namelesstavern.net

WTF is going on in the State of Washington?


http://www.nwcn.com/statenews/washingto ... c6a4d.html

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.

Yes, because what this world needs is more parents who didn't really want to BE parents.

this is all the queers having shitfits cause they arent getting what they want.

Or having shitfits because it's packed so far up there.

Well, look at it this way: How many times even here on NT have the anti-gay marriage forces used the argument that marriage should be between a man and a woman only because only such a marriage can have kids. This is just a rather drastic attempt to force such people to put their money where their mouth is. "Fine, if your argument is that a marriage is only a marriage when there's the potential for children, you damn well better be HAVING children then, or obviously what you have isn't a marriage. So, if you don't have children, you don't have a marriage, and thus those legal bonds should be dissolved."

Kind of amusing really, since I consider that a particularly stupid argument against gay-marriage. (not surprising that it's one of Finawin's favorites then, eh?) Interesting way of making their point though, not something I expected to see, but still, as I said, amusing nonetheless.

-Arlos

There's no way this law will stick. It's beyond unconstitutional.

They're trying to make a point, and a pretty good one I think.

Arlos pretty much described how I feel about it better than I could so I'll just shut up and walk away.

I'm sick of gay propeganda. Let them get married already. What if a guy is steral ( misspelled i know ) and can't have kids??? That would be pretty fucked up to say that they will lose a marriage over that. If i'm on the same page as what is going here.

I'm not sure you actually know what propaganda means, but anyway, I think they're making a valid point


it's retarded to deny marriage to people who want to be married

I see, I kinda missed the point. I think that's actually pretty funny.

Tikker wrote:I'm not sure you actually know what propaganda means, but anyway, I think they're making a valid point


it's retarded to deny marriage to people who want to be married

Screw those pesky things called laws. Do whatever you want!

I agree with Evermore, my brother on the far side of the political spectrum.

lyion wrote:

Tikker wrote:I'm not sure you actually know what propaganda means, but anyway, I think they're making a valid point


it's retarded to deny marriage to people who want to be married

Screw those pesky things called laws. Do whatever you want!

I agree with Evermore, my brother on the far side of the political spectrum.

I guess you missed the point as well.

Oh yes, I like your argument that just because something is a law, it is automatically a good thing and we should obey it withotu question. Jim Crowe agrees with you entirely.

-Arlos

um, yeah i think i do know what propoganda means....

Propaganda is a specific type of message presentation aimed at serving an agenda. At its root, the denotation of propaganda is 'to propagate (actively spread) a philosophy or point of view'. The most common use of the term (historically) is in political contexts; in particular to refer to certain efforts sponsored by governments or political groups.

lol fucking fags

arlos wrote:Oh yes, I like your argument that just because something is a law, it is automatically a good thing and we should obey it withotu question. Jim Crowe agrees with you entirely.

No, my argument is if it's a law, it shouldn't be ignored. If it's disliked, than work to change it.

I like your analogy in the same vein that people should ignore any laws they don't like. That's nice.

kinghooter00 wrote:um, yeah i think i do know what propoganda means....

Propaganda is a specific type of message presentation aimed at serving an agenda. At its root, the denotation of propaganda is 'to propagate (actively spread) a philosophy or point of view'. The most common use of the term (historically) is in political contexts; in particular to refer to certain efforts sponsored by governments or political groups.

HOLY SHIT...he used correctly!


Staying on topic however, this has no chance at passing. Its strongly apposed here.

lyion wrote:

arlos wrote:Oh yes, I like your argument that just because something is a law, it is automatically a good thing and we should obey it withotu question. Jim Crowe agrees with you entirely.

No, my argument is if it's a law, it shouldn't be ignored. If it's disliked, than work to change it.

I like your analogy in the same vein that people should ignore any laws they don't like. That's nice.

To be fair, that is what they're doing. They're working to change it, even it's only to be ironic.

lyion wrote:

arlos wrote:Oh yes, I like your argument that just because something is a law, it is automatically a good thing and we should obey it withotu question. Jim Crowe agrees with you entirely.

No, my argument is if it's a law, it shouldn't be ignored. If it's disliked, than work to change it. .

that's what they're doing you retard

arlos wrote:Kind of amusing really, since I consider that a particularly stupid argument against gay-marriage. (not surprising that it's one of Finawin's favorites then, eh?) Interesting way of making their point though, not something I expected to see, but still, as I said, amusing nonetheless.

-Arlos

The use of sterility or any other NOT normal situation is laughable. I expected more from you.

Gay people can get married all they want. It doesn't bother me.

My argument is: "Homosexuality is not normal."

Homosexuals can not produce children. Nature says, "That's fucking wrong."

When a man and a woman can not produce children, Nature also says, "That's fucking wrong." Because sterility or any other hinderance is not a normal situation to be in.

I have no problem with homosexual marriage. Just don't try to tell me that their condition is perfectly normal.

I really, really dont like queers...but if they want to get married more power to them. This is America, if two buttfuckers want to get married, who gives a shit, it probably wont last just like most other marriages. Especially with all the shit they would catch from the people that do care.

Harrison wrote:My argument is: "Homosexuality is not normal."

An argument for what. Argument means you are arguing a position. What is your position. You're clinging on this last vestige of twisted-logic, but what does it serve? What are you arguing?

There's only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch.

lyion wrote:There's only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch.

haha

the truth hurts...so good