OLYMPIA, Wash. -- Proponents of same-sex marriage have introduced a ballot measure that would require heterosexual couples to have a child within three years or have their marriages annulled.

 

The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance acknowledged on its Web site that the initiative was "absurd" but hoped the idea prompts "discussion about the many misguided assumptions" underlying a state Supreme Court ruling that upheld a ban on same-sex marriage.

 

The measure would require couples to prove they can have children to get a marriage license. Couples who do not have children within three years could have their marriages annulled.

 

All other marriages would be defined as "unrecognized," making those couples ineligible for marriage benefits.

 

The paperwork for the measure was submitted last month. Supporters must gather at least 224,800 signatures by July 6 to put it on the November ballot.

 

The group said the proposal was aimed at "social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation."

 

Cheryl Haskins, executive director of Allies for Marriage and Children, said opponents of same-sex marriage want only to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

 

"Some of those unions produce children and some of them don't," she said.

For consistency's sake, they should also anull the marriages of the infertile and those of post-menopausal women.

...And any paraplegics too.

*snip*

 

I actually agree with this. If I can get some poor woman fooled to marry me I want to be sure that I can get some sex as well.

...And any paraplegics too.

Actually, one can manually stimulate the prostate gland such that a quadraplegic can produce sea men (oh, come now). And if Murderball is any indication, at least some paraplegics are capable of having sex.

 

...And any paraplegics too.

Actually, one can manually stimulate the prostate gland such that a quadraplegic can produce sea men (oh, come now). And if Murderball is any indication, at least some paraplegics are capable of having sex.

 

 

Ok, how about quadriplegics?

Any law that could (theoretically) help Finns reproduce faster is a BAD law. Trust me.

...And any paraplegics too.

Actually, one can manually stimulate the prostate gland such that a quadraplegic can produce sea men (oh, come now). And if Murderball is any indication, at least some paraplegics are capable of having sex.

 

 

Ok, how about quadriplegics?

They're included in the statement above. Quadriplegics can't have sex, per se, but they can reproduce so long as they're not sterile. Paraplegics can actually have intercourse, if they have the sufficient strength to move themselves with their arms, and most are. They just have to get creative in their positioning.

OLYMPIA, Wash. -- Proponents of same-sex marriage have introduced a ballot measure that would require heterosexual couples to have a child within three years or have their marriages annulled.

 

The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance acknowledged on its Web site that the initiative was "absurd" but hoped the idea prompts "discussion about the many misguided assumptions" underlying a state Supreme Court ruling that upheld a ban on same-sex marriage.

 

The measure would require couples to prove they can have children to get a marriage license. Couples who do not have children within three years could have their marriages annulled.

 

All other marriages would be defined as "unrecognized," making those couples ineligible for marriage benefits.

 

The paperwork for the measure was submitted last month. Supporters must gather at least 224,800 signatures by July 6 to put it on the November ballot.

 

The group said the proposal was aimed at "social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation."

 

Cheryl Haskins, executive director of Allies for Marriage and Children, said opponents of same-sex marriage want only to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

 

"Some of those unions produce children and some of them don't," she said.

Rofl, pointing out double standards to make a point about fundi stupidity, I like.

Edited February 6, 200718 yr by Purgatorio

Attacking the establishment, even in such a ridiculous vein, will likely result in -10 influence for acceptance of the gay community in general, unfortunately. It invites retaliation. This is not the way to make their point.

Increased chance of retaliation definitely, but they don't really need an excuse, what with God and the Constitution at risk.

Any law that promotes making babies for us North Americans has my support.

However this is, again, too extreme.

 

The only marriage I'm against is inter-familly marriages(brother/sister, son/mother, etc).

Any law that promotes making babies for us North Americans has my support.

However this is, again, too extreme.

 

The only marriage I'm against is inter-familly marriages(brother/sister, son/mother, etc).

 

In that case I have some bad news ....son.

Any law that promotes making babies for us North Americans has my support.

However this is, again, too extreme.

 

The only marriage I'm against is inter-familly marriages(brother/sister, son/mother, etc).

 

In that case I have some bad news ....son.

 

Mom?

:'(

Any law that promotes making babies for us North Americans has my support.

However this is, again, too extreme.

 

The only marriage I'm against is inter-familly marriages(brother/sister, son/mother, etc).

 

In that case I have some bad news ....son.

 

Mom?

:'(

 

Obsidian WoT. It's like Fantasy Island, only less pleasant.

Any law that promotes making babies for us North Americans has my support.

However this is, again, too extreme.

 

The only marriage I'm against is inter-familly marriages(brother/sister, son/mother, etc).

 

In that case I have some bad news ....son.

 

Mom?

:'(

 

Obsidian WoT. It's like Fantasy Island, only less pleasant.

 

With Sand as Tatoo?

"Ze Fallout! Ze Fallout!"

I think this warrants a "R00fles!".

I'm in the boat with Purgie and laughing that the pro homosexual marraige groups decided that if they couldn't get married because they couldn't have kids, same should be said for hetero couples.

I'm in the boat with Purgie and laughing that the pro homosexual marraige groups decided that if they couldn't get married because they couldn't have kids, same should be said for hetero couples.

 

Heh. I'm with you there. I mean all people should be equal before the law!

"Rofl, pointing out double standards to make a point about fundi stupidity, I like."

 

Acting stupid doesn't prove others' stupidity; it only proves your own stupidity.

 

In essence, this warrants a:

 

R00fles!