[ElcinBoris]

Just when you though same-sex "marriage" advocates couldn't get any weirder, this comes out of Washington state.

It's just another version of the old "pretend your opponents said something they didn't and then bash them for it" ploy - see the first line of the third paragraph in the article.

But couldn't these screwballs have come up with something that's at least a LITTLE believeable, however silly?

--------------------------------------

More Washington News | NWCN.com | News for Seattle, Washington

Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids

02:34 PM PST on Monday, February 5, 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.

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. All other marriages would be defined as "unrecognized" and people in those marriages would be ineligible to receive any marriage benefits.

“For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation ... The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine," said WA-DOMA organizer Gregory Gadow in a printed statement. “If same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that all couples who cannot or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage."

Supporters must gather more than 224,000 valid signatures by July 6 to put the initiative on the November ballot.

Opponents say the measure is another attack on traditional marriage, but supporters say the move is needed to have a discussion on the high court ruling.

[Gerribase]

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

I support their cause, and I still find this to be idiotic and offensive.

Matt

[JessicaLin]

This is actually a good thing people.

It exposes very well what kind of insanity is housed in the minds of these folks. Anyone that STILL thinks homosexual is "cool" or A-ok is a mental case right along side 'em.

This won't help them get more "rights" or better "recognitions" in society. It SURE as hell is a big step backwards in their demand for the WORD.

Marriage that is

Never happen.

[MegaJIT]

I've seen the "gays can't reproduce" argument against same sex marriage posted here many many times. The suggested legislation merely follows that claim to its logical conclusion. It's obvoiusly not intended as an actual ban - merely as a means to point out the absurdity of using the reproduction argument against homosexuals.

[RG3rGWcA]

I think they are just being ironic.

[JessicaLin]

I've seen the "gays can't reproduce" argument against same sex marriage posted here many many times. The suggested legislation merely follows that claim to its logical conclusion. It's obvoiusly not intended as an actual ban - merely as a means to point out the absurdity of using the reproduction argument against homosexuals.

Well, gays can't reproduce.

That set aside, a man and a man or a woman and a woman is DIFFERENT than a man and a woman. But the insane tell us it makes sense to call them all the same thing

[JessicaLin]

I think they are just being ironic.

Confusion confusion confusion.

There's a difference between ironic and stupid.

This is a very self defeating and stupid move.

[AdvertisingPo]

Confusion confusion confusion.

There's a difference between ironic and stupid.

This is a very self defeating and stupid move.

And we all know which camp you fall into.

[JessicaLin]

And we all know which camp you fall into.

Yeah, it's not hard to figure out.

For those with common sense of course

I'm sorry I can't help you with that. Only time and reality will earn you that stuff. Gather as much
as you can carry

[MegaJIT]

Well, gays can't reproduce.

That set aside, a man and a man or a woman and a woman is DIFFERENT than a man and a woman. But the insane tell us it makes sense to call them all the same thing

Thank you for illustrating my point. Some people might not have believed me otherwise.

[JessicaLin]

Thank you for illustrating my point. Some people might not have believed me otherwise.

Ah, I see.

I gotcha.

The "point" with no point

[annouhMus]

Well, gays can't reproduce.

That set aside, a man and a man or a woman and a woman is DIFFERENT than a man and a woman. But the insane tell us it makes sense to call them all the same thing

No one that I know of has ever suggested that they be called the same. However there is a move afoot to call their LEGAL UNION the same. Not the participants.

[annouhMus]

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

I support their cause, and I still find this to be idiotic and offensive.

Matt

I agree it is idiotic, BUT I honestly think it is simply a ploy to get more attention to the issue, rather that a real attenpt at legislation

[Argurnenoni]

I agree it is idiotic, BUT I honestly think it is simply a ploy to get more attention to the issue, rather that a real attenpt at legislation

BINGO. Its not an attempt to actually pass the legislation it is an attempt to effectively nullify one of the more immature arguments against same-sex marriage by making people face the same argument in another context.

[masaredera]

What do marriage and legislation of any law have to do with each other?

Andrew