Discussion: Required to Have Kids

[Jason Tate]

A Washington state initiative filed by an pro-gay marriage group “would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years (http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2007/02/heh.html) or else have their marriage annulled.”

[thejetstolehome]

The first initiative will make procreation a requirement for legal marriage

wow.

[Tristan Needler]

What the hell. What about infertile people, now they can't be married? Ludicrous.

[dw1003]

wow.

maybe they're really interested in creating a larger lower class, full of young people who can't afford to have kids...

[cantnokdahustle]

wow, lets push our resources to the max, and Fuck orphans altogether.

I would actually like to see birth caps, but thats not realistic.

[saysmydoctor]

This has to be unconstitutional.

[aminorthreat55]

This would be absolutely hilarious were it not so pathetic.

[x togepi x]

This has to be unconstitutional.

so is the defense of marriage act which disallows gay marriage...

this really makes no ense. maybe i need to reread the bible but i do not remember the part saying that christians specifically have to have kids after they get married.

[IAPAI]

The second would prohibit divorce or separation when a married couple has children together
that sounds like it would lead to stable households all across America.

[dai the flu]

so is the defense of marriage act which disallows gay marriage...

this really makes no ense. maybe i need to reread the bible but i do not remember the part saying that christians specifically have to have kids after they get married.
i love how you equate something as absurd as this to being a christian. way to be a douchebag.

[crit]

what. the. fuck.

[IAPAI]

i love how you equate something as absurd as this to being a christian. way to be a douchebag.

in all fairness, you don't see too many Atheists protesting gay marriages. I'm pretty sure most of the signs say "Jesus Hates ****". It's the evangelicals that are connecting it to Christianity, so blame them.

[icameonherface]

That is the lamest thing ever.

[FondestMemory]

this is actually kind of brilliant. it's not being proposed by an anti-gay marriage group, it's being proposed by supporters of gay marriage.

the whole thing is an attack on the argument made that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because marriage is for reproduction. it's basically throwing it in their face saying that if gays can't be married because they can't have children, then neither should straight people who can't or don't have children. it's exploiting the double standard that's been set and making a mockery of it.

that's why it's such a ridiculous proposal. the whole thing's just funny to me.

[Mercy Medical]

What...the...hell?

Okay, obviously I'm all for gay marriage being gay myself, but come on now. I understand the point they're trying to make, but it's extremely ridiculous.

[Mercy Medical]

so is the defense of marriage act which disallows gay marriage...

this really makes no ense. maybe i need to reread the bible but i do not remember the part saying that christians specifically have to have kids after they get married.
There's some passage in the Bible about a bush that is unable to bear fruit or something along those lines and essentially it's a metaphor about women not bearing children. No where in the Bible does it specifically state (well, no where that I know of) that women should have children, but I suppose some can argue due to the whole bush that does bear fruit passage that God wants us to procreate and blah, blah, blah.

Frankly, I find it retarded. Just because I'm capable of having children doesn't mean I should have to in order to follow God's plan.

[Scuba Chris]

this is actually kind of brilliant. it's not being proposed by an anti-gay marriage group, it's being proposed by supporters of gay marriage.

the whole thing is an attack on the argument made that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because marriage is for reproduction. it's basically throwing it in their face saying that if gays can't be married because they can't have children, then neither should straight people who can't or don't have children. it's exploiting the double standard that's been set and making a mockery of it.

that's why it's such a ridiculous proposal. the whole thing's just funny to me.

What...the...hell?

Okay, obviously I'm all for gay marriage being gay myself, but come on now. I understand the point they're trying to make, but it's extremely ridiculous.

Of course it's ridiculous. But that is the point, they are showing just how outrageous the anti-gay stance that "marriage is for procreation" is.

I think this is quite brilliant. Of course this won't pass, but it will get people talking, which is exactly it's aim.

[JulieLynn]

I don't agree with this what so ever.

[JulieLynn]

Everyone couple gay or straight should have the same rights. You don't see the government pushing straight couples to have kids in order to stay married. This is just way out of line

[x togepi x]

i love how you equate something as absurd as this to being a christian. way to be a douchebag.

it's common fucking knowledge that anti-gay rights groups are often backed by christian organizations. so why get pissed off when i assume an organization pushing a socially conservative agenda is a christian one when right wing christian organizations are the ones that most often push socially conservative agendas?

nowhere in my post did i say all christians think that way or that they were bad. reading the first post, i thought the law was being passed by a defense of marriage group, i don't think homosexuality is a sin even in the christian sense nor do i think that all these wacky laws about marriage have biblical basis, so i made my post wondering where it had some biblical basis because when i read this, it said "anti-gay rights group." Since anti-gay rights groups use bad interpretations of the bible to begin with, i was just wondering how they were going to justify this one.

read some kierkegaard before whining that i "call" christianity absurd: "i believe because it's absurd." all religions are absurd. everything people does is absurd. it's not even an insult.

but jason, you need to reread the article you posted, the bill is being pushed by a pro-gay rights organization in hopes that it will get struck down for being unconstitutional. it's an attempt to point out that the defense of marriage crowd really has no legal basis to say that marriage is all about raising a family (since the sanctity of marriage ordained by god argument is shit when you have a seperation of church and state). it's a bill meant to make a political point, not to actually force people to have kids after they get married.

[Love As Arson]

If I were a homosexual, I would have a difficult time identifying my allies, as the republicans have openly opposed homosexual rights, while the democrats laid the foundation for a constitutional amendment against gay marriage and persist in their support of "family values".

[Scuba Chris]

Everyone couple gay or straight should have the same rights. You don't see the government pushing straight couples to have kids in order to stay married. This is just way out of line
you're missing the point.

[Chancetobe]

This is just...wrong. No one, gay or straight should be forced to have kids.

[Chancetobe]

Of course it's ridiculous. But that is the point, they are showing just how outrageous the anti-gay stance that "marriage is for procreation" is.

I think this is quite brilliant. Of course this won't pass, but it will get people talking, which is exactly it's aim.

Humm... that's actualy a brilliant "marketing" scheme.

[a speedo model]

You've got to be kidding me...

[a speedo model]

so is the defense of marriage act which disallows gay marriage...

this really makes no ense. maybe i need to reread the bible but i do not remember the part saying that christians specifically have to have kids after they get married.
:appl: That has no point.


Also, it does say to go forth, multiply and fill the earth, if I'm not mistaken.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

it's common fucking knowledge that anti-gay rights groups are often backed by christian organizations. so why get pissed off when i assume an organization pushing a socially conservative agenda is a christian one when right wing christian organizations are the ones that most often push socially conservative agendas?

nowhere in my post did i say all christians think that way or that they were bad. reading the first post, i thought the law was being passed by a defense of marriage group, i don't think homosexuality is a sin even in the christian sense nor do i think that all these wacky laws about marriage have biblical basis, so i made my post wondering where it had some biblical basis because when i read this, it said "anti-gay rights group." Since anti-gay rights groups use bad interpretations of the bible to begin with, i was just wondering how they were going to justify this one.

read some kierkegaard before whining that i "call" christianity absurd: "i believe because it's absurd." all religions are absurd. everything people does is absurd. it's not even an insult.

but jason, you need to reread the article you posted, the bill is being pushed by a pro-gay rights organization in hopes that it will get struck down for being unconstitutional. it's an attempt to point out that the defense of marriage crowd really has no legal basis to say that marriage is all about raising a family (since the sanctity of marriage ordained by god argument is shit when you have a seperation of church and state). it's a bill meant to make a political point, not to actually force people to have kids after they get married.

i was gonna say, according to the article it is a pro-gay rights group. this bill is more to make a point. and judging by everyone here's negative reactions to it, i think their point is made.

[x togepi x]

:appl: That has no point.


Also, it does say to go forth, multiply and fill the earth, if I'm not mistaken.

i thought go forth and multiply etc was more of an edict directed towards humanity as a whole, saying people need to exist into the future, rather than a personal command that everyone able to have kids needs to have kids.

[dai the flu]

i thought go forth and multiply etc was more of an edict directed towards humanity as a whole, saying people need to exist into the future, rather than a personal command that everyone able to have kids needs to have kids.
nowhere in the bible (at least in the new testament which applies to christians) are people commanded to have children. even the apostles were childless, though some were married.

[saysmydoctor]

This sounds like the polar opposite of China's law, saying you can only have a certain amount of kids.

[a speedo model]

nowhere in the bible (at least in the new testament which applies to christians) are people commanded to have children. even the apostles were childless, though some were married.
Only the New Testaments applies to Christians? hahaha

[dai the flu]

Only the New Testaments applies to Christians? hahaha
actually yeah. only the new testament directly applies to christians. of course the principles behind the old testament laws are still pertinent, but jesus did away with the old mosaic law code when he was on earth.

[HeyCoffeeEyes]

Apparently, the clue train doesn't make any stops at AboslutePunk.

THE PROPOSAL IS SATIRIZING THE HETEROSEXIST LOGIC OF CHRISTIAN OPPONENTS OF GAY MARRIAGE. THE GROUP DOES NOT ENDORSE THOSE VIEWS, RATHER IT WANTS TO BRING THE ASSUMPTIONS INTO CLEAR LIGHT AND EXPOSE HOW RIDICULOUS THEY ARE. BY SHOWING THAT THE PRINCIPLES OF ANTI-GAY ACTIVISTS ARE PATENTLY RIDICULOUS WHEN APPLIED TO STRAIGHT PEOPLE, THE ACTIVISTS HOPE THAT GIANT FUCKING MORON AMERICANS WILL CONNECT THE DOTS AND REALIZE THAT THEY ARE EQUALLY AS RIDICULOUS WHEN APPLIED TO GAY PEOPLE.

[FondestMemory]

Apparently, the clue train doesn't make any stops at AboslutePunk.

THE PROPOSAL IS SATIRIZING THE HETEROSEXIST LOGIC OF CHRISTIAN OPPONENTS OF GAY MARRIAGE. THE GROUP DOES NOT ENDORSE THOSE VIEWS, RATHER IT WANTS TO BRING THE ASSUMPTIONS INTO CLEAR LIGHT AND EXPOSE HOW RIDICULOUS THEY ARE. BY SHOWING THAT THE PRINCIPLES OF ANTI-GAY ACTIVISTS ARE PATENTLY RIDICULOUS WHEN APPLIED TO STRAIGHT PEOPLE, THE ACTIVISTS HOPE THAT GIANT FUCKING MORON AMERICANS WILL CONNECT THE DOTS AND REALIZE THAT THEY ARE EQUALLY AS RIDICULOUS WHEN APPLIED TO GAY PEOPLE.

apparently neither does the reading train, because that's already been stated a handful of times.

[HeyCoffeeEyes]

apparently neither does the reading train, because that's already been stated a handful of times.

I felt it needed to be said again, because for every person like you who can read, there are at least four posts about how ridiculous the law is. Also, when opening a thread causes me to immediately be confronted with post after post of undulterated idiocy, my inclination is not to read the next two pages of it before posting.

[jaymofokinwalsh]

How about this. As far as laws go, "God" cannot be considered. So all you HxC Catholics need to keep it quiet. People will be gay. Let them! People will marry. Let them!

Some people just don't want kids.
Who are you to tell them that they must concieve?

[saysmydoctor]

Apparently, the clue train doesn't make any stops at AboslutePunk.

