Does this prove that some behind the same sex marriage issue want to destroy traditional marriage?

Question

Leftists want to ban marriage of 3 years that do not produce a child.

Here is the article.

http://www.nwcn.com/statenews/washington/stories/NW_020507WABinitiative957SW.546c6a4d.html

So now they lose on same sex marriage, throw a tantrum, and want to ruin marriage for others.

Does this prove the point that social conservatives make that any change in the definition of traditional marriage undermines the whole thing.

Answer 1

Do people get married with the sole intention of procreation...? I sincerely hope not. Marriage is a lifetime commitment between man and woman. Having children is a matter of choice where many different factors come into play, money being one of them. These "lefties" should keep their nose out of what doesnt concern them.

Answer 2

"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"

Gregory Gadow has a point. Evidently lawmakers were using some loop hole to try to preserve some morals that most christians such as myself cherish. I agree it is very childish, I just want to spank those little gayfers.

Any change in the definition of traditional marriage undermines the whole thing. Yes, It does way more than undermine it tears out the seams of the fabric that the nation was built on. This is bill clinton's legacy. I can't believe he got enough support from minorities to win the presidency. The majority must vote. When the president is commiting adultry in the white house, what does that say about our morals? What would John Quincy Adams do?

Answer 3

well first off Christians don't understand the concept of marriage. Marriage through history was designed for people who had fiscal issues. Sometimes marriage was prearranged. However most of the time marriages are created because someone has money or power. That is why most of the time marriages were prearranged. Seriously Christians will never read a history book, nor will they ever use common sense. For example some women back in the past didn't have power, and they understood that men had power, so they purposely married them so that they could have access to what the men accessed. The women would marry the man so that she would have more rights and power. She would marry the man so that she could take care of fiscal issues that she would face if she was alone. Again Christians don't read history books.

Answer 4

Well, first of all, not all "leftists" want to ban marriage after 3 years. Yikes. You are generalizing about people based on what a small group has proposed to make a law.

Second of all, the people who proposed this probably do not dream that it will ever become law. The proposed it as an argument against the idea that marriage is for procreation. That has been used as an argument against same sex marriage for awhile.

This proposal is not a tantrum, but a rather clever response. If the voters knock it down then the same sex advocates can argue that marriage is not based on the ability to have children. They can say that the voters have decided that there can be marriage without children. This would be a way to try to nullify the argument that same sex couples cannot marry because they cannot have kids.

I will bet that they people who crafted this proposal would be against it ever being law. It is just a bunch more government intrusion into private affairs.

Answer 5

First off, they're going to need 244,000 signatures to even get it to the poles.

Second, even the high court cannot rule on this. It is a matter of constitutional rights of free Americans. People who are getting married cannot always prove that they can conceive. Maybe the man, but not so for a woman. There is no way to tell if a woman can bare children, just because she appears to have all the right components. That measure would be totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL in the view of all Americans and was probably thought up by an activist group who sides with homosexual marriage and adoption. This would also mean that heterosexual couples who cannot have children can not get married and that would also be UNCONSTITUTIONAL. They'll never do it.

Next, most young couples when just starting out cannot afford to start a family within the first 3 years of marriage. Having children must be planned for, as it is very costly. Young people who choose to do this before marriage while living together is a choice they make on their own and they can most times afford it. So State and Federal government cannot put a 'time-line' on couples having children. The legislation would never make it to the floor, and it must be approved by a majority. I don't believe a majority could approve it and be able to sleep at night.

Answer 6

Actually the conservatives are the ones screaming that traditional marriage is between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation which is the basis of the entire anti-gay marriage mantra.

So no, this does not destroy traditional marriage, it mandates that all marriages be traditional.

If the basis for marriage is truly for the purpose of procreation, then there should not be a problem with mandating that people who choose to get married, submit to that purpose of having children.

It would only be fitting to force these bigots to be forced to live by their own mantra.

If marriage is not about procreation, there is no reason other than some religious nuts tantrum for same sex couples to be barred from marriage.

This proposal was never designed to get passed as law, it is designed to prove a very true point.

Answer 7

Cripes, that is the most retarded thing I've ever seen (yes, I clicked on your link and read the article). Many couples try to have children for two or three years prior to even thinking about fertility treatments, which are expensive and stressful, to say the least. And not to mention second marriages, which often fare better than first and don't produce children. My dad and step-mother have been married for decades. They did not have children because they each had 3 from their first marriages. However, because of their marriage, I have a good role model for my marriage. Otherwise I wouldn't have that. Second or third marriages still stabilize society by producing two happy individuals who are more likely to be productive in their work, hobbies, and social life.

D@#n libs. Just cuz they can't have what they want they need to ruin it for everyone else. However, I think there will be too much opposition to this in society overall. And, does that mean that after the kids are grown and out of the house, a couple need to get divorced because they're no longer producing children? Sheesh.

Answer 8

While I do not agree with this proposal at all, I do admire the way that the leftists have turned around one of the most potent arguments against gay marriage. The argument, of course, is that same sex couples can't produce children, thus making it an nonviable union. These folks argument seems to go something like: If the ability to product offspring is central to the concept of a marriage then any couple not able to, regardless of the genders involved, should be denied status as a "married" couple.

Just one more bit of evidence that being a member of the loony left and being intelligent are not mutually exclusive (although I must admit that there is also tons of evidence to the contrary).

Answer 9

NO. It does not prove that people who believe in same sex marriage want to destroy traditional marriage. Why would they want to destroy something they want to become a part of? They are doing it to prove how much of a hypocrisy it is to say they two men or two women can't get married because they can not naturally have children and then allow Heterosexuals to get married and chose not to have children. If the purpose of marriage is to have children than there should be nothing wrong with passing this law. If the purpose of marriage is not just to have children then there should be nothing wrong with same sex marriages.

Answer 10

Same sex marriage is an abominable perversion the moment it is defined as a marriage

if a marriage biologically culturally and legally is understood as a union, a family, between man and woman dreaming of a future together and of offspring.

Unconsciously or consciously those behind the same sex marriage want to denigrate or even to destroy the natural traditional marriage practiced by those whose biology is regular.

As life generally is a relentless fight ever involving good and bad, dirt and cleanness, health and ailment, life and death,

the sane individual, and so the sane group, shall permanently fight to preserve the healthy tendencies of life and so unite with others to preserve and to develop the healthy tendencies of life, the healthy future of mankind.

Politicians turn their thoughts towards their potential voters, and so politicians, not knowing the definitely generally right responses to challenges, keep on with their political experiments, their political suggestions, affected by their personal biological layout. A gay politician may certainly campaign for gays rights, and gays will vote for him, and winning more rights to gays he will obviously win more rights to himself.

I guess that the whole mess should be taken calmly and patiently with the confessed or latent hope that things will go right and will get healthy for oneself eventually. Straight boy meets straight girl and straight girl meets straight boy, and they struggle together to concretize a sacramental union, a glowing mating apotheosis, so their future, and our future, may be applauded and safeguarded. This challenge is one that we should take as our commitment for a future and for a better future for all.