Genderless Marriage
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-02-2014, 04:59 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).

As long as they have their parents, that is, in long-term committed relationships.

A gay couple deciding to have a child together, for example, must both mutually decide in order to make that happen. On the other hand, a heterosexual couple doesn't even have to decide to have a child together. All else being equal in either type of relationship, a heterosexual couple does not have to make a decision to have a child. Children just come as a result of heterosexual relationships. That, in essence, is one specific problem that marriage addresses when it distinguishes heterosexual relationships as unique.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 05:24 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(26-02-2014 04:55 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(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.

Show how it is not your argument. Literally all I did was substitute the word bank account for marriage, and women for gay people. I don't know why you're trying so hard to justify your views, why not just admit that you dislike gay people and would like to oppress them as much as possible, and lucky for you, there're a whole bunch of people who feel the same way so you can dress it up with some sort of farcical justification and make it into law. Quit with the crappy gymnastics.

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
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
26-02-2014, 05:27 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(26-02-2014 04:59 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  As long as they have their parents, that is, in long-term committed relationships.

A gay couple deciding to have a child together, for example, must both mutually decide in order to make that happen. On the other hand, a heterosexual couple doesn't even have to decide to have a child together. All else being equal in either type of relationship, a heterosexual couple does not have to make a decision to have a child. Children just come as a result of heterosexual relationships. That, in essence, is one specific problem that marriage addresses when it distinguishes heterosexual relationships as unique.

Exactly! That is why heterosexual couples don't use contraception and when they eventually get pregnant, they don't even talk about it, they just go ahead and have the damn baby.

"Behind every great pirate, there is a great butt."
-Guybrush Threepwood-
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 09:51 PM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(26-02-2014 04:47 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(20-02-2014 05:03 AM)nach_in Wrote:  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.

Just because you spout some ad hoc bullshit doesn't make it true.

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
26-02-2014, 10:06 PM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(26-02-2014 04:59 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(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).

A gay couple deciding to have a child together, for example, must both mutually decide in order to make that happen. On the other hand, a heterosexual couple doesn't even have to decide to have a child together. All else being equal in either type of relationship, a heterosexual couple does not have to make a decision to have a child. Children just come as a result of heterosexual relationships. That, in essence, is one specific problem that marriage addresses when it distinguishes heterosexual relationships as unique.

Wrong again BeccaBullshit. In 2014 the majority of straight women use birth control, and CHOSE when to have children later and later. You do live under a rock, don't you. Please do yourself a favor, and stay under it.

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
28-02-2014, 12:10 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(26-02-2014 04:55 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(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.


For fuck's sake -- that shit doesn't even make any fucking sense.

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
[+] 2 users Like Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
03-03-2014, 04:24 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(26-02-2014 05:24 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(26-02-2014 04:55 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  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.

Show how it is not your argument. Literally all I did was substitute the word bank account for marriage, and women for gay people. I don't know why you're trying so hard to justify your views, why not just admit that you dislike gay people and would like to oppress them as much as possible, and lucky for you, there're a whole bunch of people who feel the same way so you can dress it up with some sort of farcical justification and make it into law. Quit with the crappy gymnastics.

Show me where you "literally" only substituted words. You interpreted, and I am saying you misinterpreted.

I have referred several times in responses that people in homosexual relationships have rights and obligations different from heterosexual couples.

The state interest in personal relationships start with the child.

When a man and woman are married, and, even if someone else's child inhabits her womb, the presumption of parentage gives him the "right" to be the father. This is the kind of state statute that incentivizes marriage for men. Along with that "right" being presumed for all men in a marriage, enters the obligation. The obligation given to her husband incentivizes marriage for women.

The incentive of this for the state is that it makes enforcing rights and obligations more possible: it as much easier for a judge to decide custody and arrangements for children when the children in a household are legally the children of both the father and mother, and when neither of them have legal obligations and rights to children of other men or women. These incentives to the state are a result of combining procreation of children with the exclusive pair-bonding of their parents.

The whole point of same-sex marriage is about pair-binding independent of procreation. There can be no rational basis for a presumption of parentage between a same-sex couple because such a thing is biologically impossible. The possibility and necessity of adoption makes the presumption unnecessary for same-sex couples.

Therefore, the state has a very distinct way it must treat heterosexual couples differently than other pair-bonds.

Heterosexuals do make a mess of marriage, but the thing is, the messes would be bigger without marriage the way it is, as part of human nature, and that's the point.

(I must say, however, that between starting this thread and now I have realised that I must recant my support for civil unions and domestic partnerships, as they would pose the similar problem of aligning pair bonding independent of procreation.)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BeccaBoo's post
03-03-2014, 04:33 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(26-02-2014 05:27 AM)undergroundp Wrote:  
(26-02-2014 04:59 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  As long as they have their parents, that is, in long-term committed relationships.

A gay couple deciding to have a child together, for example, must both mutually decide in order to make that happen. On the other hand, a heterosexual couple doesn't even have to decide to have a child together. All else being equal in either type of relationship, a heterosexual couple does not have to make a decision to have a child. Children just come as a result of heterosexual relationships. That, in essence, is one specific problem that marriage addresses when it distinguishes heterosexual relationships as unique.

Exactly! That is why heterosexual couples don't use contraception and when they eventually get pregnant, they don't even talk about it, they just go ahead and have the damn baby.

In other words, many heterosexual couples DO use contraception and when they eventually get pregnant they DO talk about it, then decide whether to have or not have the baby, or keep or not keep the baby. This IS a different set of circumstances than a same-sex couple.

That said, contraception is not perfect. It is imperfect enough and people are fallible enough that, during her lifetime, a heterosexually active woman who uses birth control is quite likely to become pregnant.

And do you realize that your post and the several others have relied on the generality that most fertile people are educated and well-off enough to respond to the issues of birth control and sexuality with foresight and circumspection? That's a big assumption to make, and it does marginalize many people, including those who don't have the information and means but also those who do but who either have a moment of weakness or stupidity or experience a failure of birth control.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2014, 12:41 PM
RE: Genderless Marriage
Lets get to the evidence shall we?

The countries that allow same sex marriage haven't seen their civilizations crumble, the birth rates are in healthy numbers and many of them have the best societies in the world.
Families are still mainly formed by heterosexual couples and homoparental families do just fine as any other, actually, allowing same sex marriage made homoparental families to be much better as they were legitimized and thus both parents and kids saw their lives improved.

There is not a single shred of evidence that points towards the need to reject same sex marriage and a lot of evidence (and not just speculation, fact, real life, every-day-happening, evidence) encouraging the legalization of same sex marriage.

Your ideas are absurd in the face of what is already happening around the world, your notions of what constitutes parents or a family are just wrong, only based in old stupid ideas...

Get your facts straight dude, you're behind the times and in the wrong side of history, and that's not something that will happen, it's something that already happened decades ago

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like nach_in's post
03-03-2014, 02:13 PM
Genderless Marriage
Is BeccaBoo is arguing that same-sex couples are superior to heterosexual couples because birth control is not reliable and neither are the users, or was there some kind of point buried in that essay on birth control?

“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: