Genderless Marriage
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-02-2014, 09:54 AM
Genderless Marriage
(17-02-2014 09:47 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(14-02-2014 08:53 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  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.

Proof?

“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
17-02-2014, 10:28 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
Ok. This is last comment I will make, because you are so dense it makes me want to take up smoking or some other bad habit.

I think your argument is a load of crap, but let's say you're right. Let's say that outlawing ssm is beneficial to society as a whole. You will never convince me that denying a person their fundamental rights (marriage is the third tier under privacy which is a fundamental right of the United States contitution supposed to be garunteed to all people within the nation) could be acceptable regardless of the supposed benefits to society as a whole. Denying human rights to any group for any reason is bad for society as a whole.

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, 10:34 AM (This post was last modified: 17-02-2014 09:51 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Genderless Marriage
(17-02-2014 09:47 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(14-02-2014 08:53 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  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.

Prove it with a peer-reviewed study.
You can't, and won't.
When you're done with that provide evidence that the outcome OUTWEIGHS the evil done to society by not granting EQUAL RIGHTS to everyone.
Good luck with that.

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
17-02-2014, 08:33 PM (This post was last modified: 17-02-2014 08:40 PM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: Genderless Marriage
(17-02-2014 09:11 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(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.

Repeating the same bullshit over and over again ad nauseum doesn't make it true, fucking moron.


(17-02-2014 09:25 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(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.

And it's STILL a load of bullshit the second time around.


Quote:No, it's about combining heterosexual sex with values such as commitment, ect... That's where the major public interest rests.

Obviously NOT, given the tide's turning against your hatred and discrimination.


(17-02-2014 09:31 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(14-02-2014 07:37 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  -- Which it FAILS miserably to do!
Examples of failure are not the measure of the succes of an entire institution.

Oh, yes, they ARE!



Quote: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.

And marriage has an ABYSMAL track record at that.


(17-02-2014 09:32 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  I am in favor of domestic partnerships, or civil unions, and adoption for same-sex couples.


But your HATRED and FEAR keep you against SSM. Simple as that.



(17-02-2014 09:35 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  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.


That does not follow. That's just bullshit you and your ilk made up to sow FUD.

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
17-02-2014, 08:41 PM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(17-02-2014 09:38 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  Wow. Ya know BeccaBigot, your life would probably be much happier if you minded your own fucking business.

QFTMFT

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
17-02-2014, 08:43 PM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(17-02-2014 09:47 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  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.

You aren't even making any sense. IF that were the case, then you should be FOR same sex marriage, BECAUSE of the supposed "better job of ensuring commitment" and the supposed benefits that would have to children in same-sex marriages, as opposed to "civil unions", etc.

You are a fucking idiot.

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
20-02-2014, 04:33 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(17-02-2014 09:54 AM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  
(17-02-2014 09:47 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  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.

Proof?

First, the logical side of it:

Every human being has a biological mother and father. Check.

Most of the time, the legal access of mother or father to their child remains intact. Check.

Therefore, in most cases, parents with competing interests (like ties independent of their children) will be more divided by those obligations than parents who combine their interests in a committed, long-term, joint-household relationship. Thus, the child usually benefits more when the biological parents are together.

Not only is it more beneficial when those parents are working in concert, it is better when they are not working at odds with each other, undermining each other.

Furthermore, a household with two parents provides more economic potential than a household with one, for obvious reasons.

Note that the instance where one or both biological parent(s) has lost all parental rights and is replaced by (an)other parent(s) is a special case, not a general rule.

A logical benefit of marriage, then, is that of the parents choosing to be together long-term being the primary factor that they are together, rather than having a child together or something else being the factor that connects them.

On to the social science side:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/20...31974.html

"The report, released August 16 and entitled "Why Marriage Matters," pulls together findings from 18 scholars to argue that kids living in cohabiting households don't do as well socially, educationally and psychologically as kids living in intact married households. The authors point to a lack of stability in cohabiting relationships as one of the culprits: cohabiting couples with a child are more than twice as likely to break up before their child turns 12 as their married counterparts. That lack of stability--defined as the rotating crop of parent-like figures who transition in and out of kids' lives--is tied to school failure, behavior problems, drug use and loneliness. The effects are especially evident in children who experience several of these transitions."

David Popenoe, one of the PHDs who was part in the National Marriage Project as in the above link, explains some of the differences between married and cohabitating parents:
[url= http://parenthood.library.wisc.edu/Popen...ried.html]
http://parenthood.library.wisc.edu/Popen...rried.html[/url]

From Austrailia:

"The Australian Institute of Family Studies report says marriage has a positive effect on a child's learning and development because married couples tend to be better educated, are more likely to be employed and have a better financial base.

"Parents in de facto relationships are more likely to separate than married families and that is shown to have an impact on a child's development," co-author Lixia Qu said.

"A child's wellbeing and behaviour and cognitive development can be affected by a separation, particularly when there is arguing, violence or other issues." LINK
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-02-2014, 04:41 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(17-02-2014 10:28 AM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  Ok. This is last comment I will make, because you are so dense it makes me want to take up smoking or some other bad habit.

I think your argument is a load of crap, but let's say you're right. Let's say that outlawing ssm is beneficial to society as a whole. You will never convince me that denying a person their fundamental rights (marriage is the third tier under privacy which is a fundamental right of the United States contitution supposed to be garunteed to all people within the nation) could be acceptable regardless of the supposed benefits to society as a whole. Denying human rights to any group for any reason is bad for society as a whole.

There are many different kinds of families, some with a mom and dad, some with same-sex couples, some with single parents, some with grandparents or a combination of the above, some with platonic partners, some with older siblings as the gaurdian, ect....Marriage is not the umbrella that protects all kinds of families, it cannot be. So when you are talking about inclusiveness, don't forget the other groups that even "marriage regardless of gender" forgets. It leaves out a whole lot of other kinds of households and families, which is shortsighted. That's why civil unions and domestic partnerships in addition to marriage are more inclusive than merely legalising same-sex marriage.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-02-2014, 05:03 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(20-02-2014 04:41 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(17-02-2014 10:28 AM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  Ok. This is last comment I will make, because you are so dense it makes me want to take up smoking or some other bad habit.

I think your argument is a load of crap, but let's say you're right. Let's say that outlawing ssm is beneficial to society as a whole. You will never convince me that denying a person their fundamental rights (marriage is the third tier under privacy which is a fundamental right of the United States contitution supposed to be garunteed to all people within the nation) could be acceptable regardless of the supposed benefits to society as a whole. Denying human rights to any group for any reason is bad for society as a whole.

There are many different kinds of families, some with a mom and dad, some with same-sex couples, some with single parents, some with grandparents or a combination of the above, some with platonic partners, some with older siblings as the gaurdian, ect....Marriage is not the umbrella that protects all kinds of families, it cannot be. So when you are talking about inclusiveness, don't forget the other groups that even "marriage regardless of gender" forgets. It leaves out a whole lot of other kinds of households and families, which is shortsighted. That's why civil unions and domestic partnerships in addition to marriage are more inclusive than merely legalising same-sex marriage.

You really have to prove that in a juridical way, there are plenty of legal principles that contradict you, the most important being equality before the law.
Even if things are as you say, which I doubt, a mere theoretical incentive is not enough to have separate institutions different groups of people based on an arbitrary discrimination.

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes nach_in's post
20-02-2014, 07:06 AM (This post was last modified: 20-02-2014 08:46 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Genderless Marriage
Becca is a bigot. Check.

The subject at hand is same-sex marriage, NOT marriage in general. So there's that, Becca the Bigot.
Maybe look up "moving the goal-posts".

After months of expert testimony in the California Prop 8 case, and millions of dollars of EXPERT witnesses, the appeals court judge asked the plaintiff's attorney "How exactly does ssm threaten traditional marriage". The attorney replied in open court, "I don't know judge, I don't know".

(20-02-2014 04:33 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  Every human being has a biological mother and father. Check.

Irrelevant. So there's that Becca the Bigot.
Humans reproduce in vitro, in vivo, by surrogates etc etc etc. The subject at hand is NOT how humans reproduce, Becca the Illogical Bigot. So there's that. The WAY humans reproduce has not been proven to have ANY effect on how humans do and thrive. So there's that, Becca the Bigot, and it's not the subject at hand.

(20-02-2014 04:33 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  Most of the time, the legal access of mother or father to their child remains intact. Check.

Irrelevant and meaningless. 50 % of marriages result in divorce, thus a huge proportion of children end up in SINGLE PARENT homes, and resultant poverty, thus have been PROVEN to be better off in homes where they have TWO PARENTS, regardless of gender.
So there's that, Becca the Bigot.

(20-02-2014 04:33 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  Therefore, in most cases, parents with competing interests (like ties independent of their children) will be more divided by those obligations than parents who combine their interests in a committed, long-term, joint-household relationship. Thus, the child usually benefits more when the biological parents are together.

Nope. (Aside from the word salad)..The above applies EQUALLY to same sex parents, and Becca the Bigot has not demonstrated it doesn't. So there's that, B the B. Asserting something with no study is bullshit. The moon is made of green cheese, as is your brain, Becca with the cheese brain. Tongue

(20-02-2014 04:33 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  Not only is it more beneficial when those parents are working in concert, it is better when they are not working at odds with each other, undermining each other.
Furthermore, a household with two parents provides more economic potential than a household with one, for obvious reasons.

Indeed. Again the above applies PERFECTLY EQUALLY to SSM households, Becca the Bigot.

A study on COHABITATION is irrelevant. The subject is Same Sex MARRIAGE. So there's that. Becca the Bigot. You actually UNDERMINE your own point.
It's proof that children DO BETTER with TWO parents, same sex or otherwise.

Thank you for proving you have no proof that SAME SEX MARRIAGE has any peer reviewed study to support the bigots, who, FOR NO LOGICAL or scientific REASON, oppose it.

The OP is GENDERLESS marriage, not "marriage".

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: