Genderless Marriage
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-02-2014, 08:48 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(17-02-2014 07:52 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  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.)

Wrong again troll. Many people get married for many reasons. Not just children. Repeating over and over the same shit, does not make your shit true. If YOUR brain works this way, that's your problem. STOP projecting YOUR prejudices onto others.

(17-02-2014 07:52 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  The cultural understanding of marriage has changed over the millenia, but until recently, the its heterosexual nature has remained fairly universal.

Exactly. Because the SCIENCE of Human Sexuality recently developed, and the idea or "orientation" arose. Get used to it, troll.

(17-02-2014 07:52 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  intent of being monogamlous of sharing a household

Say what ? "Monogamlous" ? What the fuck is "monogamlous" I see you do not live on Planet Earth.

(17-02-2014 07:52 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  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.

Exactly. Humans have the right to engage in any sort of relationships they want. Get over it. Your rlly are 95 years old, aren't you.

(17-02-2014 07:52 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  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."

Wrong again troll. The MAIN reason is the humans ALL share EQUAL rights. If YOU get to get married to the person of YOUR choice, so does EVERYONE. Nice try. Fail again. Troll.

(17-02-2014 07:52 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  With the notion of gender out of its context, marriage then does not logically point to the uniqueness and importance of the heterosexual relationship.

Too bad. Your prejudice is showing again, troll. Put it back in your pants please.
Many Millennials in 2014 are choosing not to marry at all. That's the REAL emerging trend. Get over it.

(17-02-2014 07:52 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  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 "etc". I see your education level is as bad as the total babble of the nonsensical crap in the last paragraph. You have yet to demonstrate that YOUR idea of marriage and commitment produces any better or more well-adjusted children than any other, or that it in any way, benefits society , in the long run. Show is the damn study, or STFU.

(17-02-2014 07:52 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  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.

"Additional risk" of WHAT EXACTLY ? That your prejudiced ideas, which have NO support, might be threatened ? What a pile of crap, BeccaOnlyPostsShit. You have demonstrated a compete inability to think critically, and a total ABILITY to require others to buy into your prejudiced, (an non-supported) shit.

Troll

Are you for real ? I think you're just doing this as a bad parody of those you think might hold your position. You're a fake fraud. No one can really be this stupid.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2014, 08:54 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(13-02-2014 10:38 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  It's actually not about what homosexuals will do, it's about what heterosexuals will do, that's the problem. If heterosexuals think of marriage as something independent of sex, they'll be less likely to put the two together. I do think that is likely a consequence of same-sex marriage.

Here's an example: We already know that "convenience" marriages exist, however, same-sex marriage will make it easier for heterosexuals to have convenience marriages, because they can just find a same-sex platonic friend to marry, having their own separate sex lives, without the worry of or the real jealousy of someone that might be attracted to them.

Another way to understand how ssm further helps to divorce sex from marriage is the arguments frequently used to support ssm, for instance,
"1. Marriage is only a contract between consenting adults.
2. Marriage is not about procreation.
3. Marriage does not require sex and people are allowed to have sex outside of marriage."
Isn't it reasonable to assume that the people who are using and agreeing with these statements actually believe them? Then, that people will take them at their word?

Lmfao. I'm sorry, did you seriously just imply that if ssm is allowed married heteros will stop having sex?

Swing with me a while, we can listen to the birds call, we can keep each other warm.
Swing with me forever, we can count up every flower, we can weather every storm.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2014, 09:01 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(14-02-2014 05:10 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(14-02-2014 05:07 AM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  Until you can name a country without a single orphaned child, then I would say it is based on something completely irrational. Name a country that suffers from such low population that they depend on heterosexuals to have babies in order to survive as a nation. Tell me how it can be rational to live in an overly populated world with about 200 million orphans, and base marriage rights on the potential to make more babies.
It would be like saying you are only allowed to own a dog if you're going to breed it. Except worse. Also, this was the same reasoning presented by the Catholic Church not long ago haha.

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. Even in a declining population, the unstable families that there are, the more burden on the public at large.

ssm provides loving parents in committed relationships for the adoption of so many children without families. Can you not see that?

