Genderless Marriage
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-02-2014, 02:08 PM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(14-02-2014 07:41 AM)englishrose Wrote:  Your argument against SSM is that marriage is mostly about sex
Just a rough calculation but I spend about 0.05% of my married life actually having sex.

The bulk of the time I am either sleeping, working, cleaning the house, shopping, cooking, looking after kids, watching tv, on the internet, reading a book, exercising, talking to the wife (when the kids are in bed or course).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2014, 07:37 PM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(14-02-2014 05:10 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  IMO the public relevance of marriage is not to get people to make babies, it's to promote commitment between people who make babies together.

-- Which it FAILS miserably to do!

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2014, 07:43 PM (This post was last modified: 14-02-2014 08:12 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Genderless Marriage
(14-02-2014 05:10 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  IMO the public relevance of marriage is not to get people to make babies, it's to promote commitment between people who make babies together.

Then you should be a supporter of ssm. SS couples engage in committed relationships, and adopt thousands of babies and children who otherwise would NOT be adopted.
You think they would be better off in orphanages ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Sent by Jebus to put the stud back in Bible Study. "I believe Mr. Peanut is the Messiah" -- onlinebiker
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
14-02-2014, 08:53 PM
Genderless Marriage
(14-02-2014 07:43 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(14-02-2014 05:10 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  IMO the public relevance of marriage is not to get people to make babies, it's to promote commitment between people who make babies together.

Then you should be a supporter of ssm. SS couples engage in committed relationships, and adopt thousands of babies and children who otherwise would NOT be adopted.
You think they would be better off in orphanages ?

This is no longer about the idea of marriage. OP wants government-enforced role-modeling for his kids, but only in a way he agrees with.

What he ignores:

Number of marriages: 2,118,000
Marriage rate: 6.8 per 1,000 total population
Divorce rate: 3.6 per 1,000 population (44 reporting States and D.C.)
http://m.cdc.gov

How's that commitment-promoting going?

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes rampant.a.i.'s post
17-02-2014, 07:24 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(14-02-2014 06:26 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(14-02-2014 04:34 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  The stop sign is for heterosexual relationships. They are more dangerous, generally speaking.

Question for you: are the inherent moral obligations of heterosexual sex indistinguishable from the inherent obligations of homosexual sex?

(My answer: no. The moral obligations inherent in heterosexual sex are greater in scope.)

Living is dangerous. I propose that it be made illegal Rolleyes

Heteros can get married despite the "danger", and you *still* think you're justified in interfering with other people's lives ? This is a ridiculous point to argue. You're saying effectively "Gays must not be allowed to marry because pohergkl ddfvrtew bjjsad". *It makes no sense*.

So what's your answer to my question?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2014, 07:52 AM (This post was last modified: 17-02-2014 09:07 AM by BeccaBoo.)
RE: Genderless Marriage
(14-02-2014 07:41 AM)englishrose Wrote:  I think I can see what you are trying to say, albeit ineptly.
Your argument against SSM is that marriage is mostly about sex and you seem to be labouring under the misconception that homosexual people don't have sex and that they therefore have different reasons than heteros for getting married which then makes heteros think that marriage is not about sex so they then might not get married and have precious babies.

All I can say to that is:

WHAT PLANET ARE YOU ON?

Edited for several typors. Sorry!

That's not an accurate restatement of my argument, but thanks for trying to describe it. It may help if you don't think of marriage first, but rather, people first. How do people procreate? (Sexually, meaning through two distinct humans, one male and one female.) How many kinds of relationships are there in human life? Maybe more than we can count. However, there is one unique kind of relationship, the hetero-sexual kind.

Humans are logical, and from an early age usually have a good sense of fairness. The only way a heterosexual-only institution makes sense leads one logically back to the basics of human reproduction. The simple designation of marriage as between man and woman points directly to this, it elevates this one type of relationship as one of special importance. (Which is justifiable because this type of relationship is biologically unique and important.)

The cultural understanding of marriage has changed over the millenia, but until recently, its heterosexual nature has remained fairly universal. There is no reason to expect is won't continue to change if most people, either proactively or inactively allow it to change. Right now the general idea of marriage in culture is the legal committment of a couple in a sexual relationship, usually male and female, in some cases it might be same-sex, usually with the stated intent of being monogamlous of sharing a household, ect...

So, remove the gender "barrier" of marriage, making it between any persons regardless of gender, and this, from a logical standpoint, can mean any type of human relationship. Remember three of the major arguments used to support same-sex marriage: First, that it's "just a legal contract." Two, that "marriage is not about sex," and last, that "marriage is not about procreation." People might have their perosnal reasons, but the state always has a reason for becoming a third party in a legalised institution.

