Marriage: No Kids = No Marriage Says Gay Marriage Advocates

Posted on February 7, 2007

Since those who wish to bastardize the sanctity of marriage by allowing gays/lesbians to marry cannot get their way, they are using the argument that marriage is reserved for the purpose of procreation against those who argue against them. By sponsoring legislation in Washington state that would tell those who get married that if they do not have a child within 3 years of their wedding, that they would face annulment. Yes you read that correctly. Gay marriage advocates would annul any marriage that does not produce a child within 3 years.

From Foxnews.com:

OLYMPIA, Wash. â€” 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.

So these people would tell those of us who believe that marriage is a sacrament from GOD that if our marriages don’t produce a child within 3 years it wasn’t valid? Who are they to legislate over the will of GOD?

- My opposition to gay marriage has multiple layers. The first being the procreation argument. But the heart of that is the natural argument that gay lifestyle advocates try to make. They have been on a crusade of sorts to make it seen by the public as natural and normal. If it were, how is it that it takes a male and a female to conceive a child?

- Next, my religious teaching is such that marriage is a sacrament reserved for the raising of children in the faith. So in a sense, supporting gay marriage is against my religion.

Along with that are the multiple teachings in the Bible that shows that in the eyes of GOD, homosexuality is a mortal sin.

- Next, the economic impact to the nation would be such as to put our economy in danger of a recession should employers be forced to extend benefit packages to those who live these lifestyles.

On this argument there are a couple of “outs” for employers. The first being closing up shop and moving off shore to avoid these added “mandated” expenses. The second being no longer covering dependents with health benefits. Only covering the employee would eliminate health care coverage for millions of children. Who would cover them?

Putting our economy in danger for fewer than 1% of the population is a reckless social experiment which this nation cannot afford.

- Next, gay rights would NOT be equal rights, they would be special rights. We are talking about extending special marriage considerations to fewer than 1% of the general population of the country. As things are, gays are equal in that they are free to marry as all others are – someone of the opposite sex. This is equal. Extending a right to marry someone of the same sex would be a special right that over 99% of the population would have no need of.

- It is my belief that homosexuality is a choice. People enter these “relationships” knowing that they are not accepted. They enter these “relationships” freely knowing that they can never be considered a legal marriage. Life is wrought with consequences for choices that we make. They make choices to enter these “relationships” therefor they should be forced to live with the consequences of their choices.

A homosexual may not be able to control their attraction, but they can control acting upon them. Therefor it is a choice.

- My last argument is that the will of the people should prevail – at the state level. There should be NO national debate on this issue at all.

Note:

Gribbit’s threads have comments closed. If you wish to debate this issue you are welcome to call Gribbit’s W.A.R. program “Gribbit Live”, Sunday – Friday midnight – 2am Eastern 1-888-407-1776.