Genderless Marriage
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-03-2014, 07:55 AM (This post was last modified: 05-03-2014 08:39 AM by WitchSabrina.)
RE: Genderless Marriage
(17-02-2014 09:35 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(17-02-2014 08:54 AM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  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.



Why redefine marriage?
Why not just let people marry people?
Who those people are and what their preferences are - are private - and none of your business. How about that?

People marry people. Period. Thus is the definition of marriage. A marriage recognized legally for multiple purposes - like insurance, credit rating, etc.

Now............ if you want a person to marry..........dunno......a dog? Now NOW we are REDEFINING marriage.


You're a bigot.
And I'm with Bucky
You're also.................a troll.


YOooou have an agenda against same-sex marriage. I read through this thread and you've offered ZERO valid reason for "risk" of which you speak. The word RISK implies hardship or potential harm. It's just a buzz word for you to create drama and fear.

Why should YOU be allowed to spread your fear? Why?
Why do you Seek to control others? How does a same-sex, married couple in your neighborhood harm you??? How?


The truth is - they don't. You're brainwashed, stupid and a control freak. People must fit into your neat, tidy little 1950's box - a scenario You swallowed hook line and sinker from when you were a small child = definition of marriage.
You are incapable of change or evolution and cannot see that you're STUCK way in the past. And what's worse is in order for YOU to feel validated in your view you Push your agenda, defend it and preach it.


When the real truth is............. it does not YOU nor ANYONE any harm whatsoever for same-sex couples to marry.


Bigot. Bigot and Troll.

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like WitchSabrina's post
05-03-2014, 09:47 AM
Genderless Marriage
I have a hard time taking anyone seriously who believes allowing same-sex partners to marry will "change the concept, that heterosexuals will think even less of commitment," as it shows the fundamental bias against same-sex couples as somehow "immoral" de facto.

That, and anyone who seriously uses "ect." to a abbreviate et cetera. It lends the strong impression they don't actually research anything.

I had to re-type "ect." several times to keep it from autocorrecting.

“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
[+] 1 user Likes rampant.a.i.'s post
05-03-2014, 09:52 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(05-03-2014 09:47 AM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  I have a hard time taking anyone seriously who believes allowing same-sex partners to marry will "change the concept, that heterosexuals will think even less of commitment," as it shows the fundamental bias against same-sex couples as somehow "immoral" de facto.

That, and anyone who seriously uses "ect." to a abbreviate et cetera. It lends the strong impression they don't actually research anything.

I had to re-type "ect." several times to keep it from autocorrecting.

How does it reveal any fundamental bias against same-sex couples as immoral?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2014, 09:54 AM
Genderless Marriage
(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.

Provide reasoning other than bias to support the above.

“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
05-03-2014, 10:21 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(05-03-2014 09:54 AM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  
(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.

Provide reasoning other than bias to support the above.

I have provided reasoning. Tell me where the suppsoed bias exists. In my argument, I assume that, other than the sex of either partner, that heterosexual and homosexual relationships are similar. The differences I speak of are a direct result of the relative gender within the couples and resulting biological implications.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2014, 10:27 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(05-03-2014 10:21 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(05-03-2014 09:54 AM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  Provide reasoning other than bias to support the above.

I have provided reasoning. Tell me where the suppsoed bias exists. In my argument, I assume that, other than the sex of either partner, that heterosexual and homosexual relationships are similar. The differences I speak of are a direct result of the relative gender within the couples and resulting biological implications.

""The differences I speak of are a direct result of the relative gender within the couples and resulting biological implications."'


Sell it. Keep trying.

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2014, 10:35 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(05-03-2014 03:06 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(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.

So you are against ssm because you don't want the biological children of lesbians to have too much advantages over the biological children of irresponsible heterosexual friends with benefits??

There are millions of possibilities that could lead to a person or a couple having a child. Unlike in the bubble that serves as a replace my for your brain, in real life homosexuals end up with babies in all kinds of creative ways. Not all lesbians are super hot rich vegans with mullet style hair cuts. In the real world lesbians come in all colors, shapes, and financial situations. I know a lesbian couple with 4 kids and one on the way, no invitro, no adoption. They are great people but I certainly wouldn't say their kids are anymore advantaged than mine. Now when *kelly* suddenly decides that she can't live with the fact that *karla* had to sleep with other people to get those kids, they won't have a marriage strengthening their commitment. They will have no reason to stay together and Kelly will leave and Karla will be a single mother with 5 kids.
That is just a little example from the people I know.

Even if we lived in your fake world with 100% of lesbians being hot rich vegans, why shouldn't their children have the advantage of having married parents? Because they already have parents who wanted them, who worked hard to get them? Maybe what we really need to do is exault all people (regardless of orientation) who work their butts off and get prepared and plan out babies that they want. Let them serve as an example. This is how your supposed to do it.
I am for giving every child every possible advantage he/she can possible come by regardless of whether or not they already have other advantages.

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
05-03-2014, 10:41 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(05-03-2014 10:35 AM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  
(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.

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.

So you are against ssm because you don't want the biological children of lesbians to have too much advantages over the biological children of irresponsible heterosexual friends with benefits??

