Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

[crunch]

12:59 PM PST on Tuesday, February 6, 2007

KING5.com Staff and Associated Press

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.

Initiative 957 was filed by the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance. That group was formed last summer after the state Supreme Court upheld Washington's ban on same-sex marriage.

Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance
Under the initiative, marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children in order to get a marriage license, and if they did not have children within three years, their marriage would be subject to annulment.

http://www.nwcn.com/statenews/washington/stories/NW_020507WABinitiative957SW.546c6a4d.html

 

[treedancer]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

That’s sounds stupid to me, I’m all for marriage between man and women but what kind of law is that? What the hell they trying to prove? Guess I’ll have to move back in the area in case somebody needs a little help.8)

 

[Boomyal]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

That's so dumb I did not even want to read the link.

 

[crunch]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

Awwww, come on Boom, how can you have an opinion without being informed?

 

[JB]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

Really, really REALLY dumb.

Any couple, hetero or same gender, can adopt . That is "having kids" in my book.

 

[QC]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

Well . . . hmmmmm. This does catch my interest as I have posted here that marriage is beneficial to society primarily for the raising of children . . . Pretty odd that "proponents" of same sex marriage call themselves "Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance". That and the immature put-your-money-where-your-mouth-is tone of this initiative works against their cause if you ask me. It is very hard for me to take groups that behave this way seriously. I would say the same if "oponents" employed similar silly tactics.

I also agree with JB, as my position is about the "ideal" environment for healthy raising of children and the preservation of certain norms and customs that are valid despite the need by some to eliminate defintitons and differences within society. It has nothing to do with the ability to procreate.

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

Ideal by your standards.....

 

[crunch]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

I don’t agree with JB at all... Jonh and Bill, just like Sue Anne and Bev can’t raise a child in a “normal” environment no mater how normal they try to make it or how hard they try.

They are Not husband and wife, Not man and woman... and that is the crux of the whole mater.

A child, male or female needs both perspectives to grow up normally... they need a “mother and father figure” to be well adjusted to the current cultural world they are expected to live in as the “current culture” demands it... just ask the school yard bullies that will torment the “child of these enlightened times”. Can you hear the taunts?

This is, and won’t be a realistic way to bring up a child for the foreseeable future. Maybe when the World population reaches 20 billion, and “homosex” is not only the accepted norm, but encouraged by the whole world to cut population growth will this be the “norm”... but not till then..... IMNSHO.

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

Once again, "By your standard"....

 

[crunch]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

Once again, "By your standard"....

One must assume you have none of your own?

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

Remember: My brother, (actual blood brother not Bro Haut), calls this place "Gay Bay North" for a reason! Libs and Dems will do anything and break or destroy anything to get their way. JR

 

[crunch]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

And the cruel shame of it is.... they do it for the children, for all of our rights.... without one thought to the affected that can’t even understand how they are being used.... and abused.

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

Remember: My brother, (actual blood brother not Bro Haut), calls this place "Gay Bay North" for a reason! Libs and Dems will do anything and break or destroy anything to get their way. JR

*SNIFF* Now that really hurts!...
Mean people suck!
dddd

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

And the cruel shame of it is.... they do it for the children, for all of our rights.... without one thought to the affected that can’t even understand how they are being used.... and abused.

Let 'er rip Dr. Spock!:$

 

[QC]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

For clarification, I agreed with JB on adoption being a legitimate way to "acquire" children. I do not agree that all parenting models are equal, so relax crunch.

And . . . as a response to Faux Medoc (who knows my position), my "standard" is absolutely rational and if discussed without emotion it is absolutely fair to say that the "ideal", yes "ideal" model for parenting is one of each: a loving mother and a loving father. Because he is requiring an explanation of my "standard", I will reiterate that of course there are numerous (inumerable) examples of bad heterosexual parents; and there are, I am sure, many, many examples of loving, "good" homosexual parents, but . . . and this is a big but, if you knowingly pursue children and purposely plan to raise them in a model that is less than ideal, I feel it is a selfish pursuit and very little more. To explain my thinking further, I feel similarly about single parent adoption. And to help put this in context, I was raised by a single mother and think she did a wonderful job, but . . . again the but, even she would admit it was not the "ideal" environment for bringing up children. This does not have to be taken as an attack on anyone. It is only a statement of what I believe is rationally supportable as factual . . . Annnnnnd those of you who were rasied by one of each, of the loving variety, I will guarantee can cite examples of specific contributions to their upbringing from either parent that would NOT have come from the other if left to parent alone . . .

 

[crunch]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

Let 'er rip Dr. Spock!

Spoken like a true Lib, all mockery and no substance... have you ever had an opinion that was all yours?... or do we just have to endure your constant drivel?

Come on Haut... tell us about how good it is that Jonh pokes Johnny and Bev is a great “role model”

Tell us how great it is for the children.... I know how you love children... it shows in you politics.

 

[crunch]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

QC, adoption is great... good for all involved... unless it runs contrary to accepted societal standards.... then it becomes abuse, from political uses or just from the way society is...

Ever seen what happens to a monkey that is painted Pink, and tossed into the "monkey society" that is all brown?

Homosexuality is not the accepted norm today... expect “the monkeys” to react accordantly.

 

[crunch]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

From the biological side of the equation.... from the side that believes in the survival of the species... from those that are not so drawn up into the fable that God rules Man, and from those “progressives” that believe “anything goes... as long as it feels good”...

Give me one good reason why we should change what has been accepted for the last 1000+ years?

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

or do we just have to endure your constant drivel?

I do like your consistancy.....
Anything different than your belief(s) is drivel.....
There are many ways to um.... 'begat' a child nowadays....
Mr. C...AKA QC......
Would you say that the criteria you are seeking is the highest standard?
Though all would hope for the best, would anything less be deemed 'sub-standard'?
Judge, Jury , Executioner..

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids.

Uh ....Evoloution?.....:}