Breed or have your marriage squashed!

2minkey

2minkey

bootlicker
new state initiative. and i'm all for it. marriage should be for breeding. because it's biology!

this new initiative would make subject to anullment marriages that don't produce within three years.

awesome! at least some folks seem to understand that life is all about filling the pews and factories with lots of bodies!

http://www.wa-doma.org/Initiative.aspx
 
But what about all those poor gay folk? This obviously discriminates against them, cuz like it or not, it takes an Adam and an Eve to make a baby, not Adam and Steve. They liable to scratch somebody's eyes out over this!
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
But what about all those poor gay folk? This obviously discriminates against them, cuz like it or not, it takes an Adam and an Eve to make a baby, not Adam and Steve. They liable to scratch somebody's eyes out over this!
Click to expand...

well they ain't part of god's oligocratic plan for social and economic stagnation. so fuck 'em.
 
Wonder what happens if you've already produced children prior to the marriage. You forced to have more?

Idiots!
 
Be fruitful and multiply or you can damned well fuck off. :lloyd:

Interestingly, under such a system I would not be married.

Yet another example why separation of church and state is not some lofty ideal but a rock hard necessity.
 
chcr said:
Interestingly, under such a system I would not be married.
Click to expand...
Under such a system, anyone who is infertile couldn't marry.

So, the question is: Is Marriage merely for procreation or a declaration of love and commitment?
 
This is literally taking the 'having kids will save your marriage' fallacy to it's logical, if not delusional, ending.

Next step: The use of birth control within a marriage will be declared illegal and cause of an instant annulment. :rolleyes:
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
But what about all those poor gay folk? This obviously discriminates against them, cuz like it or not, it takes an Adam and an Eve to make a baby, not Adam and Steve. They liable to scratch somebody's eyes out over this!
Click to expand...
1) Marriages in the following cases are prohibited:

(a) When either party thereto has a wife or husband living at the time of such marriage;
(b) When the husband and wife are nearer of kin to each other than second cousins, whether of the whole or half blood computing by the rules of the civil law; or
(c) When the parties are persons other than a male and a female;
Click to expand...
yep, they covered that too. ;)

Man, that's pretty conservative for that state, isn't it?
 
Methinks this whole thing is just backlash from native Washingtonians for the encroachment of the Californians in the past 15 years, or so. Either that, or they are going to a ridiculous extreme in order to repeal that law and replace it with a law allowing homosexual marriage...:nuts2:
 
Anyone else read the rest of the site? Gato's last post is the closest to accurate. It's an attempt by pro-gay marriage people to get those who think procreating is an essential part of marriage to "choke on their own rhetoric."
 
Absurd? Very. But there is a rational basis for this absurdity. By floating the initiatives, we hope to prompt discussion about the many misguided assumptions which make up the Andersen ruling. By getting the initiatives passed, we hope the Supreme Court will strike them down as unconstitutional and thus weaken Andersen itself. And at the very least, it should be good fun to see the social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation be forced to choke on their own rhetoric.
Click to expand...

:rofl:
:beardbng:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top