Susan's Place Transgender Resources

link (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-gay-marriage-washington,0,2316182.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines)

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.

I'm afraid that this will backfire miserably.

Cindi

If there's anything that will severely alienate the moderate base from the right wing on marriage, it'll be that.

It smells of eugenics.

Some people can't even produce kids themselves.

The only they could even begin to hope to defend the bill was if we had substantially more social programs to help kids.

Of course, it'll screw up education of women who are in the middle of getting higher level education.  Similar results for women with jobs.

It also essentially keeps older women from marrying, or even just older couples who are too far into their lives to begin raising kids (even if they went for adoption).

It's a farce (admitedly so from its creators) to draw attention to the issue of banning marraiges.  No one, even those that sponsor the bill, considers it seriouisly.  It's a media draw pure and simple.  But I think it too ridiculous to raise more than the worst kind of media attention.

Cindi

It is nothing like eugenics.

Eugenics is about improving the gene pool through interventions. The programs, while not overly supported, continue today even in the US and other large, industrial countries.  It is just not on the same scale as it had been prior to 1930 (in the US).

I know it's not being taken seriousl but still must say it's totally absurd to even bring up something like that. Despite my youth I have a condition that disrupts normal ovulation and makes it somewhat unlikely that I'll be able to conceive and bear a child. Not impossible, but unlikely.  So I shouldn't ever marry because I can't pop a kid out? Bullmalarky.

Secondly, why on Earth would we want to encourage increasing the population on this planet when we haven't really figured out where we're going to get the natural resources to continue living our way of life? Also, spiking the population in this country would pave the way for a epidemic that we are (historically speaking) overdue for and who really wants to increase the likelihood of that happening?

Last and not least, a lot of people get married because they're already pregnant, not just because they want to get pregnant. Not that it's unheard of, but there was a lot more to getting married than baby-making the last time I checked.

And another thing (I swear this is actually my last point) this would take women's liberation so far back as turn women once again into baby factories (anyone recall how wonderfully this worked out for Catherine of Aragon or Anne Boleyn? :o) and I for one, will not stand for it (regardless of whether or not I call myself a feminist!)

That's my two bits... >:D

Although their intent is to take the right wing "marriage is for families" argument to its logical conclusion to show how absurd it is, I think it will be taken the wrong way.

Dennis

  I applaud thier creativity.  One of the major arguements against same sex marriage is that those couples cannot procreate.  Therefore if they do not have children then thier marriage has no basis for legitimacy.  Obviously the introduction of this ballot measure isn't designed to actually pass.  What it does do, and quite well I think, is show the absurdity the conservative arguements against same sex marriage.  It may very well be interpreted incorrectly by some but I think that lawmakers, close-minded and ignorant as they may be, are intelligent enough to understand the sentiment.

  Will it backfire? Perhaps...it can be argued that the recent push in same sex marriage legalization backfired too.  How many states passed  thier own constitutional bans on same sex marriage because of the attention it has gotten over the last 5 years?  Still....the topic is as hot as ever and with the upcoming elections every group is jockeying for position to push thier specific views and as long as the topic is hot it is at least being discussed for better or worse.  No arguement has ever been resolved by avoiding it.

 

 

Oh, now I get it! That's kinda clever...stirring the pot like that...sounds like something I'd do.... >:D

Quote from: BrandiOK on February 07, 2007, 09:54:24 AM
  I applaud thier creativity.  One of the major arguements against same sex marriage is that those couples cannot procreate.  Therefore if they do not have children then thier marriage has no basis for legitimacy.  Obviously the introduction of this ballot measure isn't designed to actually pass.  What it does do, and quite well I think, is show the absurdity the conservative arguements against same sex marriage.  It may very well be interpreted incorrectly by some but I think that lawmakers, close-minded and ignorant as they may be, are intelligent enough to understand the sentiment.

I had to laugh when I read it.  This interpretation is exactly what I saw when I read it.

Quote from: angelsgirl on February 07, 2007, 11:52:52 AM
stirring the pot like that...sounds like something I'd do.... >:D

Yeah, I know. ;)  Me too.

Melissa

Yes Brandi, it is brilliant in that regard.  Unfortunately, those electrically charged against homosexual unions will never see that particular point.  They'll not see the issue in it.  They won't THINK of the logical conclusion.  They just can't get there from here.  I know.  I'm dealing with something so minor in comparison... but they just can't see the forrest for the dead tree in front of them.

Cindi

Quote from: Cindi Jones on February 07, 2007, 04:13:15 PM
Unfortunately, those electrically charged against homosexual unions will never see that particular point.  They'll not see the issue in it.  They won't THINK of the logical conclusion.  They just can't get there from here.

But they'll have to in order to quash the the ballot measure--at least some of them.  >:D

Melissa

Sooooooooo  Basicly the idea would be if you want to stay married youve got to have a kid......  Thats a great way to stir up controversy (I know thats the idea) LoL...

But what about those of us who are pretty much unable to have children...  So far as I know Ive allways been steral, and my ex was infirtile so far as she knew so........ yeah....  *Shrugs*

Quote from: LynnER on February 07, 2007, 05:11:11 PM
But what about those of us who are pretty much unable to have children...  So far as I know Ive allways been steral, and my ex was infirtile so far as she knew so........ yeah....  *Shrugs*

See?  My point exactly.  We can't get past the dead tree.

Cindi

Quote from: LynnER on February 07, 2007, 05:11:11 PM
But what about those of us who are pretty much unable to have children...  So far as I know Ive allways been steral, and my ex was infirtile so far as she knew so........ yeah....  *Shrugs*

Right, according to the arguments by opponents of same sex marriages, marriage can only be between heterosexual couples because there's no reason for 2 people who can't reproduce (same sex couples) to get married.  All they think about is sex, sex, sex.  "Oh are you getting a sex-change so you can have sex as a woman?"  "It would be wrong for an FTM to transition to a male since he can't have sex."  "Gay people don't need to be married to have sex."  "Marriage is only so people can have sex so that we don't violate anything in the bible, but since gay people are already doing that, they don't need to get married."   I mean sheesh.  Some people don't think there's anymore to life than having sex.  Well, not all of us are rich, white, straight, cysgendered, powerful males with nothing to do besides watch porn all day 6 days a week, go to church one day and then claim that every decision is made on the basis of sex and people must conform to what works for them sexually.  Sorry for the rant, but some of these people can really piss me off.  >:(

Melissa

Well unless you are a hetero couple engaging in sex, in the missionary position, for the sole purpose of procreation then you will BURN.  LOL.  The MP Song, "Every Sperm is Sacred" comes to mind.

Yea... there was this dude in the Old Testament who was smitten by god because he "spilled it on the ground".  I think that would be a cure for the good ole zealots.  Smite them when they have sex to NOT procreate. ;)

Cindi

my personal new theroy on the bible and sex......

the parts of the bible about sex were written by homosexuals that were angry that they couldnt come out and be accepted so had to make it as evil and miserable as possable for the breeders......

I think we need many more bills, position papers, demands, whatever, along these lines.  I think this is perfect!  Those that get it, ROFLAO.  Those that don't get it, get their chains pulled and have to be busy trying to protect themselves from the results of their own dislogic.  It's perfect.  I Love it!  Let's get busy and start more.

Susan Kay

Quote from: SusanKay140 on February 07, 2007, 07:00:17 PM
I think we need many more bills, position papers, demands, whatever, along these lines.  I think this is perfect!  Those that get it, ROFLAO.  Those that don't get it, get their chains pulled and have to be busy trying to protect themselves from the results of their own dislogic.  It's perfect.  I Love it!  Let's get busy and start more.

Susan Kay

Show me the dotted line and let me borrow that pen!

Cindi

I've often wondered if the bigots who hate homosexuals (and transsexuals, but they can't /won't see/make the distinction,) somehow have a, y'know, FETISH for the potential of procreation.  I mean, do they get turned on by the fact that if they, y'know, DO IT, they potentially could be 'given' another issue to add to the six-billion-plus of us currently infesting planet earth?

So, why aren't we who are voluntarily or otherwise unable to procreate cherished for not being able to bring forth our own issue, but who can yet be wonderful, loving parents to the millions of orphans and foster children out there who need good loving homes to grow up in?

That, to me, is real compassion.  I don't know what they mean by 'compassionate conservatism', but it certainly seems hurtfully stingy on deciding who does and, more importantly, DOESN'T get the bennies.

<pant, pant>

Karen