No Kids? No Marriage

[Sedai]

So... A small activist group is rattling the cages over on the west coast. Proponents of same-sex marriage are calling for legislation that would require people that are married to have children within three years of the wedding...or have their marriages annuled. This is apparently in response to claims by the opposing side that marriage exists for the sole purpose of supporting procreation.

How serious are they? The group seems to be aware of the fact that the bill doesn't have a chance (we hope), but, they wish to stimulate debates and concerns about the issue.

Absurd? perhaps... Interesting?

Let's find out....

[Sexy Celebrity]

Absurd? perhaps... Interesting?

Embarrassing.

[Equilibrium]

I think that its a good response to the claim that marriage is solely for procreation. If anyone wished to abolish same sex marriages, they need to come up with a better reasons than "Because marriages are meant to make kids."

Dont get me wrong, i'm not pro same sex marriages at all...but i just think they made a good point and it should be taken into consideration.

[Sedai]

Well, I think they just need to drop the whole "marriage is all about kids" thing on the other side... it's silly. I think that is the point this group is trying to make with their own sillyness...

[Sexy Celebrity]

It's just embarrassing to me that some pro same sex marriage group is trying to do this. They are trying to fight with a useless tactic that puts limitation on marriage. Someone else should just respond with a "gays must have a kid within three years if they are allowed to be married". It is the wrong approach.

It'll never pass. Don't worry about it. These are fools who are embarrassing the gay community, if you ask me.

[adidasss]

It'll never pass. Don't worry about it. These are fools who are embarrassing the gay community, if you ask me.
You may be missing the point, I don't think they're being serious about it and I think it's a very clever way of showing how absurd people who oppose same sex marriages are.
Dont get me wrong, i'm not pro same sex marriages at all...
Care to elaborate further on that one?

[John McClane]

You may be missing the point, I don't think they're being serious about it and I think it's a very clever way of showing how absurd people who oppose same sex marriages are.Ah, I'm in total agreement with adidasss on this one. It's very clever indeed. :yup:

It is rather stupid for the opposing side to say marriage is for procreation. Especially when some of them either don't have kids, or can't make them. :rolleyes:

[SamsoniteDelilah]

I think it's a good way to bring public attention to the illogic of the opposition. Good on them. I hope they make some people think.

[John McClane]

I think it's a good way to bring public attention to the illogic of the opposition. Good on them. I hope they make some people think.
Come on! This is America. It's a common fact, people can't think. ;)

[ProfGreen]

this might be the stupidest idea ever. ugh. what is wrong with these people.

[John McClane]

this might be the stupidest idea ever. ugh. what is wrong with these people.Care to elaborate?

[Equilibrium]

Care to elaborate further on that one?

Sure. I don't believe gays have a right to get married.

You want to call it a union, fine. you want to called it a lifetime bond, fine. You want to have the legal benifits of a married couple, fine. All of that is fine, call it whatever you want, but it must be made distinguishable from a marriage. Marriage=man+woman.

[insert any new word you wish except for marriage]=man+man (or woman+woman)

Someone previously in this thread mentioned this..i think a good counter to this group is: "Ok, fine. You must be able to make kids within 3 years of a marriage. That still means gays can't get married"

[adidasss]

Sure. I don't believe gays have a right to get married.

You want to call it a union, fine. you want to called it a lifetime bond, fine. You want to have the legal benifits of a married couple, fine. All of that is fine, call it whatever you want, but it must be made distinguishable from a marriage. Marriage=man+woman.

[insert any new word you wish except for marriage]=man+man (or woman+woman)

Someone previously in this thread mentioned this..i think a good counter to this group is: "Ok, fine. You must be able to make kids within 3 years of a marriage. That still means gays can't get married"
So it's just a name thing? I don't really understand why people are so touchy about it, but I don't really care what it's called to tell you the truth. Although, the latter part of your argument is exactly what these people are trying to ridicule, the idea that "marriage" is meant for procreation. It's just a union of two people who want to spend the rest of their lives together (with all the legal repercussions). If you take away the "procreation" part of it, I really don't see why the partnership between people of the same sex shouldn't be called marriage. But hey, like I said, I don't really care what you call it, as long as it's equal to marriage regarding legal rights.

[John McClane]

Marriage is just the word we use to define two individuals who what to share their lives and possessions. At its core, it's just a legal document that binds two people together. The fact that marriage has been used to define a man and woman sharing their life together, does not mean it's for that exclusively. Besides, what's the matter with them using the word marriage to define their relationship? It's not hurting anyone else by doing so.

[Sexy Celebrity]

The group, whatever they are, is trashing the word "marriage" by stating that "the opposing side" says it's only for procreation. I thought marriage was done more for religious reasons, which is why I can understand how a person does not want the word "marriage" to be used for same sex couples. I sense a more snide attitude coming out of this group than a true concern for a debate on why gay couples should be allowed to be married. This, to me, is the kind of childish patter that nobody takes seriously and keeps gay rights on the back burner.

[John McClane]

I thought marriage was done more for religious reasons, which is why I can understand how a person does not want the word "marriage" to be used for same sex couples.That's not exactly the case anymore and the only reason it has religious undertones is because the Church was so powerful at one point and that was how you got married, through the church. Now our marriages are recognized by a secular government. Makes since that we should do away with the "religious" portion of marriages in our government now.

[adidasss]

I sense a more snide attitude coming out of this group than a true concern for a debate on why gay couples should be allowed to be married. This, to me, is the kind of childish patter that nobody takes seriously and keeps gay rights on the back burner.
There is no debating it, there are no logical reasons against it so I completely understand that certain people would reach for such ridiculous measures to prove their point. It's not supposed to be taken seriously, it's supposed to prove just how ridiculous the opposing party is. Christ.... :rolleyes:

[John McClane]

There is no debating it, there are no logical reasons against it so I completely understand that certain people would reach for such ridiculous measures to prove their point. It's not supposed to be taken seriously, it's supposed to prove just how ridiculous the opposing party is. Christ.... :rolleyes:Man, if I agree with adidasss this much, the world is in danger of falling out of orbit! :p ;)

[SpoOkY]

Marriage is just the word we use to define two individuals who what to share their lives and possessions. At its core, it's just a legal document that binds two people together. The fact that marriage has been used to define a man and woman sharing their life together, does not mean it's for that exclusively. Besides, what's the matter with them using the word marriage to define their relationship? It's not hurting anyone else by doing so.

When you say "at it's core" it's just a legal document, if that were true then what's all this fuss about eh? Surely there must be more to it!

Also when you say it's a word "we" use to define two individuals who want to share their lives and possessions, you are suggesting there is an agreement over what "it" is. This is of course very far from reality. The reason why it is so unclear now is that the word actually comes from the bible and is a uniting of two people under God's direction, with sex allowed in the context of marriage only and thus obviously children only within the context of marriage. So even from this simple example you can see how that has changed over time, but not for everyone. You could jump in at any time period and see what marriage meant at that time and use that as your own definition for now. It's all up to the individual. It's a huge call to say there is consensus.

I reckon we need a new word, because the biblical word is still very true for millions of people and not true for millions of others. To keep redifining the term legally has no real point and is confusing. Religious groups who hold it to be something very spiritually significant would obviously get upset because the Legal Rights attributed to marriage has nothing to do with the 'marriage' they conceive. Couldn't a legal binding exist not defined as being 'married' with the same rights applied? It is because rights and marriage have become so emeshed that the original understanding has become clouded and now we have this situation. They need to be seperated i think. Tricky I know but it seems like the only solution......but perhaps in this current time it is too much of an idealistic one. There's just too many overtly-passionate people on both sides to compromise now I think. Somebody is gonna end up unhappy whatever the outcome of this debate.

[John McClane]

I was just going by marriage from a government stand point which is what nearly all marriages in the USA incorporate. I do agree that we need a new word and just leave marriage to the churches. Basically, people can be married by the church but, they won't be recognized by the government unless they get a civil union or something. I think that makes sense.

[SpoOkY]

I was just going by marriage from a government stand point which is what nearly all marriages in the USA incorporate. I do agree that we need a new word and just leave marriage to the churches. Basically, people can be married by the church but, they won't be recognized by the government unless they get a civil union or something. I think that makes sense.

Yeah I like your thinking. I wonder if people from the church would resist though? As in they might say something like "this country was founded on christian principles so....", I mean they might not like religion being removed from the legal system. I don't agree with that of course but I always like to look at every side.

[adidasss]

I thought the separation of religion and state was one of the corner stones of modern society?

[John McClane]

Yeah I like your thinking. I wonder if people from the church would resist though? As in they might say something like "this country was founded on christian principles so....", I mean they might not like religion being removed from the legal system. I don't agree with that of course but I always like to look at every side.I think people from the church would be a little hesitant about it but, we would just clearly have to point out that this country was not based on any religion, especially Christianity. Besides, what's another form to fill out to get benefits from the government?

I thought the separation of religion and state was one of the corner stones of modern society?It is but, some people don't seem to learn even when you educate them. :)