Procreate, or else!

[MooCar93]

what if a couple wants to get married because they have deep feelings for eachother and don't want kids? If this ballot proceeds and it actually passes(which I dont think it would) all I can see is mass population, so many more people will starve to death because of lack of food and much more filth in the air, ground and water

I don't know that that will necessarily happen. Personally, I'd much rather stay unmarried than have kids, at least right now (but then the biological clock hasn't started running my life yet )

 

[The Nihilist]

Just out of curiosity, RecoveringPhilosopher, have you ever been married?

No way, I'm 24. That's too young for a life sentence.

 

[Texas Lynn]

what if a couple wants to get married because they have deep feelings for eachother and don't want kids? If this ballot proceeds and it actually passes(which I dont think it would) all I can see is mass population, so many more people will starve to death because of lack of food and much more filth in the air, ground and water

This is not a bill that is serious, but a use of the legislative process as a rhetorical device. In this case it is to show the absurdity of the anti same gender marriage position, which it does quite well. It reveals the paucity and hypocricy of the argument against same gender marriage.

BTW when this fight was began it was predicted allowing same gender marriage would help the institution of opposite gender marriage as well as how not allowing it has contributed to the decline of the institution of opposite gender marriage. The predictions came true.

The arguments of the hatemongers that allowing same gender couples to marry cause harm to opposite gender marriages has been shown to be absurd and disingenuous.

 

[MooCar93]

No way, I'm 24. That's too young for a life sentence.

Ah... ok. It's just that you seem to know so much about it - I figured you must have been married at least several times by now to be able to make an informed statement like that.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Or we start to colonise outside the Earth... or both!

We should anyway.

 

[Texas Lynn]

That's the point; it isn't fair. Did you read the whole post?

It's not fair that fundamentalists have chosen to use the same argument to not allow gay couples to get married.

Is there ever an instance in which fundamentalists adopt a position which is, more or less, "fair" ? I think the answer is no. It appears fundamentalism is about many things but fairness has never been one of them.

 

[Beccs]

If this proposal is real, it's setting a dangerous precedent. Who's to say it will stop with just this heavy handed interference in marriage? What next, deciding WHO we're supposed to marry?

Marriage involves two equal people who want to spend their lives together, not necessarily a contract to have children. Many couples these days don't want children, plain and simple. What gives the government or any other group the right to interfere?

 

[Ramona]

It seems that those using procreation to justify discrimination against homosexuals are the ones squirming. If one wishes to use this argument then one had better be prepared to have it applied not based on the prejudices of the religious right but rather equally across the board. As it is all we hear from the pro discrimination camp is “how dare you try to apply this same nonsense to me.”

MUST...RESIST...POSTING SOMETHING CHEEKY....

Aaaaaaaaa, nevermind, I just KNOW that someone would take offense to my laughing Quaker friend.

 

[FadingWhispers3]

Can I have Abram and Sarah's marriage voided? Because they weren't blessed with kids for years. Granted, they had one later, but that was through divine intervention.

 

[freealaska]

No squirming here.
It is pretty plain to see that it is ploy using a causation fallacy.
Since the gay advocacy lost in the court appeal where they had ample opportunity to show any problem with the constitutional definition or reason that same-gender should be recognized, they waste time and money for an impotent mock/misrepresent campaign in desperate hope that they sway a few of the naive or uninformed.
Overall, I give it two yawns and a snap.

So in your opinion the purpose of state endorsed marriage is NOT procreation and child-rearing? Then what is it?

Oh snap!

 

[ChristianCenturion]

So in your opinion the purpose of state endorsed marriage is NOT procreation and child-rearing? Then what is it?

Oh snap!

My opinion has nothing to do with the issue - the facts do. I'm not one of Washington state's Supreme Court justices.

Additionally, my opinion would have no bearing on the fact that a state endorsed marriage does not have to rely on only one purpose or reason. So again, oversimplification or misinformation is the main source of the gay advocacy argument. If you were having trouble finding the Supreme Court ruling, all you needed to do was ask for help:

http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/759341.opn.pdfhttp://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=759341MAJ

 

[BigBadWlf]

My opinion has nothing to do with the issue - the facts do.

And the fact remains that those using procreation as a justification for discrimination against homosexuals do not wish to have that same reasoning applied to themselves. This not only shows the complete lack of reasoning behind such discrimination but a significant level of hypocrisy on the part of those advocating discrimination.

 

[freealaska]

Absolutely right. I hope it does make it onto the ballot and it does pass. It won't because of hypocrites. They'll make lame excuses for why applying the same rules across the board instead of creating 'special restrictions' just for gays isn't a good idea.

I would take the law even further and require minimum competency testing and breeding permits BEFORE allowing a couple to get married. Followed by the requirement that people already married in obsolete marriages refile under the new system. Couples who fail to refile will have their old marriages declared in abeyance. They will not be allowed to seek divorce or any marital benefit under the law until they refile and are approved because their relationship will have no legal standing.

Childless married couples who refile will be required to produce a certificate of live birth no later than 10 months after refiling or the union will be dissolved and each partner fined $10,000 or 5 years in prison for committing fraud.

Married couples who refile and already have children will not have to produce a certifcate of live birth within the 10 month time frame except in the case wherein their prior-born children are 16 and over. Then they will be required to produce a certificate of live birth within the 10 month time frame or the union will be dissolved and each partner fined $10,000 or 5 years in prison for committing fraud.

Elderly couples, infertile couples, and persons not permitted by law to breed who may already be married will not be allowed to refile and their marriages will be held in effect for 3 years after which time they will be annuled. If they wish to remain together after that they can just hire an attorney for $100 an hour and fill out the hundreds of forms required to secure the same benefits that other people get when one shows up with a penis and one a vagina and signing a form. That's only fair.

And the fact remains that those using procreation as a justification for discrimination against homosexuals do not wish to have that same reasoning applied to themselves. This not only shows the complete lack of reasoning behind such discrimination but a significant level of hypocrisy on the part of those advocating discrimination.

 

[UberLutheran]

If this proposal is real, it's setting a dangerous precedent. Who's to say it will stop with just this heavy handed interference in marriage? What next, deciding WHO we're supposed to marry?

Marriage involves two equal people who want to spend their lives together, not necessarily a contract to have children. Many couples these days don't want children, plain and simple. What gives the government or any other group the right to interfere?

Government has the right to protect the institution of marriage, for marriage gives us children who in turn pay taxes and serve in the military.

If people stopped having babies, who would fight America's wars?

[/sarcasm]

 

[Ignorance]

No squirming here.
It is pretty plain to see that it is ploy using a causation fallacy.
Since the gay advocacy lost in the court appeal where they had ample opportunity to show any problem with the constitutional definition or reason that same-gender should be recognized, they waste time and money for an impotent mock/misrepresent campaign in desperate hope that they sway a few of the naive or uninformed.
Overall, I give it two yawns and a snap.

Yeah, the thought of same sex marriage is really terrible. Makes me sick. In fact, it just as bad as giving blacks and jews equal rights.