have been welcome to have my wedding in a Catholic Church because I am not Catholic. My firend could not get married in a Episcipolian church becuase she would not vow to be celebate for the 6 months prior to the wedding.
 
Jarod said:
I am all for that. Its what should happen. I would still consider myself married, but the government can change the name to civil union if they want, it will mean the same thing to me. I think it would really piss off the Reilgous conservatives, because they are against gay people getting the same rights as "married" people.

But the way the term "marrage" is used today I belive is always civil and sometimes religous.

I dont care what you call it, but I think Gay people should have the same rights as stright people when it comes to forming families, and having social protections. I think most religous conservatives would be against that. We are just talking semantics here. I dont care if you change the name, just keep the effect the same!

Churches can still refuse to have ceramonies for anyone they want. THey already do. I would not have been welcome to have my wedding in a Catholic Church because I am not Catholic. My firend could not get married in a Episcipolian church becuase she would not vow to be celebate for the 6 months prior to the wedding.
Click to expand...
I think this particular solution would push the RR in this argument far outside, they'd be unable to stop it as their strongest argument would be removed. The whole, "sanctimony" of marriage as an institution would be saved. There would be the few diehards that would never give up, but IMO even many of those who have objections would end it with this compromise solution.
 
"He stated that marriage is a religious ceremony, I say that it is not , it is a legal ceremony. wishful thinking will not change that."

So what you are saying is that IF the government has been invovled with religious aspects for a long enough period of time that it is OK to mingle church and state?
 
Jarod... I fully understand that right now, the government is involved in marriage and that you can get a marriage license from government offices without any type of religious ceremony.

Try to actually read what I wrote. I said Marriage IS a religious ceremony that the government SHOULD NOT be a part of if you truly believe in seperation of church and state. ALL couples could apply for cival unions that allow all the government benes. THIS keeps everyone happy. Marriage stays up to the religious groups as to who they will marry and gay couples are treated as equals by the government.
 
Superfreak said:
"He stated that marriage is a religious ceremony, I say that it is not , it is a legal ceremony. wishful thinking will not change that."

So what you are saying is that IF the government has been invovled with religious aspects for a long enough period of time that it is OK to mingle church and state?
Click to expand...

Nope, I am saying that in the USA marriage is a legal issue not a religious one. And I am darned glad of that. The religious apspect is purely optional, as it should be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top