Marriage and sexual congress for procreation only.

[Bullypulpit]

Given the recent spate of "defense of marriage" acts and state constitutional amendments restricting the ability of same gender couples to sanctify their union. I think we should take these acts and amendments further by the following.

- Add the language “who are capable of having children with one another” to the legal definition of marriage.

- Add a requirement that couples show proof of procreation within three years of marriage or have their marriages automatically annulled.

- Add a requirement that couple married in another state provide proof of procreation within three years. Failure to do so would result in said marriage being classified as "unrecognized".

- Establish a process for the documentation required to show proof of procreation.

- Finally, criminalize the provision of marriage benefits to couples whose relationships fall into the category of "unrecognized".

- Language should also be added to prohibit legal separation and/or divorce when there are children and having a child is a defacto marriage ceremony.

These additions to "defense of marriage" acts will help ensure that the sanctity of marriage and ensure that marriage serves its purpose...procreation.



(Thanks to the <a href=http://www.wa-doma.org/>Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance</a>)

 

[glockmail]

Given the recent spate of "defense of marriage" acts and state constitutional amendments restricting the ability of same gender couples to sanctify their union. I think we should take these acts and amendments further ......

Such is the strategy for all Liberal efforts, is it not? But alas, this is a Conservative agenda, so I don't see us stomping off in some direction not intended by Our Maker.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Such is the strategy for all Liberal efforts, is it not? But alas, this is a Conservative agenda, so I don't see us stomping off in some direction not intended by Our Maker.

If sexual relations with a person of different gender is unnatural for an individual, is it not contrary to the intent of "Our Maker" to insist that said individual engage in heterosexual acts? BTW, just how does one determine the intent of this mythical, metaphysical entity which, by its very definition is beyond human experience?

 

[glockmail]

If sexual relations with a person of different gender is unnatural for an individual, is it not contrary to the intent of "Our Maker" to insist that said individual engage in heterosexual acts? BTW, just how does one determine the intent of this mythical, metaphysical entity which, by its very definition is beyond human experience?

1. But it is natural.
2. Who's insisting?
3. By reading the Bible.

 

[Bullypulpit]

1. But it is natural.
2. Who's insisting?
3. By reading the Bible.

1. As far as anyone can tell sexual orientation is innate.

2. Religious right wing-nuts.

3. Not so much. Despite claims of divine attribution the Bible, as with all such tomes, is the product of human intellect and effort and is thus subject to the foibles and limitation its writers.

And, yes, you are cuckoo.

 

[glockmail]

1. As far as anyone can tell sexual orientation is innate.

2. Religious right wing-nuts.

3. Not so much. Despite claims of divine attribution the Bible, as with all such tomes, is the product of human intellect and effort and is thus subject to the foibles and limitation its writers.

And, yes, you are cuckoo.

1. When the parts fit and serve a higher purpose.....
2. Links?
3. Can you prove that?

 

[Avatar4321]

False assumption: Natural equals good.

Hence lies your problem.

 

[Little-Acorn]

All right, who turned over bully's rock and woke him up? He almost completely missed the discussion on this issue, and would have remained blissfully ignorant if not for one of you disturbing him and making him look at his surroundings.



http://usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?p=527015#post527015

 

[Bullypulpit]

False assumption: Natural equals good.

Hence lies your problem.

But gosh, if it's natural then it's ordained by one's favorite deity and must, therefore, be good.

 

[Bullypulpit]

All right, who turned over bully's rock and woke him up? He almost completely missed the discussion on this issue, and would have remained blissfully ignorant if not for one of you disturbing him and making him look at his surroundings.



http://usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?p=527015#post527015

Shall we have the threads merged then?

 

[boedicca]

Given the recent spate of "defense of marriage" acts and state constitutional amendments restricting the ability of same gender couples to sanctify their union. I think we should take these acts and amendments further by the following.

- Add the language “who are capable of having children with one another” to the legal definition of marriage.

- Add a requirement that couples show proof of procreation within three years of marriage or have their marriages automatically annulled.

- Add a requirement that couple married in another state provide proof of procreation within three years. Failure to do so would result in said marriage being classified as "unrecognized".

- Establish a process for the documentation required to show proof of procreation.

- Finally, criminalize the provision of marriage benefits to couples whose relationships fall into the category of "unrecognized".

- Language should also be added to prohibit legal separation and/or divorce when there are children and having a child is a defacto marriage ceremony.

These additions to "defense of marriage" acts will help ensure that the sanctity of marriage and ensure that marriage serves its purpose...procreation.



(Thanks to the <a href=http://www.wa-doma.org/>Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance</a>)

How incredibly Assinine.

 

[Bullypulpit]

How incredibly Assinine.

Not as Assinine as the arguments against same-gender unions.

 

[sitarro]

Not as Assinine as the arguments against same-gender unions.

Call it same-gender unions then, it isn't marriage.

 

[mattskramer]

False assumption: Natural equals good.

Hence lies your problem.

Wow!!! I have been trying to explain that to these people for a long time. They just don’t get it.

 

[Bry]

False assumption: Natural equals good.

Hence lies your problem.

I'm not sure I understand, Avatar. You are saying that Natural doesn't equal good? And so by logical extension, things considered by some to be unnatural are not as a result bad? And so you are in favor of gay unions? I'm just trying to keep up.

 

[roadhouse158]

Man....I just thought about the strangest thing that the Government can do to marriage.....How about trying NOTHING...I mean damn....It's worked all this time. Why is it even a topic of conversation? It's ridiculous. To lovely liberals, marriage is more important than Iraq.