Proposed law would require married couples to have children.

www.gayrightswatch.com...

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.

Initiative 957 was filed last month by Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance. That group was formed last summer after the state supreme court upheld Washington's ban on same-sex marriage.

Under the measure, 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.

I think it's a brilliant idea. So many anti-same-sex marriage proponents make the argument that because gay people can't have children, their marriage isn't valid. Of course I don't want the law to be passed, but if gays can't marry because of this BS argument, neither should heterosexuals.

Edit: To add another link
www.nwcn.com

[edit on 14-2-2007 by Rasobasi420]

mod edit, fix link

[edit on 18-2-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]

Maybe bump this?

Does anyone think it's an interesting tactic for the pro same sex thing huh?

It'll never fly. Most ridiculous thing I've ever heard!

It's not meant to fly. It's meant to set precedent for the arguments against gay marriage.

It IS an interesting topic. Raso. There was another thread on it. Few people commented. I mean, what can you say? It makes perfect sense. If gay people can't get married because they can't have children (flimsy excuse), then straight people who can't have children (like myself) shouldn't be allowed to either.

www.abovepolitics.com...

Yeah BH, it looks like the people who understand the reasoning behind the bill, no matter what side of the issue their on, seem to at least accept that it's a good plan.

The thing I've never understood is why the government recognizes marriage in the first place. Marriage is a religious sacrament. I find it ironic that the same people who are anti-religion are the ones pushing for gay marriage.

In my opinion, the government should no longer recognize marriage, but recognize unions. I mean, if we're going to start giving tax benefits to married couples...maybe we should give tax benefits to those who are baptised as well...after all, that's another religious sacrament.

Marriage may be a religious sacrament to some but to the state it's a contractual agreement between you, your partner and the state. Since you and your partner and any tangible assets you have all belong to the state, their accountants have to keep track of where all the assets are at all times. Common law marriages in which no children are produced still have to get a divorce in order to have the state (judge in divorce court) divide up the assets. That's one of the reasons you need a license. The state imposes certain financial requirements on married couples and grants certain financial benefits to married couples so the definition of what constitutes a marriage is important to the bean counters. Their collection of that 75% inheritance tax would be drastically reduced if your significant other were legally recognized as your spouse. Also, there's the collection of social security benefits for spouse status and the government can't be giving SS away to gays because they're giving it all away to illegal aliens.
If such legislation passes, I can see a drastic increase in surrogate mothers, black market baby buying, questionable adoption practices. Leave it to Con-gress to pass a law making a mountain out of a molehill.

I find this so hilarious

Laws like this can only happen in the US, have you people taken the time to think what the US looks like to people from the rest of the world when they read stuff like this?

Yes, FP, it sounds ridiculous to some of us Americans, too. That's why we argue against it. In a free country where everyone's voice is heard, we hear some pretty ridiculous stuff but use reason and logic to counter any nonsense. In countries where only the popular voice(s) are heard and people with unpopular ideas are shot or "re-educated", no unpopular ideas are available to ridicule. We prefer to have "silly" discussions in which all sides of an argument are heard and all may participate, bringing their point of view, imagination and potential solutions to the table for consideration. We save the bullets and re-education for people (countries) who only want (their) one idea heard and promoted. It works for us.

There is another thread about this from a few days ago. Please post your thoughts about this in the thread linked below.

www.abovepolitics.com...

Closed.