Insane

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 5:18 am

OLYMPIA, Wash. - An initiative filed by proponents of same-sex marriage would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriage annulled
Wow glad I was married in Oregon! What ever happened to just good ole fashion fun marital sex

. This is pushing the homophobic envelope to it's max!

Post by **miftah** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:33 am

The [url=http://www.theolympian.com/125/story/64137.html]article Tom's quoting[/url] wrote:"Absurd? Very," the group says on its Web site, which adds it is planning two more initiatives involving marriage and procreation. "But there is a rational basis for this absurdity. By floating the initiatives, we hope to prompt discussion about the many misguided assumptions" underlying the Supreme Court's ruling.

Encap · Post by **Encap** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:55 am

Nah, it makes sense. They're not allowed to marry, because (as the leading argument goes) marriage is about child rearing and supporting procreation.

I'm neutered. Daks and I will not have a biological son between us. I guess that means that we'll never marry.

Shucky darns.

Extra Credit: In re: Marriage. The far-right wants to keep marriage as their little tea party. Good. I hope they choke on it. They're losing. I heard the other day that more couples are choosing to shack up long term and skip getting married.

Rocketdork · Post by **Rocketdork** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:25 am

I have chosen to shack up long term (14 years now) without getting married.

My parents hate it. They have a religious background and feel that marriage is sacred.

Same sex marriage? I fully support it. Why should we isolate the homosexuals of the world because of their sexual orientation? I don't feel like they had any more choice in their sexuality that I did. I didn't wake up one day and decide that I am a heterosexual man...why should I believe that anyone else woke up one day and decided to be homosexual? Its nature.

Marriage is for procreation? I thought that's the biological reason for sex. Last time I checked fewer and fewer people are waiting for marriage to have sex...hence, there are more single mothers (their partner may be actively involved in the relationship and babies life, but they are still single).

Marriage is sacred? Bah, then why the hell should the gov't have anything to do with it? Leave marriage to the Churches, the gov't doesn't have to participate in marriage in any way...Make no mistake, they CHOOSE to participate in marriage.

We want to preserve the sanctity of marriage? WTF is left of the sanctity of marriage? Britney getting married for 50 hours? 50% divorce rate...the Hetero folks of the world have fucked up the sanctity of marriage, lets let the homosexuals have a chance...

Post by **miftah** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:15 am

I like marriage. I guess there's a little traditional romantic in me, and this is where it manifests. I'm sorry gay people aren't allowed to marry. I wish they could. I don't see marriage as a religious function at all. But the act of committing to someone publically does serve a purpose, and when the right person/time comes along, I'm getting married.

Moxie · Post by **Moxie** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:18 pm

I'm anti-organized religion, so church opinions are simply irrelevant to me. As a legal institution, I think anyone should be able to create the family they want. The idea of it being a couple with sexual interaction seems beside the point. What about friends who wish to always take care of each other? Why not have something that includes everyone, if we're going to break down barriers? Something for our minds to chew on... I think the entire concept of "marriage" needs to be rethought & reworked.

Deater · Post by **Deater** » Sat Feb 10, 2007 9:50 pm

I'm all for gay marriage, I will support that stupendous faggot Bio whatever he chooses to do. He and his boyfriend Rockedork should be able to suffer the pains of marriage just like everyone else! JK

I don't think that marriage has evolved into what it was originally intended to be. Nowadays it is more of a legally binding contract than what they say during the ceremony. They might as well be saying "until irreconcilable differences do us part."

I agree with Moxie to some extent. The whole concept of marriage should be reworked. It should be seperate from the legal contract of marriage today. A ceremony that is done in a way that is meaningful to the couple with no legal ramifications. Then, if people want a legally binding contract to go with their love, then they can go to the courts and have it done there.

I don't know about friends that take care of each other though, like heterosexual same sex life partners like Jay and Silent Bob or Penn and Teller. I think that is what we call "best friends," but hey, if there are best friends out there that want to get married, good for them, they should go for it.

I also know a brother/sister that lives together. He has CP and she takes care of him. They are also best buds too. I don't think they would want to get married, but since they own a home together and have combined incomes, they might want the legal privileges that come with getting married, if it could save them on taxes or something.

I just don't think it should be as cut and dry as it is now.

Post by **bio** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:16 am

The right claims that allowing same sex marriage will destroy the sanctity of marriage.

Hello?!?

With divorce rates between 40% - 50% (depending on who you ask), I don't think there's all that much sanctity left.

I say, if two people love each other enough to want to be married, let them! I could care less who they are, what gender they are, etc.

Of course, I'll have been with my wife 20 years (as of November 6 of this year) and will have been married for 17 of those years on May 5. I'm with Mox on the whole organized religion thing... we got married at the court house.

moe flam · Post by **moe flam** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:56 am

I think so much of organized religion, I got ordained online! I did my first ceremony last spring, for about 165 people. The grandfather of the bride was a 'real' life-long minister, but was now 92 years old and unable to perform the whole thing. I was surprised how many people liked the ceremony we came up with, since religion was heavily intertwined on both sides of the family. On the groom's side, his mother worked for the Catholic church as a secretary for the last 20+ years.

But the ceremony was just what the marrying couple wanted, and that's it. Sure seems like how it should be, it really is about them. Past the marriage license, the state of Idaho didn't care what the ceremony entailed.

And I'll be, how you say, 'marrying' my sister this fall.

Post by **miftah** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:31 am

Yeah, I hate church weddings. Its like product placement in your wedding. Neither the GF nor I are religious people (note the difference between that word and spiritual), so if we get hitched I am guessing the ceremony will be more secular in nature, despite a tremendous depth of religious commitment on the part of previous generations.

Insane

Insane

Re: Insane