Procreate, or else!

[Skaloop]

A new ballot measure is being proposed in Washington state. It would require that any married couples must have a child within three years or the marriage would be annulled. This is being suggested because procreation is the primary purpose of marriage and as such marriages that don't produce children are not real marriages. Putting restrictions on marriage in this way will serve to protect its sanctity.

Of course, everybody knows this is absurd, even those proposing the bill. The point of it all is to bring attention to the silliness of citing "inability to procreate" as a reason against same-sex marriage.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/02/05/gay.marriage.ap/index.html

Man, I hope it makes it onto the ballot.

 

[KomissarSteve]

Every sperm is saaaaaaaacred
Every sperm is greeeeeeeeat...

 

[lemmings]

This isn’t that bad of an idea but I would like it to be extended because the idea of breading is to continue the species. You must have one child by the third year, by the fifth year you must have two. If you have three or more then you get annual tax breaks. Marriage licenses should be revoked to anyone who is related to or has won a Darwin Award.

PS: I hope it passes.

 

[KomissarSteve]

This isn’t that bad of an idea but I would like it to be extended because the idea of breading is to continue the species. You must have one child by the third year, by the fifth year you must have two. If you have three or more then you get annual tax breaks. Marriage licenses should be revoked to anyone who is related to or has won a Darwin Award.

PS: I hope it passes.

...
...
...wait a second. What if the couple doesn't want children?

 

[uberd00b]

This isn’t that bad of an idea but I would like it to be extended because the idea of breading is to continue the species. You must have one child by the third year, by the fifth year you must have two. If you have three or more then you get annual tax breaks. Marriage licenses should be revoked to anyone who is related to or has won a Darwin Award.

PS: I hope it passes.

Actually in the UK through tax credits we the taxpayers are funding people to have kids. Or conversley, childless couples are being discriminated against via tax.

But to be honest I think the global population is too large as it is, and could do with being notched down by a billion or so.

 

[rosesandravens]

This isn’t that bad of an idea but I would like it to be extended because the idea of breading is to continue the species. You must have one child by the third year, by the fifth year you must have two. If you have three or more then you get annual tax breaks. Marriage licenses should be revoked to anyone who is related to or has won a Darwin Award.

PS: I hope it passes.

...Breading?

Sucks to be infertile. *eyeroll*

 

[amused]

lol komissarsteve.

I intially wrote some stuff before I read the article but then decided to read it lol. I wrote some stuff about what if a married couple cant have children. That the idea is proposterous! It ticked me off. Then as I said I went back and read the article and found that it says that W.D.M.A. realises this idea is "absurd". The only reason for even proposing such an idea was to spur on discussions about the laws against same sex marriage. Which if I had read the first post properly (am so sorry its late and I am sleep deprived lol) I would have seen that and not got my knickers in a bunch over it lol.

So good on them for being controversial, gives us all something to think about. It would be interesting if it was on the ballot and maybe the laws will be changed to allow same sex marriages. Clever stuff

cheers

 

[amused]

yeah it is hey! Good on you Skaloop! I love it!

cheers

 

[The Nihilist]

...
...
...wait a second. What if the couple doesn't want children?

These people probably want to get married because they want to be happy, but everyone knows that being happy is not the purpose of marriage.

 

[KomissarSteve]

These people probably want to get married because they want to be happy, but everyone knows that being happy is not the purpose of marriage.

...
...
...I know yuo're being sarcastic, but...

*twitch*

 

[ChristianCenturion]

A new ballot measure is being proposed in Washington state. It would require that any married couples must have a child within three years or the marriage would be annulled. This is being suggested because procreation is the primary purpose of marriage and as such marriages that don't produce children are not real marriages. Putting restrictions on marriage in this way will serve to protect its sanctity.

Of course, everybody knows this is absurd, even those proposing the bill. The point of it all is to bring attention to the silliness of citing "inability to procreate" as a reason against same-sex marriage.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/02/05/gay.marriage.ap/index.html

Man, I hope it makes it onto the ballot.

Yep, propaganda tactics are a staple for gay advocacy.

 

[Skaloop]

Yep, propaganda tactics are a staple for gay advocacy.

But not at all for the "protect marriage" crowd.

 

[Texas Lynn]

What an excellent argument showing the absurdity of the arguments being offered against social change.

Venceremos!

 

[The Nihilist]

...
...
...I know yuo're being sarcastic, but...

*twitch*

Say what you like, but I'm pretty sure that marriage is designed to make us miserable. Men, at least.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Say what you like, but I'm pretty sure that marriage is designed to make us miserable. Men, at least.

No insult intended at all but it seems the fact you posted that and also do not have a marriage icon is not coincidental.

 

[Argent]

Say what you like, but I'm pretty sure that marriage is designed to make us miserable. Men, at least.

Actually, I think studies have proved that married men live longer than never-married men, and that never-married women live longer than married women. Seems marriage favors us.

 

[BigBadWlf]

...
...
...wait a second. What if the couple doesn't want children?

Then they shouldn’t be getting married…

 

[BigBadWlf]

Sarcastic or not if certain groups wish to use procreation as a means of justifying discrimination against a minority…then they need to accept that the discrimination they advocate must be applied to all not just the minority they have chosen to hate.

 

[KomissarSteve]

Then they shouldn’t be getting married…

I think it's a little much to be assuming that God plans for all married couples to have children, and for no childless people to be married.

 

[SimplyMe]

Yep, propaganda tactics are a staple for gay advocacy.

You say that as if it is something strange. Fact is, all advocacy groups are spreading propaganda (see dictionary definition).

What is unique here is how they have chosen to agree with the propaganda of the "pro-family" advocacy and are now enjoying the squirming.