Genderless Marriage
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-03-2014, 11:21 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
I hope you never have children dude, your view of the world is so twisted you can't even understand where you're wrong

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like nach_in's post
05-03-2014, 11:22 AM
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.


(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 reasoning you've provided makes no sense without the presupposition that same-sex couples are somehow less moral, less committed, and less deserving of matrimony than their heterosexual counterparts.

You keep reverting back to the "biological implications" of same-sex vs. heterosexual couples, when it's been repeatedly mentioned that marriage is defined today as more than the legitimizing of sexual intercourse.

And you keep bringing up the "implications of sexual behavior" as if sexual behavior should be first and foremost as the most important factor in the relationship to. . . Children?

Since when have unplanned children solidified the "sustainability" of a relationship? In a shotgun wedding, both partners are forced by social pressures to marry and create an environment which may not be conducive to raising the child, with parents who were too irresponsible to avoid having a child in the first place.

β€œIt 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, 11:31 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(05-03-2014 11:03 AM)WitchSabrina 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.



I wish for a *love* button for this post. The *like* button doesn't do my feelings justice.Heart
I am ashamed of the insanely horrible grammar in that post lol.

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, 03:30 PM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(05-03-2014 10:52 AM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  
(05-03-2014 10:41 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  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.

No if we were going by "most statistical advantage" we'd only allow people to procreate after establishing their couple and planning the pregnancy. But that was not the point or argument I was making.

The question is, what role does marriage have in society, what exactly has made it last so long, why have humans adapted so much but still used this single institution as a way to establish kin and pass down property, and what about marriage makes it something the state has an interest in being involved in, beyond the mere scope of enforcing passage of estates and private agreements?

Marriage, in the law, is more than that. Look at state statute, look at common law and mechanisms like presumption of paternity. Do you think it never mattered to women that, once married, her husband would assume legal paternity of any resulting children? Do you think it meant nothing that, if not married, that she might have little to no legal recourse for paternal support for his children she bore? And do you think mothers and fathers merely arranged property agreements upon their daughter's marriages without it being about their daughter's and grandchildren's well-being, securing a father for their home?
All children deserve a secure and stable home, including the children of gay couples. It's the children of heterosexual couples who need marriage. As a society we don't need to use marriage to legitimize ALL relationships (adult siblings and adult parent/ child pairs raise children, too,) we need to be more mindful of laws that need to change to help everyone, not try to create a one-size-fits-all solution.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2014, 03:41 PM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(05-03-2014 03:30 PM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(05-03-2014 10:52 AM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  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.

No if we were going by "most statistical advantage" we'd only allow people to procreate after establishing their couple and planning the pregnancy. But that was not the point or argument I was making.

The question is, what role does marriage have in society, what exactly has made it last so long, why have humans adapted so much but still used this single institution as a way to establish kin and pass down property, and what about marriage makes it something the state has an interest in being involved in, beyond the mere scope of enforcing passage of estates and private agreements?

Marriage, in the law, is more than that. Look at state statute, look at common law and mechanisms like presumption of paternity. Do you think it never mattered to women that, once married, her husband would assume legal paternity of any resulting children? Do you think it meant nothing that, if not married, that she might have little to no legal recourse for paternal support for his children she bore? And do you think mothers and fathers merely arranged property agreements upon their daughter's marriages without it being about their daughter's and grandchildren's well-being, securing a father for their home?
All children deserve a secure and stable home, including the children of gay couples. It's the children of heterosexual couples who need marriage. As a society we don't need to use marriage to legitimize ALL relationships (adult siblings and adult parent/ child pairs raise children, too,) we need to be more mindful of laws that need to change to help everyone, not try to create a one-size-fits-all solution.
I fail to see how your pathetic spew of romantical bullshit on what a marriage should or should not be has anything to do with ssm.
I don't care for marriage personally, but everyone has the right to make their own choices. Oppressing certain groups of people is detrimental to society and can lead to civil wars.

I am going to try this for the third time. Why do you think children with homosexual parents do not deserve 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
[+] 1 user Likes Losty's post
05-03-2014, 03:43 PM
RE: Genderless Marriage
Ps. Since you asked, I think marriage has lasted this long because it has been a really great, legal, and socially acceptable way for men to keep control over women.

