Genderless Marriage
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-02-2014, 09:27 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(14-02-2014 02:08 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(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).

No, it's about combining heterosexual sex with values such as commitment, ect... That's where the major public interest rests.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2014, 09:31 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(14-02-2014 07:37 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird 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.

-- Which it FAILS miserably to do!
Examples of failure are not the measure of the succes of an entire institution.
The question is whether couples who make babies together are more likely to stay together and be able to better care for their children together if they are married.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2014, 09:32 AM
RE: 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 ?

I am in favor of domestic partnerships, or civil unions, and adoption for same-sex couples.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2014, 09:32 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(17-02-2014 09:25 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.

Exactly. There is nothing "unique" about it. All humans have relationships. There is no more relative importance of one over the other. YOU have NOT demonstrated there is, or what it might be.

(17-02-2014 09:25 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.


You forgot ONE thing. All this crap is just YOUR OPINION. You have never once presented ONE study that supports any of this bullshit. It's all just your opinion. Your opinions are important to no one but you. You STILL have not stated what the fuck "risk" you're talking about, BeccaTrollWhoTriesToTakesRightsAwayFromOthersWithNoReason

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
17-02-2014, 09:35 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(17-02-2014 08:54 AM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  
(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?

Nope. I am saying that redefining marriage will change the concept, that heterosexuals will think even less of commitment, long-term stability, ect... in sexual relationships.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2014, 09:36 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(17-02-2014 09:01 AM)LostandInsecure 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. 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?

Sure I can. IMO adoption by same-sex couples should be legal.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2014, 09:38 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
Wow. Ya know BeccaBigot, your life would probably be much happier if you minded your own fucking business.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Stark Raving's post
17-02-2014, 09:44 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(17-02-2014 09:11 AM)englishrose Wrote:  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.

Nope, I'm not denying same-sex couple adoption. I do not oppose it.

I appreciate that you think people having babies should be married. Do you recognize that, marriage aside, people who have babies together are already legally connected, when the baby is born, and that their obligations are enforceable by law? Since this is the case, it makes a whole lot of sense for the state to promote that fusion of commitment, ect, with the sexual relationship in order help avoid situations where a mother and father have no desire to be together long term.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2014, 09:47 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(14-02-2014 08:53 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  
(14-02-2014 07:43 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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?

Marriage does a better job of ensuring commitment between mother and father that just having a baby and not being mlarried, so it is relatively successful.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2014, 09:47 AM
Genderless Marriage
(14-02-2014 04:30 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 12:35 PM)Stevil Wrote:  There are three views of marriage.
One mandatory and two optional.

Government sanctioned marriage - This is the compulsory one. It gives two people certain legal privileges. Tax incentives, prison visitation rights, hospital visitation rights and ability to make medical decisions on behalf in the event that a partner cannot make those decisions for themselves. It also means that you can have only one marriage partner at a time.

The recognition of defacto relationships and affording them all the benefits of marriage makes government sanctioned marriage a redundant contract.

Cultural marriage - (Optional) Big expensive wedding in front of family and friends. Celebrant saying some words, Two people making some kind of spoken commitment together in front of the guests. Some cultures have issues if lovers or mothers and fathers are not married. Some cultures don't have these issues.

Religious marriage - (Optional) God, god, god, oh yeah there's also a bride and groom.

Regarding sex and procreation. I don't think government sanctioned marriage has a requirement of the couple to have sex, and in most countries people don't have to be married in order to have sex.

Religious marriage is generally more concerned about the couple making a commitment that if they do have children then they are to indoctorine them with a particular flavour of religion

Question: does society tend to benefit when a man and woman are committed when they make a baby together?

Yes. It's too bad that nearly half of Heterosexual marriages end in divorce, and "between 15-25% of married Americans reported having extramarital affairs."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infidelity

“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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: