Defenders of same-sex marriage in Washington have filed an initiative that would require heterosexual couples to have children within three years of tying the knot -- or have their marriages annulled. - WorldMagBlog via FRCBlog
News reports of prepared statements read like satire:
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. 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.What proponents claim to be a "parody" meant to challenge the concept that marriage is a tiresome strategy. Rather than engaging the propositions put forward by social conservatives a straw man argument is constructed in which marriage is redefined as procreation. Having falsely attributed a particular position to their opponents, advocates of the "procreate or else" measure promote their agenda in this manner:
Since you don't live up to what we've decided you believe, you're a bunch of hypocrites and everything else you've said about marriage is wrong. Therefore, same-sex marriage ought to be legal.I don't know whether to cry or laugh. It's a creative way to gain media attention but sadly quite illogical.
Joe Carter at the FRCBlog engages: Is marriage solely for the purpose of creation? LifeSiteNews has the details.
this is a huge joke.i dont know why gay people dont realise that they cannot change nature.if a hetrosexual couple cant have kids now cos they have medical problems they definately will if the problems are sorted medically or otherwise but i am waiting for the day gay people will have kids of their own with no surogates involved.
i think this is pretty prejudice against woman who can't have children. it's like a slap in the face. they can't have children, so they can't celebrate love? what a bastard!
If G*D created marriage solely for procreation, never mind these human created notions of marrying for love, then it makes perfect sense.
If G*D made you so that you can't have children, He's saying that you shouldn't get married. If some "scientist" interferes with G*D's will, well, that's the height of hubris and pride and therefore a sin, isn't it?
What's so hard to understand about that?
Or, have you come to the conclusion that there's more to marriage than having children. Hmmmmm?
>>but sadly quite illogical.
Sure its illogical, the whole life style is. Would you expect anything different from such a lost and mixed of society?
Perhaps the pro-marriage group should also be careful of the reasonings given for fighting for marriage. There are enough reasons, without making "procreation only" our main point for the defense of traditional marriage. This statement may have been taken out of context by the gay rights group, I don't know. But if that's the main reason being given for a stance against homosexuality, its weak. Its been brought to national attention BECAUSE of its obvious flaws and holes.
I agree that the homosexual community has made a silly argument here, but they accurately called out some pretty weak reasoning on our part.
When the marriage ban was upheld in Washington, the ruling specifically mentioned a state interest in furthering procreation. Therefore the original blog poster is incorrect. This is not a straw-man attack because there are those who defend their special rights to marriage by claiming it is for the purpose of procreation.
Equal rights, not special rights for Christians!
Illogical? Hardly.
I just think those of you who feel marriage is only for procreation, preparing the next generation and raising children hate to see your own argument used against you.
If you feel the above reasons are why same-sex marriage should not be allowed, and you don't support this measure, then you're now a hypocrite.
You did not 'earn' your heterosexuality, it was given to you by 'God' or by whatever you believe created / put you here. You have no right assuming you're better than someone else or that you deserve more than someone else simply because you have the ability to have children.
People have said marriage is about procreation and same-sex couples cannot do that, thus same-sex marriage should not be allowed. Therefore, if you don't procreate, why should you be allowed to stay married? Makes complete sense to me.
Yes, it's rather radical but it's simply pushing your own points to reality.
Here's the strategy: find the weakest possible argument held by at least one of your gay-marriage critics, exaggerate it and apply it to all opponents regardless of their actual position. This is not apparently viewed as a straw man argument because someone somewhere holds that the very basis of marriage is both the ability and act of having children. Forget the traditional view of marriage, the Biblical principles for marriage and the stated position of gay-marriage opponents. Just find someone that believes that the very basis of marriage is the ability to procreate (as in "For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation") and begin the argument there.... Well done. Yes, quite logical.
Hello, how about adoption.
I have been very happily married for 13 years and we could not conceive after 4 years. We then adopted from China a wonderful 11 month old. This law would take that away from others. It's really wrong.
Marriage is not just simply to procreate. It is about sharing your life with the one person you love. Whether straight or gay, no one should have the right to tell you that you cannot be married without having children.
The Catholic Church needs to shift their old rumpy butts from the pedestal they've been perched on for the last 2000 years and realise that people and times evolve, and so should they. God wasn't the one who wrote the Bible, it was just a regular Joe wearing some drapery & flip flops.
If perhaps these groups used their time and money to help come up with an idea to solve world hunger, or get the homeless off our streets, our world might be a better place.