With the notion of gender out of its context, marriage then does not logically point to the uniqueness and importance of the heterosexual relationship. There's nothing solid to reinforce the rather complex relationships between this natural ability to reproduce with the commitment or noncommitment of a man and woman, or monogamy, or joint household. There's nothing to say that people shouldn't have households for other reasons, keeping sex separate, and commitment separate. Sure, there are people who do this, but there is still the cultural and sometimes legal reminder that yup, what they're doing typically involves more risk, that they might for example hope their birth control works or they have access to other types of support, or the person they concieve with is someone they could coparent with, ect...

It's not just the understanding of human reproduction that is important, but the importance of synthesizing those four qualities together as much as possible: given a heterosexual relationships, seek it in a relationship of commitment, of monogamy, of joint household, or there will be additional risk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2014, 08:03 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(17-02-2014 07:24 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  So what's your answer to my question?

There is no moral obligation attached to sex IMO. Oh wait I see, you're saying hetero sex may produce a kid and is therefore more dangerous. Therefore we must deny other people who may have sex 'safely' (according to your bullshit definition) the legal protection of marriage.

That makes total sense. Rolleyes

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2014, 08:25 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(17-02-2014 07:52 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(14-02-2014 07:41 AM)englishrose Wrote:  I think I can see what you are trying to say, albeit ineptly.
Your argument against SSM is that marriage is mostly about sex and you seem to be labouring under the misconception that homosexual people don't have sex and that they therefore have different reasons than heteros for getting married which then makes heteros think that marriage is not about sex so they then might not get married and have precious babies.

All I can say to that is:

WHAT PLANET ARE YOU ON?

That's not an accurate restatement of my argument, but thanks for trying to describe it. It may help if you don't think of marriage first, but rather, people first. Hwo to people procreate? (Sexually, meaning through two distinct humans, one male and one female.) How many kinds of relationships are there in human life? Maybe more than we can count. However, there is one unique kind of relationship, the hetero-sexual kind.

Humans are logical, and from an early age usually have a good sense of fairness. The only way a heterosexual institution makes sense leads one logically back to the basics of human reproduction. The simple designation of marriage as between man and woman points directly to this, it elevates this one type of relationship as one of special importance. (Which is justifiable because this type of relationship is biologically unique and important.)

The cultural understanding of marriage has changed over the millenia, but until recently, the its heterosexual nature has remained fairly universal. There is no reason to expect is won't continue to change if most people, either proactively or inactively allow it to change. Right now the general idea of marriage in culture is the legal committment of a couple in a sexual relationship, usually male and female, in some cases it might be same-sex, usually with the stated intent of being monogamlous of sharing a household, ect...

So, remove the gender "barrier" of marriage, making it between any persons regardless of gender, and this, from a logical standpoint, can mean any type of human relationship. Remember three of the major arguments used to support same-sex marriage: First, that it's "just a legal contract." Two, that "marriage is not about sex," and last, that "marriage is not about procreation." People might have their perosnal reasons, but the state always has a reason for becoming a third party in a legalised institution.

With the notion of gender out of its context, marriage then does not logically point to the uniqueness and importance of the heterosexual relationship. There's nothing solid to reinforce the rather complex relationships between this natural ability to reproduce with the commitment or noncommitment of a man and woman, or monogamy, or joint household. There's nothing to say that people should have households for other reasons, keeping sex separate, and commitment separate. Sure, there are people who do this, but there is still the cultural and sometimes legal reminder that yup, what they're doing typically involves more risk, that they might for example hope their birth control worksn or they have access to other types of support, or the person they concieve with is someone they could coparent with, ect...

It's not just the understanding of human reproduction that is important, but the importance of synthesizing those four qualities together as much as possible: given a heterosexual relationships, seek it in a relationship of commitment, of monogamy, of joint household, or there will be additional risk.

So, because the vast majority of couples can reproduce, then we should give them special privileges so we don't run out of people reproducing.

And because there are too many types of relationships, because people are too diverse, we should force the vast majority of people to commit to one specific kind based on christian doctrine?


Sounds legit Hobo

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2014, 08:26 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
Beccaboo. Marriage is about commitment and love. You don't fucking dictate who can and can't love and commit to each other. Take your idiotic drivel back to fucking Tick's-Ass.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
17-02-2014, 08:41 AM (This post was last modified: 17-02-2014 08:32 PM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: Genderless Marriage
(17-02-2014 07:52 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  Humans are logical, and from an early age usually have a good sense of fairness.

Humans are NOT logical at all, which is why we have to be TAUGHT logic -- that is, those who are lucky enough to be taught it at all. People don't say, "Hey, I wanna squirt out a bunch of little squawking shit factories. let's get married!", they marry each other when they are in love with each other. Many only because of social pressures to do go through the fucking ceremony. But many others also because of the legal benefits it provides (which is ALSO the product of social pressures to do so. You live in a fucking fantasy world.





Here I sit

Buns a'flexin'

Just gave birth to a

'Nuther Texan

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: