Genderless Marriage
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-03-2014, 02:14 PM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(03-03-2014 02:13 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  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?

nah, he says marriage should only be allowed to heterosexual couples because of reasons Hobo

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2014, 02:18 PM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(17-02-2014 09:36 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(17-02-2014 09:01 AM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  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.

But children adopted by homosexuals do not deserve to have the advantage of having married parents?

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
[+] 2 users Like Losty's post
03-03-2014, 07:27 PM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(03-03-2014 04:24 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(26-02-2014 05:24 AM)morondog Wrote:  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.


You have asserted this several times without any recourse to any sort of evidence. Just because you spout some bullshit doesn't make it true.

Quote: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 catholiKKK church can't turn over evidence that it protects its pedophile priests, because it's against the catholiKKK church's rulez."


Fucking idiot.

Quote: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.

No matter what the gender of those parents are. And you seem to deliberately ignore couples in which either or both are hermaphrodite or other sexual mutations, which can enjoy every right of a male-female couple, including marriage and having children by sperm donation or adoption. Of course, those couples escape your Hate-Radar because they are not so obvious and easy to target.


Quote:The whole point of same-sex marriage is about pair-binding independent of procreation.

Same sex couples don't want children? You realize that this is what you are saying. And you are full of shit. Again -- just because you say something doesn't make it true. Your batshit and hateful opinions are not fact.


Quote: There can be no rational basis for a presumption of parentage between a same-sex couple because such a thing is biologically impossible.

Again, you conveniently ignore herms and other mutations. And your claim "there can be no rational basis" is just your bullshit hate talk. Your claiming it doesn't make it true. You continue to attempt to ignore that same-sex couples -- just like opposite-sex couples -- are in it for love.


Quote:The possibility and necessity of adoption makes the presumption unnecessary for same-sex couples.

Apply your "reasoning" to opposite sex couples who are sexually infertile for WHATEVER reason, and shut the fuck up.

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

Wrong again. It's none of the state's -- or YOUR -- fucking business.


Quote: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.

Because some dipshit on the internet -- YOU -- says so? Fuck off.


Quote:(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.)

So you are doubling down on your bigotry. No surprise here. Fuck the hell off.



(03-03-2014 04:33 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(26-02-2014 05:27 AM)undergroundp Wrote:  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.

You DO realize that many opposite-sex couples are infertile, do you not? Or are you THAT fucking stupid. Every "objection" you raise about same-sex couples citing reproduction goes EXACTLY THE SAME for infertile couples, no matter WHAT the reason for their infertility.

Fuck off.

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
03-03-2014, 11:52 PM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(03-03-2014 04:24 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  I have referred several times in responses that people in homosexual relationships have rights and obligations different from heterosexual couples.

So what. Asserting something with no support, is meaningless. You post meaningless shit.

(03-03-2014 04:24 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  The state interest in personal relationships start with the child.

Nope. Your idiotic reasoning does, but nothing else does. Your "incentivization" bullshit is incoherent made up nonsense.

(03-03-2014 04:24 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  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.

Hahaha. There is nothing about law that says it has to be "easy" for judges to do anything. You really are stupid as a box of rocks.

(03-03-2014 04:24 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  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.

Not in 2014 it isn't. They can adopt one of the millions of children who NEED adoption. They are better off with TWO parents than one. Stop posting your bullshit, unless you can support it with a peer reviewed study.

(03-03-2014 04:24 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  Therefore, the state has a very distinct way it must treat heterosexual couples differently than other pair-bonds.

Maybe in your fantasy land. In the US, the Constitution guarantees EQUAL rights for all.

(03-03-2014 04:24 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  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.

Presumptuous fantasizing, with no support. Your opinion. Nothing else.
You are a bigoted troll.

(03-03-2014 04:24 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  (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.)

No one cares what a bigoted troll thinks about anything.

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
04-03-2014, 12:33 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
Beccoboo:I have referred several times in responses that people in homosexual relationships have rights and obligations different from heterosexual couples.

Your initial argument was about children and marriage and bologna.
Do parents have the same obligations legally and/or morally, or do homosexuals have different moral and legal obligations?
We know that children have a statistically higher rate of success when their parents are married. Do children with homosexual parents not benefit from having their parents married?
Do homosexuals not have a moral obligation to provide for their children the best way they can? You make absolutely no sense.

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
04-03-2014, 07:30 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(03-03-2014 04:24 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(26-02-2014 05:24 AM)morondog Wrote:  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.

No, the state interest is the welfare of any children, property rights, and inheritance.
This includes paying child support. Gender does not matter.

Quote: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.)

This is entirely illogical. Heterosexual couples adopt children, too. The same rules apply to homosexual couples adopting. The legal issues have already been addressed.

Marriage is about much more than procreation.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
05-03-2014, 02:52 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(03-03-2014 12:41 PM)nach_in Wrote:  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

I am certainly not denying the possibility that I can be wrong on this.

However, "behind the times" is an invalid, and so is "wrong side of history."
"What is already happening in the world" is a whole lot of divergent or varying situations under varying conditions. We cannot use Scandinavia, for example, as a model of American society. I also did not name any one type of parents or family as "the only parents," or family.

I could agree that there is evidence for same-sex pair bonding, however, that's not the same as marriage. What is needed to "legititmize" a relationship for children is either marriage or adoption. If we are going to expand the territory of what you call legitimacy, it stands to reason that we have to expand it beyond marriage, not necessarily use marriage as the means to legitimize every parent-child relationship.

Has it occurred to you that, in the US, atleast, marriage statutes are based on a heteronormative model. In many ways this model is necessary. Presumption of parentage is a very important example of the real world, legal application of it.

Do you really think that same-sex relationships will abide by the rules of a heteronormative model? Or will they insist on breaking that mold, and eliminating those laws?

As far as the results of same-sex marriage, we're not there yet, and any country or state that has it is still in transition phase.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2014, 03:06 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(04-03-2014 12:33 AM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  Beccoboo:I have referred several times in responses that people in homosexual relationships have rights and obligations different from heterosexual couples.

Your initial argument was about children and marriage and bologna.
Do parents have the same obligations legally and/or morally, or do homosexuals have different moral and legal obligations?
We know that children have a statistically higher rate of success when their parents are married. Do children with homosexual parents not benefit from having their parents married?
Do homosexuals not have a moral obligation to provide for their children the best way they can? You make absolutely no sense.

There was a study that came out a couple years ago showing children of lesbian couples having better educational outcomes. All these children were planned results of arrangements with sperm donors. The women were already established couples before having children, the children were planned and the parents had already prepared. Compared to the general population, those children already have a built-in advantage. However, children of heterosexual parents do not have that built-in advantage.

So, as far as moral and legal obligations, the same-sex couples has to go through some time of adoptive arrangement to make a baby. It has nothing to do with their sexual relations in their couple. On the other hand, a heterosexual couple does not even have to be a couple in order to make a baby, a child can come and connect them together legally, whether or not they are planned or prepared. Once a pair-bond, whether hetero or same-sex, once either has children together, these differences still impact the family and the children. Does the circumstances of bringing more children into the world affect the older children? Yes, of course, so the implications of their sexual behavior, of same-sex vs hetero couples, are different.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2014, 03:12 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(04-03-2014 07:30 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(03-03-2014 04:24 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  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.

No, the state interest is the welfare of any children, property rights, and inheritance.
This includes paying child support. Gender does not matter.

Quote: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.)

This is entirely illogical. Heterosexual couples adopt children, too. The same rules apply to homosexual couples adopting. The legal issues have already been addressed.

Marriage is about much more than procreation.

Iowa ruled that a spouse in a same-sex married couple should have presumed paternity. In other words, the wife of a woman should be the presumed parent when her wife gives birth. Remember this was not about letting her assume that role, adoption was already available to her, it was about the state presuming the role. How long until a spouse in a same-sex marriage challenge the presumption? In such a case, the argument against presumptive paternity is much stronger than it is for heterosexual couples.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2014, 04:44 AM (This post was last modified: 05-03-2014 04:50 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Genderless Marriage
(05-03-2014 03:06 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  There was a study that came out a couple years ago showing children of lesbian couples having better educational outcomes. All these children were planned results of arrangements with sperm donors. The women were already established couples before having children, the children were planned and the parents had already prepared. Compared to the general population, those children already have a built-in advantage. However, children of heterosexual parents do not have that built-in advantage.

Look up the definition of non-sequitur, BeccaTheBigot. Your ranting is incoherent. There was a study that came out last week that showed you were an idiot.

(05-03-2014 03:06 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  So, as far as moral and legal obligations, the same-sex couples has to go through some time of adoptive arrangement to make a baby.

Another incoherent, illogical non-sequitur.

(05-03-2014 03:06 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  It has nothing to do with their sexual relations in their couple. On the other hand, a heterosexual couple does not even have to be a couple in order to make a baby, a child can come and connect them together legally, whether or not they are planned or prepared. Once a pair-bond, whether hetero or same-sex, once either has children together, these differences still impact the family and the children. Does the circumstances of bringing more children into the world affect the older children? Yes, of course, so the implications of their sexual behavior, of same-sex vs hetero couples, are different.

BeccaTheBigot, don't obfuscate the primary prenuptials with rasberries. Often, the pertinent cat presents fabled necessities in the parking chamfer. Realize your net precedent. Triangulate! Save the best for the alligators. Ever the bastille notches the orchestra but Wendy is not green and horses will capitulate. Filter out the log from the turnstile and cry prevalently. So there brown stare. Feed your inner walnut and resolve. Subject your lemon to the ingenious door in the presence of snow and animals. Aisle 7 is for the monetary cheese whiz. Faced with the kitchen, you may wish to prolong the sailboat in the cliff. Otherwise, rabbits may descend on your left nostril. Think about how you can stripe the sea. Regale the storm to those who (6) would thump the parrot with the armband. Corner the market on vestiges of the apparent closure but seek not the evidential circumstance. Therein you can find indignant mountains of pigs and apples. Descend eloquently as you debate the ceiling of your warning fulcrum. Vacate the corncob profusely and and don’t dote on the pancreas.

Next up, control your wood. Have at the cat with your watch on the fore. Aft! Smarties (12)! Rome wasn’t kevetched in an autumn nightie. (42) See yourself for the turntable on the escalator. Really peruse the garage spider definitely again again with brown. Now we have an apparent congestion, so be it here. Just a moment is not a pod of beef for the ink well nor can it be (4) said that Karen was there in the millpond. Garbage out just like the candle in the kitty so. Go, go, go until the vacuum meets the upward vacation. Sell the yellow. Then trim the bus before the ten cheese please Louise. Segregate from the koan and stew the ship vigorously.
And remember, never pass up an opportunity to watch an elephant paint Mozart.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: