Gay Marriage Group's Measure: Kids Or Annulment

Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by Tadou, Feb 6, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Tadou

    Tadou Vote 4 Pedro

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    Messages:
    4,368
    http://cbs2.com/national/topstories_story_037152638.html




    Gay Marriage Group's Measure: Kids Or Annulment
    (AP) OLYMPIA, Wash. Proponents of same-sex marriage have introduced an initiative that would put a whole new twist on traditional unions between men and women: It would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriages annulled.

    Initiative 957 was filed by the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance, which was formed last summer after the state Supreme Court upheld Washington's ban on same-sex marriage. In that 5-4 ruling, the court found that state lawmakers were justified in passing the 1998 Defense of Marriage Act, which restricts marriage to unions between a man and woman.

    Under I-957, marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children to get a marriage license, and if they did not have children within three years, their marriages would be subject to annulment.

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

    "Absurd? Very," the group says on its Web site, which adds it is planning two more initiatives involving marriage and procreation. "But there is a rational basis for this absurdity. By floating the initiatives, we hope to prompt discussion about the many misguided assumptions" underlying the Supreme Court's ruling.

    Gregory Gadow, who filed I-957 last month, said the three-year timeframe was arbitrary.

    "We did toy with the idea of (requiring) procreation before marriage," he said. "We didn't want to piss off the fundamentalists too much."

    Gadow said that if the group's initiatives were passed, the Supreme Court would be forced to strike them down as unconstitutional, which he believes would weaken the original ruling upholding the Defense of Marriage Act.

    But he said he highly doubts any of the initiatives will pass, and that they are being done "in the spirit of political street theater."

    "Our intention is not to actually put this into law," he said. "All we want is to get this on the ballot and cause people to talk about it."

    The group's Web site gives another reason: "And at the very least, it should be good fun to see the social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation be forced to choke on their own rhetoric."

    Cheryl Haskins, executive director of Allies for Marriage & Children, agreed with Gadow's group on at least one point about the initiative: "It's absurd," she said.

    Haskins said opponents of same-sex marriage "have never said that the sole purpose of marriage is procreation."

    "When we talk about defending the institution of marriage, we're talking about the union of a man and a woman," she said. "Some of those unions produce children and some of them don't."

    With I-957, "you're dictating people's choices in a way that is utterly ridiculous," she said.

    However, Gadow noted that the Supreme Court's majority decision specifically mentioned procreation throughout.

    The opinion written by Justice Barbara Madsen concluded that "limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the state's interests in procreation and encouraging families with a mother and father and children biologically related to both."

    Gadow said the argument is unfair when you're dealing with same-sex couples who are unable to have children together.

    "What we are trying to do is display the discrimination that is at the heart of last year's ruling," he said.

    Even the Legislature's most prominent proponent of same-sex marriage, Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, said he thought the initiative was misguided. While the "absurdity" of the Supreme Court decision should be discussed, that discussion needs to take place in the Legislature, he said.

    "I don't think the initiative process should be used to determine the rights and protections of marriage," he said.

    Murray, one of five openly gay lawmakers in the Legislature, is sponsoring a measure that would create domestic partnerships for same-sex couples and another to allow same-sex marriage. The domestic partnership measure has passed out of committee and a vote on the Senate floor could come within weeks.

    The sponsor of the same-sex marriage measure in the House, Rep. Jamie Pedersen, said he supported the effort "to draw attention to the hypocrisy of some of those who oppose marriage equality" but opposed the initiative.

    "For the same reason I don't think same-sex couples should be excluded from marriage, I don't think heterosexual married couples should be forced to procreate," said Pedersen, D-Seattle.

    Supporters of I-957 must gather at least 224,800 valid signatures by July 6 to put it on the November ballot.

    The measure's backers said the two additional initiatives they plan would prohibit divorce or separation when a married couple has children, and would make having a child together the equivalent of marriage.

    Gadow said he hopes to raise $300,000 to spend on advertising on the first initiative.
    test
  2. Ignorant

    Ignorant Village Idiot

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Messages:
    17,755
    As a staunch opponent of homosexuality and gay marriage, I actually like this idea... it's very creative of the gay rights groups. See, this is what happens when you politicize marriage. If they can't benefit, then heterosexual married couples shouldn't benefit, either. Genius!!
    test
  3. Tadou

    Tadou Vote 4 Pedro

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    Messages:
    4,368
    I'm sort of mixed on the issue. I'm not necessarily against gay marriage, or any marriage that doesn't/can't produce children......I just don't see the point of giving tax breaks and other considerations to people "JUST BECAUSE" they're Married. The whole point should be children, and encouraging families to have more of them.

    Really, I just want to see polygamy/bigamy legalized. I think it's a good start.
    test
  4. KEALYBOY

    KEALYBOY Ignorant is a pedophile

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2007
    Messages:
    450
    How did I guess. Love how you get on your high horse about certain types of prejudice but you're a fucking bone-headed bigot about others.
    test
  5. j deazy

    j deazy DAT_NICCA_MOOSE swallows

    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Messages:
    3,392
    personally i think this is a great idea... if the religious right wants to claim that the purpose of marriage is to procreate than it should hold such restrictions...

    now as to tadou... if tax breaks are there for married couples gays should not be excluded from this benefit... if the tax is for procreating and creating new shoppers than all married couples who have no kids should be forced to pay the same taxes as non married people... also when a child moves out they should be forced to pay the tax again... also if a child dies than they should be forced to pay the normal taxes... if you dont support these situations than the marriage tax break is merely a freebe thrown to straight married couples with gay couples standing in the middle jumping to try to get out of a perpetual game of •••••• in the middle
    test
  6. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    I meant to make a thread about this, But completely forgot.

    gays don't care about others rights. Just because Heterosexuals can have kids but homosexuals can't their gonna put a time limit on heterosexuals
    or consider the traditional way of marriage invalid?

    This goes beyond hurting the religious right, This hurts normal married heterosexual couples who might even be for gay marriage.

    Fuck this bullshit tactic.

    Don't make me get like andrew jackson, haven't to beat you down with a lamp.
    test
  7. BeEgEe

    BeEgEe El Warm Shot

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2001
    Messages:
    18,151


    is that a fact?


    lol.
    test
  8. j deazy

    j deazy DAT_NICCA_MOOSE swallows

    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Messages:
    3,392
    come on menaz... did you even read that article? they concept is that anyone who claims that marriage is for procreation than everyone who is married should follow that advice and have a kid because that is the "american" thing to do... it is called sarcasm and it is being placed in a public arena to be shot down in hopes of opening peoples eyes to the bullshit hypocracy
    test
  9. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    Everything is hypocritcal, But lets explore what you're advocating.


    The point is my ideoloistic friend why should two moderate heterosexual newly weds be lumped in to suffer both sides politics? Why should two moderate heterosexual newly weds be lumped in with religious right political thought? Why should these two moderate newly weds be limited to 3 years of marriage if no child? The outcome is, Giving equality to one, takes from the other. Two moderate heterosexuals might not want childern until 10 years, yet still want to be married, But since homosexuals and religious groups can't agree the moderate heterosexuals must pay for it? I'm not religious, I don't care if homo's marry, yet I have to pay so they can gain. FUCK THAT! That's hypocritical and still creating inequality. Fuck a right winger and a left winger. You all make the world harder than it has to be. It's just easier to go Andrew jackson on dumb asses with a lamp.
    test
  10. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807

    Actually it is a fact.
    And gay marriage is allowed in some states.

    let me explain...


    Gay marriage is not mentioned in the constitution. However, Vague references of what marriage consist of in the constitution differs state to state. Yet not one mention speicifly about GAY MARRIAGE. Therefore if the reference is vague, You would have to allow polygamist the right to marry many. However, The ironic part is alot of Gay's are against the right for polgamist to marry many. Besides that, what Gay's have commited is a dimino effect. Next people will think beastility rights, where people start protesting for the right to marry animals. After that people will think Sexual predator rights, where people will advocate they have a right to marry and have sex with little children because that's how they were born. And so on and so forth.etc.etc.
    test
  11. BeEgEe

    BeEgEe El Warm Shot

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2001
    Messages:
    18,151
    hhahahhaha


    i know you dont expext me to respond to that comment.
    test
  12. j deazy

    j deazy DAT_NICCA_MOOSE swallows

    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Messages:
    3,392
    wow... what a slippery slope you have come to menaz... you are by far making vague generalizations... homosexual couples have the rights to have equal tax brackets and living accomodations... they are not harming anyone elses freedoms when they do so... now as far as sexual predators you are looking at someone who is stepping on anothers basic human rights... we have, as a people, decided that you dont make level headed decisions, as an average, until you are 18 or so... now as far as the beastiality that is such a god damn stretch of the imagination... why is it that when ever homosexuals are brought up the conversation almost immeadiatly runs to beastiality??? thats such a god damn joke that its not even funny.. i mean thats like talking about african americans and the conversation immediatly moving to a discussion of welfare and laziness...
    test
  13. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    Don't infer and imply. Homosexuals have good living accomodations. Noone is telling homosexuals they can't live together. Alot of homosexual couples live together. If you think about it Homosexuals are actually escaping marriage tax. While heterosexual couples pay it. Please stop regurgatating.

    I don't believe I mentioned Equal tax brackets or living accomodations.
    Why the proposition logic?

    and What Vague generalizations?



    Apologize all you like. But as I pointed out, Moderate heterosexuals suffer the political conquences.


    You should read more careful. That isn't my position. I'm telling you the position of Nambla. I told you my position in the post to you. How is it against basic human rights if the child agrees? These are things Nambla argues. And some groups do in fact advocate Homosexuals open the doors for these other groups.

    But since we're on the subject, did you know Studies indicate that around 35 percent of pedophiles are homosexuals? That a child molester is 17 times more likely to be homosexual than heterosexual? whereas heterosexual pedophiles commit an average of 20 acts of child molestation, for homosexuals the number is 150.

    Like the Pedophiles of nambla, that's not my position, that's the position of people into beastility. Explain to me why you ignored the polygamist comments?

    Devils advocate..

    Because their BOTH not natural acts in society. Try using common sense.
    How can you tell one group they can't marry animals, children, or many yet tell another group they can marry the same sex? If you're gonna have equality might as well spread it out evenly.

    It's a true joke though. people do advocate for these rights.
    These groups use homosexual marriage to embolden themselves.

    No it's not. You're assocating a stereotype for blacks.
    I'm showing you how homosexuals open the field to other groups
    damanding the same rights.






    I'm telling you, the lamp is much easier. lol
    test
  14. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    It's spelled "expect."
    test
  15. BeEgEe

    BeEgEe El Warm Shot

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2001
    Messages:
    18,151

    100 % inncorrect

    and laughable.

    there is TONS of data on this subject and it speaks the exact opposite of what you just posted.
    test
  16. BeEgEe

    BeEgEe El Warm Shot

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2001
    Messages:
    18,151

    LOL

    YOU HAVE THE WORST GRAMMAR OF ANYONE IN THIS FORUM!
    here ya go buddy.

    ideoloistic is not a word. good try tho

    Yep, you guessed it, speicifly is not a word

    LOL, yup dimino and beastility are not words

    more ??? yes more in less than 3 posts

    Sorry Menaz. regurgatating is not a word.

    more ??? yup

    LOL

    since when do we start a sentence with but???

    and yes conquences is not......... a word

    hahahhaa

    damanding??? ight...........................



    your vocabulary is garbage/your garbage.

    have a nice day
    test
  17. Tadou

    Tadou Vote 4 Pedro

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    Messages:
    4,368
    My point precisely. At the same time, though, gay marriage is not in the same league. Not only does it not have the appearance, at the least, of being able to produce offspring, or having produced offspring--Sterile Husband & Wife; Infertile Wife & Husband'; Older People getting married in their 50/60's, etc--but it's a completely social thing.

    "I love this person, and this person loves me, so we should be able to get married. As a married couple, we ought to receive all the same benefits as other married couples."

    Sounds honest enough, and it is. I just ain't feeling it.

    Adoptions? Of course.
    Shared insurance plans, sure.
    The word Marriage? Well...OK.
    But Tax breaks and other incentives? I can't see it.

    Marriage between a Man and a Woman produces offspring. In the vast majority of cases, it does so, and multiple times. Most married couples, poor and rich alike, are able to produce many children. But how many people do you know that can even afford to adopt 4 or 5 or 6 children? (We can argue that poor people having lots of children just makes things worse, but thats a separate argument.)

    Waiting to long to have children isn't very cool.
    Only having 1 child is unfortunate.
    Young couples not having any children at all is just plain bad news.
    Older couples getting married is understandable, esp. widows who are done having kids.
    Mixed (Sterile/Fertile) couples getting married is compassionate.
    Gay couples getting married...see above.


    Having a negative birth rate is not cool. Having a shit-ton of unadopted kids isn't cool either. I guess it just depends on if you think we should be funding both, neither or some combination of the two. I'd learn towards both....but I just don't know. One of the few issues I'm truly in the middle about.
    test
  18. j deazy

    j deazy DAT_NICCA_MOOSE swallows

    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Messages:
    3,392
    homosexuality doesnt occur in a "natural" society??? that is laughable... homosexuality has been around for a hell of a long time and embraced by societies such as the greeks... while homosexual relations were not a huge part of greek society it was there none the less and was a large part of military groups from greece to the middle east to japan... once christianity showed up many armies began to remove homosexuality from its ranks because of the religous beliefs of the governing body...

    quickly on to the comment about children commiting their consent to a relationship with an adult... our society has deemed a childs decision to enter into a sexual relationship with an adult as a decision based on lack of understanding because of age... that is why we have age of consent laws.... so therefore having sex with a minor is deemed illegal because their consent is based on innocence

    now as far as poligamy there isnt a problem as far as both partners are ok with the situation... personally i wouldnt be under the impression that i would want or need a poligamist relationship...

    seriously duke just come out and say that you hate homosexuals
    test
  19. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807


    Only thing laughable is your replies which I don't pay attention to with any seriousness. You're a walking ad hominem argument. Fuck off you annoying peasant. if I wanted to here from a fucking jester I would have sounded the trumpets.
    test
  20. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    Think about you're logic here. How on earth do you expect me or anyone else to believe a penis wasn't meant for a vagina? Homosexuality is a unnatural act. Why spin the truth? How can you live with telling a lie like that? If you can't acknowledge that biological fact I can't take anything you say serious.Homosexuality has always infested society, But so has beastality which is also an unnatural act. Infact we have laws against sodomy whether consenting or not. You're argument is pointless here.

    Nambla would argue, But our society has also deemed homosexuality as wrong too. Yet they get their rights? The point is to show you how Groups like nambla take advantage of a situation. It only takes one idea to change the thought of the world.

    The problem is gays disagree with poligamy. Gay's can't say they have a legal right to be married when they are opposed to others having rights of marriage such ass for example poligamist. Both partners? Do you know what Polygamy is? try many partners. Did you just have a Freudian slip admiting indrectly you're a homosexual?


    Any area of disagreement and it always has to revert back to the Hate card. Please stop being persnickety. No Tim Hardaway here.
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)