Swing with me a while, we can listen to the birds call, we can keep each other warm.
Swing with me forever, we can count up every flower, we can weather every storm.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2014, 09:11 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(14-02-2014 07:54 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  I've come to the conclusion that marriage is all about registering your partnership with the state. Your friends, family and colleagues already know that you are a couple. It used to be that you could just have a ceremony with your clan and daub mud on your heard or do something else symbolic.

My husband and I got married last May after living together for 10 years. We do not have children and will not be having any. We live in Germany and I would not have managed it without the help of a native colleague. We had to get our birth certificates officially translated. We had to sign lots of documents, in the presence of an official translator, to put in a request to get married and wait for approval. Getting married allowed me to change my tax code and put my husband on my medical insurance.

Getting married made no difference to our relationship except that we can now refer to ourselves as husband and wife. The difference it made was purely in terms of finances and legal standing. That is the meaning of marriage in today's society.

So when people say that they do not believe in same sex marriage, what they are really saying is that they believe that gay couples should be denied the same legal recognition and rights that straight couples have solely because of their sexuality.

It is a position born of prejudice.

Perhaps that's the conclusion you must come to if you only define marriage as a simple contract. Yet, that is not the way I view it, so I do not come to the same conclusion.

In post 96 I explain way it is important to look at people first to see where marriage comes in. Please take a look.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2014, 09:11 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
Look, I agree that in an ideal world people who have babies should be married (that's my own personal view which I would never impose on others, nor would I censure those who, for whatever reason, are not married and choose to have children) BUT it doesn't necessarily follow that those people should be of the same sex.
You're effectively denying whole swathes of children who could be adopted into loving homes from benefitting just because of the sex of their parents.
That, in my opinion, is wrong and discriminatory.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2014, 09:14 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(14-02-2014 11:41 AM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  
(14-02-2014 04:28 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  Do you believe that the moral obligations of heterosexual relationships are indistinguishable from the moral obligations of homosexual relationships? Will you be teaching that to your children?

Absolutely. The moral obligations are no different. They can only be different if someone has a misunderstanding of homosexuality.

What misunderstanding are you speaking of?

The realities are certainly different, therefore like most situations, different situations alter the moral aspects.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2014, 09:17 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(14-02-2014 11:57 AM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 08:04 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  The only way children are created is through sexual reproduction, with a contribution from a female and a contribution from a male. In most cases this occurs naturally, without any artifical help from a third party.

If you don't understand something I say, you are welcome to ask me to elaborate, which I can do.

Heterosexual couples are unique from all other human relationships because they can have children through a sex act. That is what I said. If you don't understand why this is relevant, you are welcome to ask.

I'll say this to you once, if you want to have a civil debate, I am here. Otherwise I would prefer spending my time responding to people who do.

You still haven't addressed marriage being a legal union, and not a contract with the government for producing children.

My fiancé and I are going to be married. Neither of us want kids. Do we, as a heterosexual couple, not quality for marriage under your definition?

I am not saying marriage is about getting people to have children. Please check out Post 96 starting with (in my response) "Edited for several typos..." for elaboration.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2014, 09:19 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
Your point that marriages 'of convenience' might be more prevalent if same sex marriage were allowed is moot, at best.
It is possible that some people might do this but I should be surprised if it happened more than it currently does.
The point is that you are assuming that same sex marriage does not involve sex and that is just not so.
I can assure you that gays who marry would be just as likely to be pissed off if their spouse were to stray as heterosexual people.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2014, 09:23 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(14-02-2014 12:11 PM)nach_in Wrote:  I thought some basic info could be useful for the OP




Thanks, although I did watch it, I am well aware of what it said.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2014, 09:25 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(17-02-2014 09:19 AM)englishrose Wrote:  Your point that marriages 'of convenience' might be more prevalent if same sex marriage were allowed is moot, at best.
It is possible that some people might do this but I should be surprised if it happened more than it currently does.
The point is that you are assuming that same sex marriage does not involve sex and that is just not so.
I can assure you that gays who marry would be just as likely to be pissed off if their spouse were to stray as heterosexual people.

But what about: (from my reply to you in post 96)

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: