I promised a fellow DP'er that I would check out her blog and came across this. (Not mine, sue me for linking) Hadn't seen this and at first I was WTF! After reading and searching some more on Google, I have come to the conclusion that this was a fabulous marketing ploy. No matter if it fails miserably or possibly gets on the ballot, it raises some questions about the "legality" of same sex marriages and the excuses our governing bodies will use to keep out what they think is "morally" right. Seperation of church and state is becoming is becoming as funny as thinking we are actually Free in this Country!
I believe this initiative is a great idea! The argument thus far has been that marriage is between man and woman for the express purpose of making babies. I think this brings to mind that we have a choice, either make same sex marriage legal or everyone make babies!!!
Yea, fasinating to me. I see this political machine getting enough signatures to get in on the ballot but thats probably it. I like the idea to make people think of the flawed reasoning behind the thinking whether you are for or against the actual same sex marriage issue.
This from CNN today! http://www.cnn.com/video/player/pla...07/02/13/rowlands.childless.couples.cnn&wm=10 You know its just another wedge issue.
I like how when the opposition can't make a point they throw out the red herring. The same sex marriage debate has nothing to do with babies. So the whole thing is stupid.
Not sure what opposition you are refering but according to at least one on the Washington State Supreme court it does: From Article
Well sadly debunked, one of the big arguments against same-sex marriage is that marriage is for procreation and since two women or two men can not make a child on their own, than they can not marry. That is why you are viewed as "a breeder" as you say by that initiative. Frankly I believe that the initiative should not be enforced, but I also believe that same-sex marriage should be allowed so go figure
One of the stupidiest things I ever did in my life was applying for a marriage license. You don't need a license to marry, it's a right that you have and that doesn't need to be granted by goberment. And there are no benefits that are of any value. Just liabilities.
I so wish all my ignorant Christian friends understood this. The Bible itself states nothing about getting a license, having a ceremony, etc etc. Yet they blindly do this generation after generation foolishly thinking this pleases God somehow and keeps the flames further from the beehinds. And ohhh of course if anyone doesn't do it like they did they tsk tsk, shake their heads and pray for their salvation as if God is mad about it.......
Wouldn't it be easier to say "if it is not physically possible" for the couple to make a baby, then the marriage isn't recognized? Meaning 1 has to have a penis, the other has to have a vagina? Since, not all couples are capable of making a child - inadequate sperm, damaged ovaries, age, etc. It's a red herring, really. Saying that this legistlation has any merit, is silly. Pro or con on gay marriage, this is a nonsensical policy. Mine, above, makes far more sense.
Did you read the legislation? It is basically what you said, that if it is not physically possible than you can't marry. If passed by Washington voters, the Defense of Marriage Initiative would: * add the phrase, “who are capable of having children with one another†to the legal definition of marriage; * require that couples married in Washington file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage automatically annulled; * require that couples married out of state file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage classed as “unrecognized;†* establish a process for filing proof of procreation; and * make it a criminal act for people in an unrecognized marriage to receive marriage benefits. Anyway, the whole point I believe of this is to show how the argument for marriage for procreation is not good at all....
I'm talkin' about this part: Yes. I do understand that what the point of it is. It's obvious. I'm making the point that 1-the law is stupid, 2-it wouldn't pass judicial muster, and 3-its flawed logically (for reasons stated above along with others). The whole argument that gays not having the same rights is silly anyways. Heterosexual men are able to marry: women Gay men are able to marry: women heterosexual women are able to marry: men gay women are able to marry: men there is no different application of the law here. This is not like not being able to drink from water fountains, sit on buses or anything like that. It's the individual's choice on whom to marry that is making them not work within the system. I understand the point that the activists are driving at, but this isn't really the way to drive at it. There are better ways, but of course, they want the cache of the term "marriage" - which makes me wonder if they are in it for the right reasons at all. Which, they probably aren't.