There are millions of possibilities that could lead to a person or a couple having a child. Unlike in the bubble that serves as a replace my for your brain, in real life homosexuals end up with babies in all kinds of creative ways. Not all lesbians are super hot rich vegans with mullet style hair cuts. In the real world lesbians come in all colors, shapes, and financial situations. I know a lesbian couple with 4 kids and one on the way, no invitro, no adoption. They are great people but I certainly wouldn't say their kids are anymore advantaged than mine. Now when *kelly* suddenly decides that she can't live with the fact that *karla* had to sleep with other people to get those kids, they won't have a marriage strengthening their commitment. They will have no reason to stay together and Kelly will leave and Karla will be a single mother with 5 kids.
That is just a little example from the people I know.

Even if we lived in your fake world with 100% of lesbians being hot rich vegans, why shouldn't their children have the advantage of having married parents? Because they already have parents who wanted them, who worked hard to get them? Maybe what we really need to do is exault all people (regardless of orientation) who work their butts off and get prepared and plan out babies that they want. Let them serve as an example. This is how your supposed to do it.
I am for giving every child every possible advantage he/she can possible come by regardless of whether or not they already have other advantages.

No, the study of the lesbian couples is relevant because it 1)Shows that their chidlren are not as disenfranchised as people seem to claim and 2)It reveals that, yes, even in this day and age, the ability to produce a child through the sexual relationship makes life of a couple a lot more complicated. Obviously heterosexual couples still haven't mastered the concept of planning, or only coupling with people who will make a good co-parent. But it matters when they do, and makes a difference.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2014, 10:52 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(05-03-2014 10:41 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(05-03-2014 10:35 AM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  So you are against ssm because you don't want the biological children of lesbians to have too much advantages over the biological children of irresponsible heterosexual friends with benefits??

There are millions of possibilities that could lead to a person or a couple having a child. Unlike in the bubble that serves as a replace my for your brain, in real life homosexuals end up with babies in all kinds of creative ways. Not all lesbians are super hot rich vegans with mullet style hair cuts. In the real world lesbians come in all colors, shapes, and financial situations. I know a lesbian couple with 4 kids and one on the way, no invitro, no adoption. They are great people but I certainly wouldn't say their kids are anymore advantaged than mine. Now when *kelly* suddenly decides that she can't live with the fact that *karla* had to sleep with other people to get those kids, they won't have a marriage strengthening their commitment. They will have no reason to stay together and Kelly will leave and Karla will be a single mother with 5 kids.
That is just a little example from the people I know.

Even if we lived in your fake world with 100% of lesbians being hot rich vegans, why shouldn't their children have the advantage of having married parents? Because they already have parents who wanted them, who worked hard to get them? Maybe what we really need to do is exault all people (regardless of orientation) who work their butts off and get prepared and plan out babies that they want. Let them serve as an example. This is how your supposed to do it.
I am for giving every child every possible advantage he/she can possible come by regardless of whether or not they already have other advantages.

No, the study of the lesbian couples is relevant because it 1)Shows that their chidlren are not as disenfranchised as people seem to claim and 2)It reveals that, yes, even in this day and age, the ability to produce a child through the sexual relationship makes life of a couple a lot more complicated. Obviously heterosexual couples still haven't mastered the concept of planning, or only coupling with people who will make a good co-parent. But it matters when they do, and makes a difference.

Again I ask, why would a child of a homosexual couple not deserve the advantage of having married parents?
Do you believe that heterosexual couples having not "mastered the concept of planning, or only coupling with people who will make a good co-parent" is a reason to castigate the children of homosexual parents.
Do you feel that it acceptable to punish people for being smarter and/or more advantaged if they are different than you?
It matters when heteros master the concept of planning a child with people who will make a good co-parent. Does it not matter when homosexuals do this?
Where is your rationale here? Where is your reasoning? By your standards I would say that homosexual couples should be the only ones allowed to marry as they obviously give their children more advantages statistically.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Losty's post
05-03-2014, 11:03 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(05-03-2014 10:35 AM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  
(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.

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.

So you are against ssm because you don't want the biological children of lesbians to have too much advantages over the biological children of irresponsible heterosexual friends with benefits??

There are millions of possibilities that could lead to a person or a couple having a child. Unlike in the bubble that serves as a replace my for your brain, in real life homosexuals end up with babies in all kinds of creative ways. Not all lesbians are super hot rich vegans with mullet style hair cuts. In the real world lesbians come in all colors, shapes, and financial situations. I know a lesbian couple with 4 kids and one on the way, no invitro, no adoption. They are great people but I certainly wouldn't say their kids are anymore advantaged than mine. Now when *kelly* suddenly decides that she can't live with the fact that *karla* had to sleep with other people to get those kids, they won't have a marriage strengthening their commitment. They will have no reason to stay together and Kelly will leave and Karla will be a single mother with 5 kids.
That is just a little example from the people I know.

Even if we lived in your fake world with 100% of lesbians being hot rich vegans, why shouldn't their children have the advantage of having married parents? Because they already have parents who wanted them, who worked hard to get them? Maybe what we really need to do is exault all people (regardless of orientation) who work their butts off and get prepared and plan out babies that they want. Let them serve as an example. This is how your supposed to do it.
I am for giving every child every possible advantage he/she can possible come by regardless of whether or not they already have other advantages.



I wish for a *love* button for this post. The *like* button doesn't do my feelings justice.Heart

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WitchSabrina's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: