Comments on: The Marital Litmus Test

By: Josh Elder

Josh Elder — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 20:32:46 +0000

“I couldn’t have put it better myself. I think that if the supporters of gay rights could voice what you have stated instead of the mocking tone they have adopted with this proposal then the act would not be lost on so many people.”

By: Josh Elder

Josh Elder — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 20:29:35 +0000

Seems like heterosexuals just don’t want their own debate used against them or applied to them.

It’s okay to use your religious beliefs to decide the rights of certain citizens and it’s okay to deny them rights they deserve as Americans but it’s not okay to apply those same ideals you push on the gay community onto yourselves?

Hypocrisy at it’s best.

By: Carol

Carol — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:43:32 +0000

Aslinn,
I couldn’t have put it better myself. I think that if the supporters of gay rights could voice what you have stated instead of the mocking tone they have adopted with this proposal then the act would not be lost on so many people.

By: John

John — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 12:20:36 +0000

Good points, Aslinn.

I think the most important thing about marriage today (in the secular sense) is the protection that marriage law extends to families, especially children. In my mind children always come first.

So i think that when gay couples raise children, Christians should do whatever we can to help them receive all of the benifits of marriage.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that the raising of children is more important than how those children became part of the family.

By: Aslinn164

Aslinn164 — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 03:41:51 +0000

This is a tough one, because I think that the argument is based on the wrong question. The question should not be, “Is the union of marriage based on a couples’ ability to procreate,” but rather “Does the legal system truly have any right to dictate laws for marriage in the first place?” The whole concept of marriage was supposed to be a religious ceremony, it became legalized only in the matter of property and inheritance. If the union of marriage is based on a religious system, then the people being married should follow the religious rules. If it is based on the legal system, then we should be asking ourselves, “What business is it of the law if people are homosexual or not?” The debate of homosexual relationships is a religious one, not a secular (legal) one. Therefore, if marriage is seen as a legalized union, it should not matter what the sexual orientation of the couple is. The law should be imposed only when someone else’s rights or wellbeing are being threatened, not when only regarding someone’s consulting happiness.

By: ryan charisma

ryan charisma — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:32:29 +0000

I think it’s a super idea. I mean, if gays can’t marry because of not producing children – then I think it’s only right that straights can’t. And there should be no “grey areas.” Such as one of the couples being sterile for any reason. So weather it’s nature or a choice (hmmm – sounds like a very familiar argument)- no wedding day for you!

One shouldn’t make rules and then be angry when the rules apply to them.

GO WASHINGTON!

By: David Moore

David Moore — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 18:17:07 +0000

“Group thought” is what killed Christ. Stop letting men who week in week out are exposed for being just as flawed as the rest of us do your thinking for you. Especially when they are involved in politics….

By: On Lawn

On Lawn — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 09:03:07 +0000

I’m unsure what acts you are referencing with the quote, “engage in marital acts that are reproductive”. That could mean intercourse, or that could mean IVF or even adoption given the breadth of opinions I’ve read.

If I have it right, you are making the point that it would bar the same-sex arrangement outright? I don’t believe that point is lost on them. But they state the purpose of the legislation outright. They wish to either discredit marriage or the initiative process.

When it eventually backfires, we’ve been promised that it will invalidate the premise that marriage is about responsible procreation. Because that is the premise of the initiative.

But it will not because the stated premise is wrong, but because of a different flaw. One that many marriage neuterers even acknowledge openly.

By: ProLifeBlogs

ProLifeBlogs — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 14:54:52 +0000

No Kids, No Marriage

Defenders of same-sex marriage in Washington have filed an initiative that would require heterosexual couples to have children within three years of tying the knot — or have their marriages annulled. – WorldMagBlog via FRCBlog News reports of prepared…