Genderless Marriage
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-02-2014, 07:42 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
Sorry. So does that mean that it is constitutional?
(Is it just me?)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 07:46 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(13-02-2014 06:59 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  there is no type of human relationship quite like that of a heterosexual couple, and the difference--procreation through sexual relations--is significant and impactful to society.

Time to join the 21st Century, idiot. Couples can have children in many ways today. Is France really THAT backwards ?

(13-02-2014 06:59 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  The harm is that such a concept divorces sex from marriage. IMO a primary reason for state involvement in marriage is much like a stop sign at a busy intersection, it can communicate to people the importance of confining a heterosexual relationship within a marital relationship. Once "sex" is divorced from the concept of "marriage" it can no longer serve as such a signal.

The problem is you have provided NOT ONE LEGITIMATE REASON why YOUR opinions (and that's all they are) need to be imposed on others, OR what good would come of it.

(13-02-2014 06:59 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  there is no type of human relationship quite like that of a heterosexual couple, and the difference--procreation through sexual relations--is significant and impactful to society.

Another assertion with NO reference or ONE reason. Heterosexual marriage is NOT "unique" IF you're not straight. Gay people have kids all the time, idiot. You live under a fucking rock ?

Troll.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
The noblest of the dogs is the hot dog. It feeds the hand that bites it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
13-02-2014, 07:51 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
Gender and sex are very complex.

Sex is the sex (vagina or penis or hermaphrodite, or other, or other) identity of the person. And, one out of every 100 births is sex ambiguous; meaning unidentifiable upon looking or may never see it or may have both sex organs. As you can see, sex is complex.

Gender is feminine, masculine, androgenous, transgender, the list goes on. Gender and sex are so complex that female (vagina) and feminine and masculine and penis (man) do not always complement the way so many believe they should. it's impossible.

Too many are left out of an incomplete or incomprehensive definition of marriage. Also, might as well have a law that states if the couple for whatever reason cannot reproduce, they cannot marry under the law.

"If you want a happy ending, that depends, of course, on where you stop your story." Orson Welles
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dee's post
13-02-2014, 07:52 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(13-02-2014 07:31 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 07:18 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  Thanks for immigrating over to the new post.

Married couples do tend to have sex more frequently.

With a sample size of 1... I'd say: Nah!

Please provide data.

Cheers.

Here ya go:
http://www.siue.edu/~cbwilso/203nhsls99.htm
"Married people reported having sex most frequently."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 07:55 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
Am I the only one who is not making any sense out of this?

As far as the state is concerned, a marriage is simply a legal contract, not necessarily a relationship with the sole purpose of procreation, thus gender is irrelevant.

Many verses are like silver threads
tied on the chimes of the stars-
if you pull them,
a silver peal makes the horizon vibrate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like undergroundp's post
13-02-2014, 07:55 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(13-02-2014 07:42 AM)englishrose Wrote:  Sorry. So does that mean that it is constitutional?
(Is it just me?)

It means that, if passed by law, a same-sex married ban would be constitutional. It was constitutional AND it was the law before the new law legalising ssm was passed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 08:02 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
Well then, that being the case, so what?
The law allowing SSM in France is on the statute books.
Who cares what the law was before?
I must say that I don't quite understand the point you are trying to make in this respect.
Rose
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes englishrose's post
13-02-2014, 08:04 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(13-02-2014 07:52 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 07:31 AM)DLJ Wrote:  With a sample size of 1... I'd say: Nah!

Please provide data.

Cheers.

Here ya go:
http://www.siue.edu/~cbwilso/203nhsls99.htm
"Married people reported having sex most frequently."

Great. Now all ya gotta do is provide the proof that people are better off that way, or that children are better off in heterosexual marriages. You can't, and won't. There is no such study.

Troll

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
The noblest of the dogs is the hot dog. It feeds the hand that bites it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
13-02-2014, 08:04 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(13-02-2014 07:46 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 06:59 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  there is no type of human relationship quite like that of a heterosexual couple, and the difference--procreation through sexual relations--is significant and impactful to society.

Time to join the 21st Century, idiot. Couples can have children in many ways today. Is France really THAT backwards ?

(13-02-2014 06:59 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  The harm is that such a concept divorces sex from marriage. IMO a primary reason for state involvement in marriage is much like a stop sign at a busy intersection, it can communicate to people the importance of confining a heterosexual relationship within a marital relationship. Once "sex" is divorced from the concept of "marriage" it can no longer serve as such a signal.

The problem is you have provided NOT ONE LEGITIMATE REASON why YOUR opinions (and that's all they are) need to be imposed on others, OR what good would come of it.

(13-02-2014 06:59 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  there is no type of human relationship quite like that of a heterosexual couple, and the difference--procreation through sexual relations--is significant and impactful to society.

Another assertion with NO reference or ONE reason. Heterosexual marriage is NOT "unique" IF you're not straight. Gay people have kids all the time, idiot. You live under a fucking rock ?

Troll.

The only way children are created is through sexual reproduction, with a contribution from a female and a contribution from a male. In most cases this occurs naturally, without any artifical help from a third party.

If you don't understand something I say, you are welcome to ask me to elaborate, which I can do.

Heterosexual couples are unique from all other human relationships because they can have children through a sex act. That is what I said. If you don't understand why this is relevant, you are welcome to ask.

I'll say this to you once, if you want to have a civil debate, I am here. Otherwise I would prefer spending my time responding to people who do.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 08:06 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(13-02-2014 08:02 AM)englishrose Wrote:  Well then, that being the case, so what?
The law allowing SSM in France is on the statute books.
Who cares what the law was before?
I must say that I don't quite understand the point you are trying to make in this respect.
Rose

The point is that the ban was not a violation of their rights, and that it was not found to be based on something arbitrary or merely religious.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: