DCSportbikes.net  
» Help Support .NET!
DCSportbikes Premier Membership for 25$ per year. Discounts! Click here for full information.

Now available in the .NET Shop:



Get your DCSBN Gear!
» Shoutbox
Sorry, only registered users have the ability to use our real-time shoutbox to chat with other members.

Register now, it's free!
» Online Users: 576
6 members and 570 guests
2blueyam, boomboom929, CrazyMotorcycleGuy, Diggy, GRN96WS6, nootherids
Most users ever online was 4,519, September 2, 2015 at 03:26 AM.
Go Back   DCSportbikes.net > Non-Sportbike Forums > Non-Sportbike Chat

Reply
LinkBack Thread Tools
If you are married, you are required -BY LAW- to procreate....
Unread
  (#1)
Ling Long
 
YaoMatt's Avatar
 
Posts: 6,183
Join Date: June 13, 2006
If you are married, you are required -BY LAW- to procreate.... - February 6, 2007, 01:35 PM

http://www.komotv.com/news/5566451.html
By Associated Press

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - 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 his goal is to raise $300,000 to spend on advertising on the first initiative.


U
C
Lots of
Asians
  MySpace.com Page Send a message via AIM to Send a message via Yahoo to YaoMatt Send a message via AIM to YaoMatt Send a message via MSN to YaoMatt  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#2)
Track Ho
 
r6hokie's Avatar
 
Posts: 4,818
Join Date: August 7, 2003
February 6, 2007, 01:44 PM

this pisses me off, dont they have something better to do?


"I am officially retired so please don't ban me"
  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#3)
DAS BOOT
 
LadyK's Avatar
 
Posts: 13,986
Join Date: June 28, 2004
Location: Hell, need some suntan lotion?
February 6, 2007, 01:46 PM

so....what if they don't want kids? And just because you might be in a same sex marriage/ relationship (for women anyway) doesn't mean that they can't go out and get giz from a bank and get preggo....


Wow. Just..................wow.
  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#4)
Track Ho
 
r6hokie's Avatar
 
Posts: 4,818
Join Date: August 7, 2003
February 6, 2007, 01:50 PM

well said

bpffft


"I am officially retired so please don't ban me"
  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#5)
Ling Long
 
YaoMatt's Avatar
 
Posts: 6,183
Join Date: June 13, 2006
February 6, 2007, 01:51 PM

hondahawkrider: basically as gay's are denied "marriage" cause they CAN'T procreate.. It's a proposed law that says if you don't procreate - you can't stay married
Whisper: Dammit
gixrben: whisper I cant see the pictures!!!!
gixrben: it's saying that procreation is NOT a reason for a union between two people
gixrben: but what about the couples in unions that cannot/do not, should they not be married as well?
gixrben: a big defense against same sex marriage is that the natural reason for unions is to procreate
gixrben: thats the point
YaoMatt: I just thought it was funny because it was SO absurd
GUZZLER: Yeah. They want people to relax. They say "Butt Sex" is very soothing on the whole
gixrben: yes, its a dummy law


U
C
Lots of
Asians
  MySpace.com Page Send a message via AIM to Send a message via Yahoo to YaoMatt Send a message via AIM to YaoMatt Send a message via MSN to YaoMatt  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#6)
DAS BOOT
 
LadyK's Avatar
 
Posts: 13,986
Join Date: June 28, 2004
Location: Hell, need some suntan lotion?
February 6, 2007, 01:53 PM

What if they HATE kids, but can still have them? Should they, then, have kids?


Wow. Just..................wow.
  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#7)
GP Champ
 
hfam95's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,743
Join Date: June 4, 2006
Location: Woodbridge, VA
February 6, 2007, 01:55 PM

will never pass.


Quote:
Originally Posted by vonstallin View Post
Stinky:
.........
Im so excited im about to pre-blast in my pants.....then....it hits me...
I smell her arm pits and i damn near threw up!!!!
..........
  MySpace.com Page Send a message via AIM to Send a message via Yahoo to hfam95 Send a message via AIM to hfam95  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#8)
Ling Long
 
YaoMatt's Avatar
 
Posts: 6,183
Join Date: June 13, 2006
February 6, 2007, 01:57 PM

Ok, I think you all missed the point, much as I did. (Thanks Ben)

It's not meant to pass... It's not meant to prevent gay marriage.

It's the exact oposite. One of the major reasons people cite as being against
gay marriage is that the whole union of two people is for the purpose of procreation.

They are pointing out how absurd this is by putting forth a bill that would force
hetero couples to have hcildren if they are married or annul their marriage.
In turn showing them how asinine the idea that two people simple cannot -=BE=-
together is.


U
C
Lots of
Asians
  MySpace.com Page Send a message via AIM to Send a message via Yahoo to YaoMatt Send a message via AIM to YaoMatt Send a message via MSN to YaoMatt  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#9)
Whoa, Momma!
 
lucrecci's Avatar
 
Posts: 138
Join Date: January 8, 2007
Location: Herndon
February 6, 2007, 01:58 PM

So does this mean I'm automatically married if I have a kid? LOL
  Send a message via AIM to Send a message via AIM to lucrecci  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#10)
DAS BOOT
 
LadyK's Avatar
 
Posts: 13,986
Join Date: June 28, 2004
Location: Hell, need some suntan lotion?
February 6, 2007, 02:00 PM

so...... what yer saying is....


Wow. Just..................wow.
  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#11)
Kat
Finally got a garage!
 
Kat's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,205
Join Date: March 24, 2006
Location: Fort Washington
February 6, 2007, 02:46 PM

I love it. "Political street theater" sounds redundant, though.

Personally, if I were Queen of the World, I'd say no state shall recognize any marriage. Everyone could engage in "civil unions" and be entitled to legal rights as such goes along with such commitments, but "marriages" would be something one's church or community would recognize. Then one could say, "I have a Xtian marriage," "I have a Mormon marriage," or "I have a Pagan marriage" or whatever and it would actually mean something.

To say that "marriage" is a union between two folks with complimentary junk is just stupid.


**Sara**
"She wont be so fuckable covered in road rash." -boomchic00

"The whore force is strong in this one."
Kevers

BamBam, I miss you more than words can say.
  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#12)
Republicans for Voldemort
 
hondahawkrider's Avatar
 
Posts: 1,303
Join Date: July 1, 2003
Location: Laurel
February 6, 2007, 03:22 PM

This is basically a back-door proposal... (excuse the pun)

The basic intent of this proposed law - is to get it throw out on it's ear.... It is indeed a stoopid law... However, there has to be a reason to get it thrown out.... If there is a ruling ie a law made - that says you don't have to procreate to be married.... It will allow Alternative Lifestyle Couples (gays, homosexuals, etc) to claim that if procreation isn't a requirement - why then can't they be married as well...

It's actually a pretty nice arguement - if they can force a ruling in some manner saying that procreation is NOT a basis for marriage, it will give them a foothold to allow same sex marriage


-Jason
DAMN Rider DAMN Rider

Maybe you have to be messed up... before you can step up!
  MySpace.com Page Send a message via AIM to Send a message via Yahoo to hondahawkrider Send a message via AIM to hondahawkrider  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#13)
Republicans for Voldemort
 
hondahawkrider's Avatar
 
Posts: 1,303
Join Date: July 1, 2003
Location: Laurel
February 6, 2007, 03:29 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kat
I love it. "Political street theater" sounds redundant, though.

Personally, if I were Queen of the World, I'd say no state shall recognize any marriage. Everyone could engage in "civil unions" and be entitled to legal rights as such goes along with such commitments, but "marriages" would be something one's church or community would recognize. Then one could say, "I have a Xtian marriage," "I have a Mormon marriage," or "I have a Pagan marriage" or whatever and it would actually mean something.

To say that "marriage" is a union between two folks with complimentary junk is just stupid.
This only works if everyone recognizes it... The main problem with Civil Unions and it NOT being a marriage is that it doesn't have the same legal rights/standings as a Marriage.

IF you are married - you can be covered under you spouse's Health Insurance - you are entitled to social security, death benefits, etc... With a Civil Union - you get Squat... So basically a same sex Civil Union - is not the same as a "religious marriage" .. Which is akin to saying they are 2nd class citizens....

Also, I have heard that same sex civil unions do not carry the same weight as a marriage for things such as child adoption as well - but am uncertain...

it's basically bullshit...


-Jason
DAMN Rider DAMN Rider

Maybe you have to be messed up... before you can step up!
  MySpace.com Page Send a message via AIM to Send a message via Yahoo to hondahawkrider Send a message via AIM to hondahawkrider  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#14)
Track Ho
 
r6hokie's Avatar
 
Posts: 4,818
Join Date: August 7, 2003
February 6, 2007, 03:33 PM

same sex marriage is retarded and this is why

man marries woman...................awesome
man marries virgin woman..........crazy awesome
man marries virgin man .............crazy

lol


"I am officially retired so please don't ban me"
  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest 2002-2010 by DCSportbikes.net. DCSportbikes.net is owned by End of Time Studios, LLC.