Since the Washington State Supreme Court has decided that marriage is a right that is granted mainly for the purpose of procreation, gay activists in Washington State have been attempting to get several proposals placed on their ballot. The first is that married couples must have a child within 3 years of marriage, or the marriage will be annulled. After that will be proposals stating that if you do have children as a married couple, you cannot be granted a divorce, and having a child with a woman will be considered marriage. I don't think they go far enough. If heterosexuals are going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry using the procreation argument, then let's give them what they want. Maybe a law stating that children are the legally binding authority between two parents that are involved in a dispute would help further the goal of procreation. What do you guys think? What kind of crazy laws can you come up with to regulate heterosexual marriage, under the premise that it's a right that's granted for the purpose of procreation? I want to hear everyone's craziest ideas here.
tim_the_story_guy wrote: Since the Washington State Supreme Court has decided that marriage is a right that is granted mainly for the purpose of procreation, gay activists in Washington State have been attempting to get several proposals placed on their ballot. The first is that married couples must have a child within 3 years of marriage, or the marriage will be annulled. After that will be proposals stating that if you do have children as a married couple, you cannot be granted a divorce, and having a child with a woman will be considered marriage. I don't think they go far enough. If heterosexuals are going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry using the procreation argument, then let's give them what they want. Maybe a law stating that children are the legally binding authority between two parents that are involved in a dispute would help further the goal of procreation. What do you guys think? What kind of crazy laws can you come up with to regulate heterosexual marriage, under the premise that it's a right that's granted for the purpose of procreation? I want to hear everyone's craziest ideas here.
Domestic violence would be a cause to breach an agreement and the aggressor would forfit all assets shared by the victim of the abuse. That is a big one. There is too much focus on the rights of the accused over the rights of a victim of abuse. So lets give the victim everything. If the victim is killed as a result of the abuse, all the aggressor's belongings would then be given to the victim's family. This makes domestic violence something to be avoided at all costs. No one wants to lose their posessions in this strange world of "mine mine mine mine!"
That would be a was to shove that excuse in their face, if it made it to the ballot and by sheer miracle was accepted as law...
I think it would cause problems, though, because as animals, we have hormones, hormones which draw us together when we are younger, yet as we mature, we may discover we weren't meant for each other and want to divorce, even if we have children...
(Wow... runon, and should I have used 'we'? Anyway)
We, however, also have governments in place that already place a great deal of restrictions upon us, regardless of hormones or instincts. These laws are designed to protect us from each other as we all know that some of our more primitive feelings such as hatred, jealousy, greed, and selfishness have been known to create some very disasterous events in our history. Adolf Hitler and World War II being a big example. If it is the heterosexual's desire to place restrictions on homosexuals, then in the interest of fairness, restrictions should also be placed upon heterosexuals. They say marriage is there for procreation, well then, make procreation mandatory for all couples wishing to get married. Can't get pregnant? Sorry, you can't get married. This turns the tables on them and makes them think about what it is they are really saying when they tell someone that they can't get married to the person they love, irrespective of the sex of that person.
Well, marriage itself is not a religious institution anyway. People were living together as couples long before marriage licenses and ceremonies. The marriage ceremony is a social institution, and the marriage license is a government institution. People need to consider this long before they decide it's okay to discriminate against gays and lesbians.
tim_the_story_guy wrote: Well, marriage itself is not a religious institution anyway. People were living together as couples long before marriage licenses and ceremonies. The marriage ceremony is a social institution, and the marriage license is a government institution. People need to consider this long before they decide it's okay to discriminate against gays and lesbians.
Try telling that to the church. They claim everything else people hold dear.
The church is full of crap. They always says gays are bad. But I guess it's okay for the pastor to have an affair while he's married. they should think about that, before running their ****ing mouths
johnny9707 wrote: The church is full of crap. They always says gays are bad. But I guess it's okay for the pastor to have an affair while he's married. they should think about that, before running their ****ing mouths
The church is so full of contradictions and lies that everytime they start going off about some "moral" issue, it just reminds me of how low they are willing to go to support their own prejudices. I can never respect the church or what it stands for. I've had my own problems with it and I've found them to be nothing but havens for prejudice, biggotry, and intolerance.
Dude you are so right. I was born a Baptist but I can't stand most of those religous-right bitches. Ignorance is their motta. And Bigotry is their motto
Dude you are so right. I was born a Baptist but I can't stand most of those religous-right bitches. Ignorance is their motta. And Bigotry is their motto
The church will use any excuse to dissmiss calims of racism, or prejudice. Any rational person however can see past their explanations. They have even gone so far as to try to rationalize the rape of so many young boys by priests. How sick is that?
Because they are sick people dude. Bigotry is the name of their evil anthem. But dare I say, they are some chruch folks they are actually..... pretty kewl and open minded.
johnny9707 wrote: Because they are sick people dude. Bigotry is the name of their evil anthem. But dare I say, they are some chruch folks they are actually..... pretty kewl and open minded.
I don't have problems with people who go to church really, unless they try to push their beliefs on me, it's the church itself that I have a problem with. Any institution that can get away with as much fraud and biggotry as them, really needs to be watched closely. If it was up to me, I'd shut down all the churches.
johnny9707 wrote: Jerry Falwell use to hate Black Folks. I think he still does, my thing is once a racist bastard always one. And h's suppose to love the Lord.
I have yet to see someone truly become tolerant towards an identifiable group of people after expressing their prejudiced views so adamently. I tell you though, every single one of them deserves a slap upside the head or more for spouting off such garbage.
That's the second time Jay has heard that one. I told him that one a few weeks ago. As for Falwell, anyone who can blame the terrorist attacks of 9/11 on feminist lesbians needs counseling, not church. It obviously doesn't do him much good either.
tim_the_story_guy wrote: That's the second time Jay has heard that one. I told him that one a few weeks ago. As for Falwell, anyone who can blame the terrorist attacks of 9/11 on feminist lesbians needs counseling, not church. It obviously doesn't do him much good either.
Still not too familiar as to who Falwell is. Can't be very important then. hehe.
Tim, I did not know that. How the **** can he blame feminist lesbians for his own best friends mistakes. He's such a jackass. I will slap the **** out of him if I ever see him. I think's he in the closet, probably having a threesome with Cheney and Michael Steele. LOL
FYI : Michael Steele is a Black American Republican that ran against Ben Cardin for Senate in the state of Maryland. Ben Cardin of course is a Democrat.
Maybe a starting point for people to work towards acceptance of eachother might be to discard the labels. There may be such a broad range of whatever is "normal" (darn it! there's a label already) that it seems a bit harsh if not downright pointless to describe this or that person as heterosexual or by some other word. Who was it who said something to the effect that words get in the way when it comes to loving?
__________________
Stay calm, concentrate, and always keep a lifebelt at hand.
Hi Ben. None of actually believe in discrimination against straight people (at least I hope not), but every time we take one step forward, some religious extremist somewhere is trying to send us two steps back. It is about time we fight against that mentality, and showing them how ridiculous their ideas are is the best way. It's more productive than the Stonewall riots anyway. I hope we do see a time when people can overlook each other's differences, and show the love all people should have for each other.
I told him that one a few weeks ago. As for Falwell, anyone who can blame the terrorist attacks of 9/11 on feminist lesbians needs counseling, not church. It obviously doesn't do him much good either.
