Washington Same-Sex Marriage Proponents: Require Heterosexual Couples to Have Kids or Face Annulment


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250411,00.html

I think this is going a little too far.
However, I do not see this bill passing.

__________________
I've had a Foreman Grill for about six years. I've done about 85% of my cooking on it, but I've never burnt myself. Probably because I don't use it as a pillow.

From the article:
It is my understanding that the group sponsoring this are trying to bring to light the hypocrisy of those who oppose gay marriage based on the argument that heterosexual marriages are for the purpose of creating a child. I could be misinterpreting the article, but that's how I'm reading it.

I do not think that a bill like this would pass, but in this day and age? Who knows? I've seen/heard some pretty strange things that are "law"...

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

Pure silliness!!

I understand the point they're trying to make, but I still think it's ridiculous and a waste of time.

What if you are a Heterosexual couple and are unable to have kids? I think this is one of the stupidest bills yet.

__________________
TLJ ~ Where opinions are encouraged, not deleted

You laugh at me because I am different,
I laugh at you because you are all the same.

Your mind is like a parachute, it only works when it is open.

I think that is the whole point...

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

Thank god that wasn't a question you were asking. I saw the post and thought is she really asking should I have my marriage anulled or just have kids. I said out loud "WHAT DID SHE JUST ASK".

Ok I am fine now but think this is crazy. It will never work

__________________
cmemaloy@yahoo.com


I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not.

Life! is a coin. You can spend it anyway you wish, but you can only spend it once.

I think is defenetly not going to ever pass because there are many women who wish they can naturally have a baby and refuse to adopt (in some case because they are hurt and wanted to have the oportunity to be pregnant and go through the whole process) and it's not their fault they are unable to have kids. They should find something better to use to anull a mariage.

What a waste of tax dollars.

In this "day and age" it is an odd bill.

BUT it's not a new idea.

Believe it or not that is exactly why the social ritual of marraige came into being in the first place.

The history of marriage went something like this:
Cave Women had offspring.
Caveman go into growing foods rather than simply hunting.
Growing foods led to having certain land as "His own property"
The MAN had no way to know which kids were his.
That made things awkward When it came time to inherit property.
AND so.. the social ritual of marriage came into being and the woman was to have ONLY her husband's children.
To get the population to accept this ritual as moral they incorporated it into the local religions as well as agreed upon local laws.

Of course, we are supposedly a long way from being cavemen now.
Many parents don't bother getting married at all.
DNA testing can tell whose kids are whose for inheritance purposes.

I'm personally prejudiced and think marriage should be for Heterosexual only.

but...I bet you're not basing your opinion strictly on the whole "Marriage is for procreation" argument either. I'm guessing you have other reasons for your opinion. (I could be wrong, and even if I am, it's still your right to hold that opinion!)

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

Oh my personal reasons are that basically I'm a prude.
I admit it!

Marriage is a public thing.
Marriage is our legal way of annoucing we are building a nest.
It is a legal contract of responsibility as well as telling the world you are sharing a bed.
Responsibility toward each other and toward any offspring.
fianncial responility is attached and so there are automatic legal attachments like retirement funds, Social Security and insurance.

The bill really is just grasping at straws in an attempt to gain those financial attachments.