Have Kids or Your Marriage will Be Annulled??

Ya know, I really could care less if they accepted gay marriage or not, but the squabble over it has officiallly gone too far as far as I am concerned.

A new law is being proposed....by the gay community in the state of washington. simply put, it would give married couples 3 years to have a kid, or their marriage would be annulled....

say what?? maybe little miss newlywed would rather wait a little before she ties herself down with motherhood? maybe mr. newlywed would prefer to add a little greenbacks into his bank account so he can provide a secure environment when he does decide to have kids?

this is the lamest, insane, irresponsible idea I have ever heard. I find it very doubtful that it would ever be seriously considered...but well, find it rather disturbing that it would even be proposed.

www.nwcn.com...

what the heck is wrong with just living your life, and allowing others to live theirs?? is what you want, really of so much value to you, that you would coerce young couples to have children before they are ready?

people just cannot stay out of others lifes.

“For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation ... The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine," said WA-DOMA organizer Gregory Gadow in a printed statement. “If same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that all couples who cannot or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage."

Well there is the crux of the proposal.

people just cannot stay out of others lifes.

You realise the proposal is saying just that?

This is the kind of restrictions the current laws put on homosexual couples. That's what they're trying to point out. As ridiculous as this sounds, it's exactly the kind of thing homosexual couples deal with every day.

One of the biggest reasons homophobes use to prevent gay marriage is that the couple can't have children. Well, neither can I. So I think my marriage should be the same as a gay person's ... unrecognized.

It's interesting what a fit we'd throw if the law put such a restriction on us, but no one cares that it's what gay people deal with all the time.

I know I repeated myself - Sorry...

You know, as ridiculous as this sounds, it makes some sense if you look at it from the outside. From the source:

“For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation ... The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine," said WA-DOMA organizer Gregory Gadow in a printed statement. “If same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that all couples who cannot or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage."

Originally posted by dawnstar


what the heck is wrong with just living your life, and allowing others to live theirs?? is what you want, really of so much value to you, that you would coerce young couples to have children before they are ready?

I think that THAT is the point they are trying to make.

Edit to add: BH we've got to stop sounding like each other. People will talk. What will my wife say?

[edit on 6-2-2007 by intrepid]

Marriage in the eye of the law, is a union between people for the benefit of society because of the children they produce. There is no other reason. That is why married couples recieve many societal benefits, that non-married couples do not.

I don't want to talk about the religous aspect of marriage. It has no bearing on this article, nor any bearing to anyone living under man's law.

:edit: I'm feeling a little insecure, so here is where this comes.

I said the same thing before either of you, even quoted the same thing you did. Why can't I be included in your 'like minds' statement? I'm hurt. .. not really.

[edit on 6-2-2007 by nextguyinline]

Originally posted by nextguyinline
I said the same thing before either of you, even quoted the same thing you did. Why can't I be included in your 'like minds' statement? I'm hurt.

.. not really.

[edit on 6-2-2007 by nextguyinline]

No prob man, BH and I have history. You're in!

I do have a couple questions, though...

Originally posted by nextguyinline
Marriage in the eye of the law, is a union between people for the benefit of society because of the children they produce.

And where is this stated?

Marriage Debate.com

Beyond Conjugality draws a bright line between marriage (a recognized close personal adult relationship) and parenthood. The authors argue that these two categories “raise very different issues.” Parenthood is not related to marriage. The central purpose of marriage is “to provide an orderly framework in which couples can express their commitment to each other and voluntarily assume a range of legal rights and obligations.”

Children are stripped from the core meaning of marriage and instead shuffled into another category of close personal relationships known as “intergenerational relationships that involved the rearing of children.”

Just something to think about.

There is no other reason.

So, then... my husband and I are married for... no reason?

Originally posted by intrepid
What will my wife say?

Probably the same thing my husband says! "Who is this 'intrepid' guy"?

Thanks for quote BH.

Of course your right with that. I normally say IMO or something to that effect, but not always I guess.

The central purpose of marriage is “to provide an orderly framework in which couples can express their commitment to each other and voluntarily assume a range of legal rights and obligations.”

What is an 'orderly framework'?, and why do two people need it to express their commitment to each other? ... IMO it's because of the legal 'rights and obligations'. Not that a couple need to, in an orderly manner, express to their partner that "I'm committed to you"; it's the state(society) that needs the orderly framework to extract what benefits it can from marriage, and that those benefits are consistent and un-surprising.

IMO, the 'central purpose' of marriage has fluxuated with the times. Initially, marriage or the concept of 'committment' was adopted because it helped to ensure survivability of the 'village'. It layed out a process and division of labor within the 'village'.

So marriage IMO, has always offered a more quantifiable life, but has evolved into offering a more qualifiable life. i.e. Tax breaks, and insurance.
It is here, where I come to conclusion that marriage as a law, with defined boundaries and expectations, has to have been done because of the procreational aspects of marriage. Why does the state need to give anyone benefits because they 'love' someone? They don't.

As the quality of life has improved extensively for most of us, and the institution of 'money' has prevailed, the labors of the 'family' have changed, and thus marriage needed a rework. No longer was child-rearing and other familial type work, able to keep a person at a level of 'life quality', equal to others. Hence, enter this mindset...

The central purpose of marriage is “to provide an orderly framework in which couples can express their commitment to each other and voluntarily assume a range of legal rights and obligations.”

Stated lamenly, "Child-bearers and homemakers are not expendable. Spouses of these, are bound to keep their child-rearing/homemaking partners/ex-partners at a similar level of life-quality."


Hope that makes sense, first time I've tried to get it down in writing.