THE PROPOSAL IS SATIRIZING THE HETEROSEXIST LOGIC OF CHRISTIAN OPPONENTS OF GAY MARRIAGE. THE GROUP DOES NOT ENDORSE THOSE VIEWS, RATHER IT WANTS TO BRING THE ASSUMPTIONS INTO CLEAR LIGHT AND EXPOSE HOW RIDICULOUS THEY ARE. BY SHOWING THAT THE PRINCIPLES OF ANTI-GAY ACTIVISTS ARE PATENTLY RIDICULOUS WHEN APPLIED TO STRAIGHT PEOPLE, THE ACTIVISTS HOPE THAT GIANT FUCKING MORON AMERICANS WILL CONNECT THE DOTS AND REALIZE THAT THEY ARE EQUALLY AS RIDICULOUS WHEN APPLIED TO GAY PEOPLE.
Using cap locks make me not want to listen to you more.

[splat out path]

At first I thought this was a brilliant ruse to get people thinking, but then I realised that most people are too dumb to see the basic point they're making.

[Danny Schme]

How about this. As far as laws go, "God" cannot be considered.

Yeahhh whatever happened to that. Seperation of Church and State seems to have been long gone. :-\

At first I thought this was a brilliant ruse to get people thinking, but then I realised that most people are too dumb to see the basic point they're making.

Agreed. Either that or they don't read.

[tambam]

I personally think it's brilliant, too. Don't take it seriously, people. Take it for what it is; if homosexuals can't get married because they can't reproduce, then why can heterosexuals get away with it?

[HeyCoffeeEyes]

Using cap locks make me not want to listen to you more.

I actually held the shift key the entire time.

[Love As Arson]

actually yeah. only the new testament directly applies to christians. of course the principles behind the old testament laws are still pertinent, but jesus did away with the old mosaic law code when he was on earth.
The Levitical law no longer applies to Christians, but the texts found in the Old Testament remain necessary for Christian doctrine.

[music3chick]

Brillant

I have been thinking if people are so against gays getting married, with one of the popular arguments being that they can't have children, would they create a law that would make having children a requirement in marriage?

Then this comes up, haha

[Bad Luck Prince]

It's a completely stupid ploy and they should take it up with nature, not the government.

[lucky_krystle]

i agree.

the world is also overpopulated enough the way it is. but this is just ridiculous. i personally am not against gay marriage. if two people love each other that should be enough. and i also think that they should have the same marital rights as heterosexuals do. this is just going too far to try to prevent that from happening.

[Bad Luck Prince]

I actually held the shift key the entire time.

ahahahaha! Good one.

[Ms Smurf]

This is some real 1984 shit.

[splat out path]

This is some real 1984 shit.
SAT score, maybe.

[cfear]

I didn't read anything past page one, but that sounds like something that is supposed to sound ridiculous. I think it is refuting the argument that marriage is about procreation, so if a heterosexual couple marries and doesn't have a child then they aren't fulfilling their marital duties. The intent is to get people to realize homosexual marriages aren't bad. Homosexual couples don't have children the natural way, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to be married. Whatever...

I read someone saying there should be caps on children (I assume you mean a policy similar to China's One Child Policy). People should read Tragedy of The Commons if you feel that way. It is an older article, written in 1968, but it's basic premise is still valid. It addresses limits on reproduction in light of overpopulation.

[hxchairstylist]

Well, I've already done my part to plant my seed, so I'm safe. And, I'm not even married! Ahead of the game!

[catchmealone]

This is fantastic. I didn't get it at first, but I(unlike so many other people who post first and read later) read all the responses and caught on that it was satire. I think it's great.

For the record, I'm a Christian, and I support gay rights. I even hate the fact that we have to consider this. These are people, no different from you and I, why do we have to segregate them?
But the reasons people come up with for Gay Rights and Marriage are all bs anyways. If gay marriage should be outlawed because marriage is a Christian doctrine, then we can go ahead and do away with divorce as well. Until we prove that we actually care about the value in marriage, I don't see why we can tell others how to value it themselves.