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, 03:47 PM
RE: Genderless Marriage
You keep speaking of the law as if you understand any of it. Marriage is not an institution made for the children (it never was) you're talking about filiation, and that's a completely different thing, with relation to marriage yes, but hardly based on it.
Paternity presumptions are hardly used any more as DNA testing is a far more reliable method for determination of biological paternity, you're using centuries old ideas to bar people from enjoying rights on modern society.

You don't know or understand what you're talking about, you just made up definitions as if you were the first person to think these stuff.

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like nach_in's post
06-03-2014, 01:17 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(05-03-2014 03:41 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  
(05-03-2014 03:30 PM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  No if we were going by "most statistical advantage" we'd only allow people to procreate after establishing their couple and planning the pregnancy. But that was not the point or argument I was making.

The question is, what role does marriage have in society, what exactly has made it last so long, why have humans adapted so much but still used this single institution as a way to establish kin and pass down property, and what about marriage makes it something the state has an interest in being involved in, beyond the mere scope of enforcing passage of estates and private agreements?

Marriage, in the law, is more than that. Look at state statute, look at common law and mechanisms like presumption of paternity. Do you think it never mattered to women that, once married, her husband would assume legal paternity of any resulting children? Do you think it meant nothing that, if not married, that she might have little to no legal recourse for paternal support for his children she bore? And do you think mothers and fathers merely arranged property agreements upon their daughter's marriages without it being about their daughter's and grandchildren's well-being, securing a father for their home?
All children deserve a secure and stable home, including the children of gay couples. It's the children of heterosexual couples who need marriage. As a society we don't need to use marriage to legitimize ALL relationships (adult siblings and adult parent/ child pairs raise children, too,) we need to be more mindful of laws that need to change to help everyone, not try to create a one-size-fits-all solution.
I fail to see how your pathetic spew of romantical bullshit on what a marriage should or should not be has anything to do with ssm.
I don't care for marriage personally, but everyone has the right to make their own choices. Oppressing certain groups of people is detrimental to society and can lead to civil wars.

I am going to try this for the third time. Why do you think children with homosexual parents do not deserve the advantage of having married parents?

I did answer your question, as much as is possible. Did you not notice the bias built in to your question, as if I asked you, "Do you enjoy beating your children this morning?" Instead, you could have asked me, "Do you think children with homosexual married parents deserve the advantages that are generated by marriage for heterosexual parents?

I would say "Yes, atleast as much as possible."

The historical references I made are not purely romantic, they refer to real concerns and results of the law, how it directly affected the well-being of women, and it still carried over today.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2014, 01:22 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 01:17 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(05-03-2014 03:41 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  I fail to see how your pathetic spew of romantical bullshit on what a marriage should or should not be has anything to do with ssm.
I don't care for marriage personally, but everyone has the right to make their own choices. Oppressing certain groups of people is detrimental to society and can lead to civil wars.

I am going to try this for the third time. Why do you think children with homosexual parents do not deserve the advantage of having married parents?

I did answer your question, as much as is possible. Did you not notice the bias built in to your question, as if I asked you, "Do you enjoy beating your children this morning?" Instead, you could have asked me, "Do you think children with homosexual married parents deserve the advantages that are generated by marriage for heterosexual parents?

I would say "Yes, atleast as much as possible."

The historical references I made are not purely romantic, they refer to real concerns and results of the law, how it directly affected the well-being of women, and it still carried over today.

Fuck off, they directly affected the control of women. I don't want to live in history. I prefer to live now.

So you think the children of homosexual parents deserve the advantage of having married parents, but you think the law should deny them the advantage they deserve. Because you are a sadistic bastard.

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
06-03-2014, 01:26 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(05-03-2014 03:47 PM)nach_in Wrote:  You keep speaking of the law as if you understand any of it. Marriage is not an institution made for the children (it never was) you're talking about filiation, and that's a completely different thing, with relation to marriage yes, but hardly based on it.
Paternity presumptions are hardly used any more as DNA testing is a far more reliable method for determination of biological paternity, you're using centuries old ideas to bar people from enjoying rights on modern society.

You don't know or understand what you're talking about, you just made up definitions as if you were the first person to think these stuff.

Paternity presumption is still very much a part of law.

http://www.biojuris.com/natural/3-2-0.html
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: