Genderless Marriage
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-02-2014, 07:39 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
Becca, the law applies equally to all people. Your given reasons for seeking to break this *fundamental* legal principle are all kinda vague and not proven and more or less seem to be made up. If I said I was going to deny you the right to open a bank account based off some vague bullshit about how women having bank accounts would threaten men having bank accounts, wouldn't you be annoyed ?

A bank account is a useful thing to have, and here I am making up silly reasons why you can't have one. And everyone agrees with me. Everyone agrees that bank accounts are great things to have, they give you all sorts of legal benefits. But giving women bank accounts, now that'll just make the men mad. And the value of having bank accounts, the *responsibility* inherent in possessing money, will be diminished. So women must not have bank accounts.

This is word for word the same stupid argument you've just advanced for denying gay people the right to marry. If you still think they should not be allowed to marry, tell me why you should be allowed a bank account ?

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
20-02-2014, 07:39 AM (This post was last modified: 20-02-2014 07:44 AM by Chippy.)
RE: Genderless Marriage
The classical liberal approach--that is also consistent with a secular state--is for the state to withdraw any involvement from the concept of marriage completely. The state's role is only to operate a registry of civil union and to issue certificates of civil union. Civil union would be open to different-sex and same-sex couples alike. Anyone with any religious/ethnic affiliations would then have the option of having a ceremony consistent with that religion or ethnicity but that ceremony would have no legal status. Churches, mosques and synagogues, as private organisations, would have the privilege of deciding who they marry. That is the flip-side of the church-state separation that would need to be respected if we are taking church-state separation seriously.

The American Psychological Association is for marriage equality for same-sex couples[1][2]. According to the APA, about 30-years worth of data indicates that the outcomes for children of same-sex couples are comparable to those of traditional couples[3][4]. It appears that the things that make a household good or bad for children have little to do with the sexual orientation or gender of the parent(s).
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chippy's post
20-02-2014, 08:09 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(20-02-2014 04:41 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  That's why civil unions and domestic partnerships in addition to marriage are more inclusive than merely legalising same-sex marriage.

Non Sequitur bullshit.

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
20-02-2014, 08:15 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(20-02-2014 04:33 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(17-02-2014 09:54 AM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  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

All of this shit about MARRIAGE vs. Co-habitation only destroys YOUR OWN claims. If the above is true, then YOU would have children of same-sex couples be hobbled by their parents' being forced to co-habitate rather than being able to marry.

Of course it's no surprise that you didn't think this through.

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
20-02-2014, 09:54 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(20-02-2014 07:39 AM)Chippy Wrote:  The classical liberal approach--that is also consistent with a secular state--is for the state to withdraw any involvement from the concept of marriage completely. The state's role is only to operate a registry of civil union and to issue certificates of civil union. Civil union would be open to different-sex and same-sex couples alike. Anyone with any religious/ethnic affiliations would then have the option of having a ceremony consistent with that religion or ethnicity but that ceremony would have no legal status. Churches, mosques and synagogues, as private organisations, would have the privilege of deciding who they marry. That is the flip-side of the church-state separation that would need to be respected if we are taking church-state separation seriously.

The American Psychological Association is for marriage equality for same-sex couples[1][2]. According to the APA, about 30-years worth of data indicates that the outcomes for children of same-sex couples are comparable to those of traditional couples[3][4]. It appears that the things that make a household good or bad for children have little to do with the sexual orientation or gender of the parent(s).

This is already essentially the case in more than 1/3 of U.S. states.
The only confusion is that there is civil marriage and religious marriage, and one word is being used for both.
Any church is free to refuse to marry whomever they choose. Not so the state.

Calling it civil union instead of marriage is a semantic sop to bigotry.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
20-02-2014, 10:08 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(20-02-2014 09:54 AM)Chas Wrote:  Calling it civil union instead of marriage is a semantic sop to bigotry.

Not to mention that if one changed the legal name to "civil union" and the religio-cranks couldn't have a legal *marriage* any more they'd *still* whine about how unfairly they were treated. 'Cos the *real* name of the game is to dick with gay people, it's not freedom of religion or whatever other fancy stupid words they dress it up with.

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
[+] 4 users Like morondog's post
20-02-2014, 11:40 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 lured me back in with this. What the actual eff are you talking about??
I know there are many types of families. I accept that and I teach my children that all families are different and that is okay. I am a single mother. I don't see how having many types of families makes any difference. Statistics show that children with married parents have higher rates of success in many areas of life. People like me have to work our asses off trying to compensate. We put all our time and effort into our children in hopes of giving them that boost so they can have just as great of an opportunity to succeed in life. But I don't see how that is relevant to ssm vs civil unions. They deserve to be afforded the same rights as everyone else and their children would benefit from it!

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
20-02-2014, 11:46 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(20-02-2014 07:39 AM)Chippy Wrote:  The classical liberal approach--that is also consistent with a secular state--is for the state to withdraw any involvement from the concept of marriage completely. The state's role is only to operate a registry of civil union and to issue certificates of civil union. Civil union would be open to different-sex and same-sex couples alike. Anyone with any religious/ethnic affiliations would then have the option of having a ceremony consistent with that religion or ethnicity but that ceremony would have no legal status. Churches, mosques and synagogues, as private organisations, would have the privilege of deciding who they marry. That is the flip-side of the church-state separation that would need to be respected if we are taking church-state separation seriously.

The American Psychological Association is for marriage equality for same-sex couples[1][2]. According to the APA, about 30-years worth of data indicates that the outcomes for children of same-sex couples are comparable to those of traditional couples[3][4]. It appears that the things that make a household good or bad for children have little to do with the sexual orientation or gender of the parent(s).

I don't really care what you call it as long as it's the same for everyone.

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
26-02-2014, 04:47 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(20-02-2014 05:03 AM)nach_in Wrote:  
(20-02-2014 04:41 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  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.

The differences between heterosexual couples and all other human relationships are not arbitrary.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 04:55 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(20-02-2014 07:39 AM)morondog Wrote:  Becca, the law applies equally to all people. Your given reasons for seeking to break this *fundamental* legal principle are all kinda vague and not proven and more or less seem to be made up. If I said I was going to deny you the right to open a bank account based off some vague bullshit about how women having bank accounts would threaten men having bank accounts, wouldn't you be annoyed ?

A bank account is a useful thing to have, and here I am making up silly reasons why you can't have one. And everyone agrees with me. Everyone agrees that bank accounts are great things to have, they give you all sorts of legal benefits. But giving women bank accounts, now that'll just make the men mad. And the value of having bank accounts, the *responsibility* inherent in possessing money, will be diminished. So women must not have bank accounts.

This is word for word the same stupid argument you've just advanced for denying gay people the right to marry. If you still think they should not be allowed to marry, tell me why you should be allowed a bank account ?

No actually it is not my argument. If you want an analogy, I'll give you one that fits my argument a bit better:

Major highways are often restricted to motorized vehicles. Bicycles, for instance, are prohibited. This helps to protect both drivers of cars and bicyclists.

I have no problem being restricted from the highway when I am on a bicycle, and I am very aware of the different conditions inherent to driving a car.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: