Should good Christians support this marriage initiative?

Question

Is it about time Christians stood up and said that marriage is for having children?

An initiative filed by proponents of same-sex marriage would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriage annulled.

Initiative 957 was filed by the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance. That group was formed last summer after the state Supreme Court upheld Washington's ban on same-sex marriage.
Under the initiative, marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children in order to get a marriage license, and if they did not have children within three years, their marriage would be subject to annulment.

All other marriages would be defined as "unrecognized" and people in those marriages would be ineligible to receive any marriage benefits.

Answer 1

I applaud their attempt to make a point and I wholeheartedly support gay marriage, but this just makes the cause look desperate. No, I wouldn't support it because I don't think marriage has anything to do with having children.

Answer 2

Since those promoting the anti-gay agenda feel all puffed up and justified about taking away the fundamental right to marry from one group of people, pro-equality Americans have the right to do the same thing. I consider homophobia a grievous sin. I think unrepentant homophobes should not be allowed to marry, because the sin of homophobia is ruining the sanctity of marriage. It's an abomination! I would be the first to sign such a petition to put such a measure on the ballot.

Answer 3

I do not have a problem with gay marriage. Marriage was originally a religious ceremony, and if there is a minister of any religion willing to marry them, fine. Whether God will recognize the union is not for me to decide. Many Christians believe that marriage (as a religious union) should be between a man and woman. I agree, but that is based on the bible and not all people live by the same faith that I do or interpret the bible the same way I do. Ultimately it is between them and God. Another senario is that they may want a ceremony to secure civil rights because our country changes rights for taxes, legal decision making, child custody, health benefits, etc based on a persons marital status. I don't have a problem with this being changed. I think I should get to determine one other adult in my life to be on my insurance, make decisions for me if I am incapable, and take care of my children should something happen to me. Whether that person is my husband, my boyfriend, my girlfriend, my friend, my sister, whatever. I should be able to choose and have it be totally set in stone. No one should even be able to get a court date to argue the merits of it.

As fo this initiative, in the Christian faith marriage is not to produce children. It is to give each other a companion.

Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him....The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.
So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.
The man said, "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man"

HERE IS THE IMPORTANT PART
For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh

Having children came later. Also I promise women would not allow this to pass because then it reduces us to no more than brood mares. Thanks for the question though.

Answer 4

That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.
Does that mean a man and a woman who get married and has not had kids would no longer be married?

How can a person support that?

Would that force people to adopt just to stay married?
Couldn't gays or lesbians adopt and stay married also?

It makes no sense.

I adhere to the premise that marriage is intended to be one man for one woman for life.

Divorce should be rare, if not non-existent.
I think you have to do away with joint property laws to keep the divorce rate down.

grace2u

Answer 5

No, Marriage is not only for having children. Marriage is a covenant between 1 man and 1 woman designed by God for love, children, friendship, sex, and the security of commitment to be together through good times and bad. A lifetime partnership.

P.S. Jesus says, "You are either for me or against me." That would mean you are either His follower or you are against Him no matter what you call yourself. Godsgirl is not confused.

Answer 6

This is just ludicrous!

Some men and women who marry each other don't want to have children, they just want to be married to each other. No one has a right to force people to have children if they don't want them.

Men and women are to marry each other simple as that, sorry if this offends others but you'll just have to take your grievances up with God.

Answer 7

I think this is brilliant. What a wonderful way to throw it back into the anti-gay marriage groups face. They won't like this one bit, but hopefully it will make them think.

Answer 8

It's an interesting tactic in the struggle for marriage equality.

Answer 9

I would not support it....Christians need to rise up and have their voice heard more in this nation before they have no more voice at all...speak out and save a nation