Married couples forced to have children?

[Bandersnatch]

http://koin.com/Global/story.asp?S=6040 ... =menu494_2

A highlight of the article before anyone gets TOO worked up:

"And at the very least, it should be good fun to see the social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation be forced to choke on their own rhetoric,"

So, it's essentially a joke. But Initiative 957 does bring up a good point: What if legal marriage required children in order to receive benefits, and if they didn't have them, they would be married in name only? I actually don't see how THAT would be unconstitutional, since it doesn't stop anyone from being married (Just receiving the legal benefits of marriage), and actually would give the social conservatives exactly what they want.

Although I'd see that as one step closer to Idiocracy becoming a reality.

[mikehendo]

This would be great if it were true

[Deacon]

[quote="Bandersnatch";p="716489"]the social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation[/quote]
I don't understand. I don't recall having ever heard this before. Certainly marriage has never been necessary for achieving conception. Ask any knocked up teenage girl.

Either way, what was it supposed to accomplish? Is it supposed to be some sort of insightful social commentary or something? And did they say anything about adoption?

[spikegirl7]

[apologizes in advance, it's 1 am and i'm in pain, so this might not be wholly coherant]

i think that is....

funny
a kick in the ass to those uber-conservatives
silly
if this were a real law i would be...
irritated
POed
and a whole bunch of other things i really don't want to articulate right now

[Seraphim]

It could be a closet racist bill. World wide people or European decent have stopped reproducing. Europe is facing a population crisis. They're barely making enough children to replace the dead, if they are at all. America's growth is from minority children and immigration.

This could be some kind of incentive to get white people dominating numerically again.

Germany's been making some pretty neat legislation in order to encourage German breeding. They're basically paying people and providing free daycare. Because many people see a baby as too big of a hassle. Seeing as the mother takes off of work, thus loosing a pay check, and they don't want to be tied down anyway.
So Germany is paying mothers a percentage of their yearly wage (up to 40,000 if memory serves) for the first year, and free day care after that.

Posted Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:52 am:

I just read a different article on the subject and found that my above comments are largely unrelated.

Fuck it. I'll let it stay.

It's a gay thing. The state banned Gay marriage a while ago. They're now trying to expand it on consistent lines. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that procreation was a legitimate state concern in regards to marriage.

To get married, you must be fertile. If you're infertile then you can't get married. If you don't have a child within three years your marraige is annulled. Basically, marriage is for fucking and sending the wife home in this states minds.

[Bandersnatch]

[quote="Deacon";p="716495"][quote="Bandersnatch";p="716489"]the social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation[/quote]
I don't understand. I don't recall having ever heard this before. Certainly marriage has never been necessary for achieving conception. Ask any knocked up teenage girl.[/quote]
This is true.

But marriage is defined as between a man and a woman because...? They can procreate together.

One argument often made by opponents of gay marriage is the inability of gay couples to procreate. It's often countered by saying that if that's the case, then steriles shouldn't be able to marry, either. This initiative is basically taking that to the next step.

The only other argument I believe I've heard is that the Bible says it's wrong. So, if the former argument is weakened and the latter argument is invalid by secularism, then there's no true argument against it.

[Deacon]

Against what? Is this really all just a stupid stunt (or "joke") staged by pro-gay-marriage activists in an effort to push that particular term in everyone else's face? Or is that just the tone of this thread? Because whatever stance you believe is right, it's rather silly to malign the other in such a manner, especially to say that the only arguments are a) procration and b) the Bible. If you're trying to make a radical change to a long established tradition, it can be a lot more productive to present reasons why you want to make the change along with where you feel the new line should be drawn (and why there specifically) as well as why you feel it's good and right to do so (individually, perhaps, but more so for the country in general), or at least why it should be deemed acceptable, rather than to be obnoxious and confrontational about it, attempting to shift the burden to put the the side that has not yet accepted your arguments for change on the defensive by demanding to know "why not" like a spoiled teenager fighting with her parents about whether she can put on a short skirt and lots of make-up and go out with friends till whenever she feels like coming home.

[Terrene]

The only other argument I believe I've heard is that the Bible says it's wrong.

You're kidding, right? These are hardly the only excuses opponents of same-sex marriage use.

[HTRN]

[quote="Seraphim";p="716497"]Europe is facing a population crisis. They're barely making enough children to replace the dead, if they are at all. America's growth is from minority children and immigration.[/quote]

Actually, in all of Western Europe, the fertilitity rate is well below the 2.1 required for a stable population. - linky Spain, Italy and Poland all will have less than two thirds the required numbers the next generation to replace the current one.

The US is roughly at 2.1, and the population growth is largely from immigration.


HTRN

[Bigity]

[quote="spikegirl7";p="716496"][apologizes in advance, it's 1 am and i'm in pain, so this might not be wholly coherant]

i think that is....

funny
a kick in the ass to those uber-conservatives
silly
if this were a real law i would be...
irritated
POed
and a whole bunch of other things i really don't want to articulate right now[/quote]

Why? Do you have any idea of the percentages of conservatives OR liberals in regards to married, married with children, single, single with children, adoptions, anything? Of course you don't. You are just spouting garbage.

I can spout garbage too:


HAR HAR those stupid gayz, they are just jealous about avoiding the estate tax or something.


Of course, but supporting such a stupid idea, they are actually enforcing the idea that they shouldn't be married. Obviously, if they care about marriage being tied to reproduction..why the fuck do they want to be 'married'. Man I love retarded rhetoric.

[Bandersnatch]

[quote="Terrene";p="716530"]

The only other argument I believe I've heard is that the Bible says it's wrong.

You're kidding, right? These are hardly the only excuses opponents of same-sex marriage use.[/quote]
Oh, I'm sorry, it will also "destroy the sanctity of marriage," which isn't very sacred anymore with half of all marriages ending in divorce anyway.

If I'm missing one, go ahead and enlighten me.

Bigity, they support the idea because they believe it will be shot down as unconstitutional. And if it is shot down on that basis, then the "They can't procreate" argument is thrown out the window because obviously it's not a requirement of marriage. If it's NOT shot down, well, I think both supporters and opponents of this initiative will be shocked. Essentially it's a step closer to having a sound foothold.

Deacon, it's no secret that there are some things that apply specifically towards married couples. Roughly 1,500 things from the government, with a slight variation on them from state to state (With 1,138 of them being federal and the rest state laws). While many of them are economical (And I see no reason to force someone to pay more because they're gay), there are important non-economical reasons to be married, such as next-of-kind status for hospital visits and decisions, and the power to make the decision of what to do with the body if the spouse happens to pass away. (Sauce)

Gay people have calmly asked for it, or even a civil union that gives the same benefits but doesn't share the marriage name. It was refused, with the largest sound opposition to it being the complaint that they can't procreate (Correct me if I'm wrong on this, Terrene). So, logically, if the foundation of that argument is chipped away at through legal means, then the idea of gay marriage or civil union will seem more likely. I hardly see that as a tantrum-like "Why not?"

Oh, and Deacon, the last major change in US marriage was a mere 40 years ago, when interracial couples were allowed to marry in 1967. And no, before you put the words in my mouth, I'm not trying to say it's the same thing. I'm just saying marriage changes. For other fun marriage changes, quite some time ago marriage wasn't about love at all, but rather the arrangement that worked best for the families involved. Also, it once was a matter of the church and now it's a matter of the government.

Frankly, I think marriage (and specifically marriage) should still be left up to the church, and offer no benefits. Instead, a civil union for heterosexuals and homosexuals gives the legal benefits marriage now has. But hey, that's just me.

[Terrene]

Oh, I'm sorry, it will also "destroy the sanctity of marriage," which isn't very sacred anymore with half of all marriages ending in divorce anyway.

There's the whole "marriage is traditional!" thing, which, like you say, is crap, because arranged marriages were around longer than marriage for love. Then there's William Bennett's favorite arguement, the slippery slope: if we allow homos to marry, then people will be marrying their relatives and pets. Or the belief that gays are all promiscuous and will make crappy marriage partners. Or the belief that a child must have a mother and a father to come out alright.

[Bandersnatch]

Those were actually arguments?

I thought they were jokes.

[Tigger]

Let me see if I understand this correctly:

I have been married for 3 years. I have no children - not by choice. If this thing actually happens, my marriage will be annulled because we can't have children?

If they are going to do this, they also need to pass legislation that makes so people who want children and can't have them...can. Either force insurance companies to cover infertility treatments, or force them to cover adoption costs. Treatments are for the rich, not just those who desire them.

I really, really hope this is just someone's idea of a really bad joke.

[Terrik]

[quote="Bandersnatch";p="716580"]
I'm just saying marriage changes. [/quote]

True one could say that but one could also say that the fundamental nature of marriage has not.