Marriage and sexual congress for procreation only.

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
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

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
7,700
Reaction score
436
Points
83
Location
The beautiful Yadkin Valley
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.
 
OP
Bullypulpit

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
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

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
7,700
Reaction score
436
Points
83
Location
The beautiful Yadkin Valley
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.

:cuckoo:
 
OP
Bullypulpit

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
1. But it is natural.
2. Who's insisting?
3. By reading the Bible.

:cuckoo:
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

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
7,700
Reaction score
436
Points
83
Location
The beautiful Yadkin Valley
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

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,122
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
False assumption: Natural equals good.

Hence lies your problem.
 
OP
Bullypulpit

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH

boedicca

Uppity Water Nymph
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
55,649
Reaction score
17,720
Points
2,250
Location
The Land of Funk
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.
 

Bry

Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2003
Messages
489
Reaction score
3
Points
16
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

Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2006
Messages
122
Reaction score
30
Points
16
Location
North Carolina
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.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top