It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bill to Require Heterosexuals to Have Children

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 11:08 AM
link   

An initiative filed by proponents of same-sex marriage would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriage annulled.

Under the initiative, marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children in order to get a marriage license, and if they did not have children within three years, their marriage would be subject to annulment.

All other marriages would be defined as "unrecognized" and people in those marriages would be ineligible to receive any marriage benefits.

“For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation ... The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine," said WA-DOMA organizer Gregory Gadow in a printed statement. “If same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that all couples who cannot or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage."
seattletimes.nwsource.com...
This strikes a blow for intellectual consistency. The court must either backtrack out of its own statements, or allow the law and legally weaken the institution.




posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 12:16 PM
link   
This is an idotic way to try and keep out gay marriage. The problem is that there are plenty of gay couples who have kids. So they would technically be married.

I say let gay people get married. Why should only the straight people suffer



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Royal, i believe the point of the bill is to back lawmakers into a corner.

Lawmakers: "Marriage is between a man and woman only!"

Proponents: "But why?"

Lawmakers: "Because, um... because marriage is a means to procreate. Since same-sex couples can't procreate, they can't marry."

Propoents: "Well, that's not very fair. Since YOU SAY marriage is a means to procreate, WE are going to introduce a bill that says married couples who do not procreate within a certain time frame will fall short of their marital requirements, and will lose lose their license, so to speak. This will make you look pretty stupid, since everybody knows marriage is between two people in love, nothing more!"

Lawmakers: "....oh. What? I'm sorry. We're just going to sweep this bill under the rug anyway, so nobody will really even hear much about it. If a news company does decide to take a closer look, we'll have Joe Biden call Barak Obama clean again. Now good day!"

and that's how it will unfold.

[edit on 2/6/2007 by The Cyfre]



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 10:56 PM
link   
I think, personally, it would make more sense to try to outlaw divorce. That will freak people out. Afterall, if marriage is 'sanctified', then it can't be nullified, by the anti-gay logic.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 01:48 AM
link   
Arrgh the joys of simple logic at work. While I don't support annulling marriages if no kids come about this idea does help to undermine one of the arguments against gay marriage.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 06:22 PM
link   
This bill would outlaw marriage for anyone 55 and older, as well as make it impossible for those who are infertile to marry as well. Funny how we live in a society that teaches "freedom for all," and yet it overlooks rights for gays and lesbians.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 11:29 PM
link   
This is a ludicrous attempt at legislation. Besides the fact that overpopulation is a serious problem on this planet (we should encourage people NOT to have kids) the government has no business telling me or anyone else who they can or cannot marry and for what reasons. So guy A can't marry guy B or gal A can't marry gal B because of some stupid law? What's next? Guy A can't marry gal A because they are different colors - oh wait a minute......been there, done that haven't we?



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
I think, personally, it would make more sense to try to outlaw divorce. That will freak people out. Afterall, if marriage is 'sanctified', then it can't be nullified, by the anti-gay logic.


I second that one, Nygdan. If divorce were outlawed, then no one would get married anymore. I dont even know why people DO get married. It only last for a year or two and then they move onto the next person, only to repeat the process.

How has marriage got to be so passe lately? What is the point anymore? And the mere suggestion that if married couples have children or be anulled is insane. This would just give more of the worlds children one mom and 3 "dads" or vice versa



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Why do you need marriage to procreate?

In the course of human procreation, marriage is relatively recent.

What happens if you want to adopt a child? There are many children around the world who could benefit from being adopted by a 1st world family.



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Royal76
This is an idotic way to try and keep out gay marriage. The problem is that there are plenty of gay couples who have kids. So they would technically be married.

I say let gay people get married. Why should only the straight people suffer




i second you that is an awesome idea



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 12:38 PM
link   
I wonder how many guys read the article, and then started emailing their congressmen:

"Dear Sir or Madam; Please make this bill go through. I've been married for four years, and can't stand the [expletive]."



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 06:43 AM
link   
umm...marriage is not a recent concept....
it was man's first experiment with slavery, the target women!

lol.....read the old testament of the bible.


I still say get rid of all the perks...whatever they are???...and well, the clamor will end...

really, what are those neat little perks that gays are deprived of? think about it for a minute, how many of them were the result of someone, namely women being deprived of the right to determine her own destiny?

get rid of the descrimination and desire to throw people into their respective stereotypes, get rid of the need for the perks, get rid of the clamour for gay rights....seems to work for me!



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join