Genderless Marriage
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-03-2014, 06:33 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 06:28 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(06-03-2014 06:21 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Hmmmm....so are lesbian couples more fertile than heterosexual couples because both parties of the marriage can become pregnant? That's two children at a time vs only one child child at a time (twins excluded).

The need for artificial insemination does not nullify a heterosexual union. (Like would be the case for my marriage. We need help from another source)

Therefore, I just don't understand your arguement. Why is it ok for infertile couples to need help procreating (and it doesn't nullify or diminish their union) but if a homosexual couple needs this help - well then they should be married?

Thanks for asking. Please see the post above to see if that helps you see where I am coming from.

Nope. I still don't see how fertility help to a Ssm nullifies a union anymore than fertility help to a hsm is normalized and accepted.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2014, 06:37 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
Establishing paternity is completely irrevant, IMO. The issue started as a way to establish who is responsible for the offspring. Why should it matter that the person(s) establishing their responsibility for a child are one gender over another?

Last time I checked, money still spends the same from a woman than it does for a man...

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cathym112's post
06-03-2014, 06:40 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 06:13 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(06-03-2014 05:29 AM)nach_in Wrote:  I agree completely, and to manage that we need to have clearly defined institutions that articulate with each other. That's why civil unions for same sex couples are so controversial, because it just messes all the institutions and creates a segregation-esque system.

And that's why I said in earlier posts that it's not legally logical to have different institutions, it created a precarious situation for children, it makes evasion of responsibility easier for parents, it makes everything more convoluted for no actual reason.

For example, adoption of the children of one spouse in a marriage situation is almost automatic (given certain requirements of course). If we negate this to ss couples then the both the kids and the couple's rights are diminshed

Edit: btw, my professor's flight was cancelled so they moved the exam for tomorrow... I pulled an all nighter so I'm falling apart right now, sorry if I sound less intelligible than usual Tongue

No problem, I was a little worried about distracting you but figured you know yourself best. Wink

By "we need to have clearly defined institutions that articulate with each other" are you speaking in state-to-state terms, meaning the marital institution in any one state needs to be clearly defined so as to be well understood in another state?

I do agree that civil unions and domestic partnerships are the wrong path, I recanted that position during the course of the thread when I realised the problem of aligning pair-bonds to legal parents is perhaps made even worse. And that's the closest I been, so far, to eliminating my resistance/opposition to same-sex marriage.

The thing that still holds me back is knowing that heterosexual behavior can create these parental relationships independent of pair bonds, which is not the case for other pair-bonds. It stands to reason that, an institution based on the heteronormative model that is legally applied regardless of sexual orientation must eventually give way to a much broader model. These changes can happen slowly from a personal perspective but relatively quickly from a historical perspective.

The broader model, then, would be something that formalizes pair bonds. Remember how my OP claimed that same-sex marriage divorces sex/procreation from marriage? My concern is about what happens to the management of those parental relationships after all the dust settles. Is it more or less efficient? If less, how does society compensate for it? Maybe you can help me find a satisfactory answer.

I think that the problem is in that you mix marriage with filiation. They are related, of course, but are two completely different things.
So you could simplify your reasoning by not considering parenting when you think about marriage and everything would be pretty much the same.

If you're concerned about trying to make parents stick together for the sake of the offspring, then you make that by creating an incentive between the two institutions. For example, a tax exemption for married couples with children, maybe a higher exemption if those children are filiated to both spouses, it may create problems with equality between the children and the right to identity (can't force a kid to give up his last name just so he enjoys a tax cut) but that's a matter of getting creative with how you juggle incentives and rights.
But barring a class of pair bonds from an institution just so other class feels special about being part of that institution is silly, it wouldn't work, and it creates more problems than it solves.

If you ask me, the best way to solve a social problem is never on the law, law only serves to crystallize a status quo, but it doesn't makes things better or worse by itself... maybe on business, but that's about it.
If you want to promote responsible parenthood, then you do that by giving people all the freedoms possible within reason to plan their private lives, and educating them on every aspect of that part of life as possible. That way couples won't have children in an unstable relationship, or unwanted pregnancies, etc. Or at least the frequency of those events would be greatly reduced and the off cases can be dealt by the application of law to keep things as amicable as possible.

But if you want to make people to behave by passing this or that law, with this or that detail, you'll fail miserably, look at what happened with racism, people didn't stop being racist because some law passed. They stopped because they realized it was stupid, and then the law passed, legitimizing that situation and giving strength to an already strong movement. Now the laws serve to repair the damages that the lingering racism creates.

And if some kids can't have both parents together, then you force the absent parent to compensate that lack with money. I know it's far from ideal, but we can't have both freedom and uniformity, and we'll always have problematic situations.

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like nach_in's post
06-03-2014, 06:53 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(13-02-2014 10:38 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 09:02 AM)englishrose Wrote:  Errrr, who said same sex couples don't have sex whether they're married or not.
Still not making sense to me.

It's actually not about what homosexuals will do, it's about what heterosexuals will do, that's the problem. If heterosexuals think of marriage as something independent of sex, they'll be less likely to put the two together. I do think that is likely a consequence of same-sex marriage.

Here's an example: We already know that "convenience" marriages exist, however, same-sex marriage will make it easier for heterosexuals to have convenience marriages, because they can just find a same-sex platonic friend to marry, having their own separate sex lives, without the worry of or the real jealousy of someone that might be attracted to them.

Another way to understand how ssm further helps to divorce sex from marriage is the arguments frequently used to support ssm, for instance,
"1. Marriage is only a contract between consenting adults.
2. Marriage is not about procreation.
3. Marriage does not require sex and people are allowed to have sex outside of marriage."
Isn't it reasonable to assume that the people who are using and agreeing with these statements actually believe them? Then, that people will take them at their word?

Ahhh...now I see where you are coming from. Unfortunately, I think this assertion is juvenile.

Marriage is - at the heart of it - a state of mind. I desired to get married not because of the sex - I had that regardless, nor did I get married for the legal benefits and spousal survivorship, nor did I get married to have children as that can occur outside of marriage. What you seem to be saying - correct me if I'm wrong here - is that the allowance of other types of marriages will alter one's state of mind as to what marriage means to them. This is nonsense as the same assertion can be made that having the option of divorce somehow changes the permanency (as a state of mind) of their marriage.

I got married as a public declaration of my permanent commitment to one person. The prevalence of divorce doesn't in any way affect my marriage.

Getting married doesn't magically make your behavior different. If only people would realize this, there would probably be less divorce. I know lots of people who are "married" yet act as though they are single.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Cathym112's post
06-03-2014, 06:58 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 06:53 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 10:38 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  It's actually not about what homosexuals will do, it's about what heterosexuals will do, that's the problem. If heterosexuals think of marriage as something independent of sex, they'll be less likely to put the two together. I do think that is likely a consequence of same-sex marriage.

Here's an example: We already know that "convenience" marriages exist, however, same-sex marriage will make it easier for heterosexuals to have convenience marriages, because they can just find a same-sex platonic friend to marry, having their own separate sex lives, without the worry of or the real jealousy of someone that might be attracted to them.

Another way to understand how ssm further helps to divorce sex from marriage is the arguments frequently used to support ssm, for instance,
"1. Marriage is only a contract between consenting adults.
2. Marriage is not about procreation.
3. Marriage does not require sex and people are allowed to have sex outside of marriage."
Isn't it reasonable to assume that the people who are using and agreeing with these statements actually believe them? Then, that people will take them at their word?

Ahhh...now I see where you are coming from. Unfortunately, I think this assertion is juvenile.

Marriage is - at the heart of it - a state of mind. I desired to get married not because of the sex - I had that regardless, nor did I get married for the legal benefits and spousal survivorship, nor did I get married to have children as that can occur outside of marriage. What you seem to be saying - correct me if I'm wrong here - is that the allowance of other types of marriages will alter one's state of mind as to what marriage means to them. This is nonsense as the same assertion can be made that having the option of divorce somehow changes the permanency (as a state of mind) of their marriage.

I got married as a public declaration of my permanent commitment to one person. The prevalence of divorce doesn't in any way affect my marriage.

Getting married doesn't magically make your behavior different. If only people would realize this, there would probably be less divorce. I know lots of people who are "married" yet act as though they are single.

The state of mind about marriage is also pertinent outside marriage. Question for you: did you feel or think that the situation of having children was more secure within marriage (that state of mind and outward display of permanent commitment to one person) than outside of marriage?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2014, 07:03 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 06:58 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  The state of mind about marriage is also pertinent outside marriage. Question for you: did you feel or think that the situation of having children was more secure within marriage (that state of mind and outward display of permanent commitment to one person) than outside of marriage?

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you asking me if I would feel more stable having children in a relationship that was legally married vs having children with someone with whom I was not married?

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2014, 07:06 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 07:03 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(06-03-2014 06:58 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  The state of mind about marriage is also pertinent outside marriage. Question for you: did you feel or think that the situation of having children was more secure within marriage (that state of mind and outward display of permanent commitment to one person) than outside of marriage?

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you asking me if I would feel more stable having children in a relationship that was legally married vs having children with someone with whom I was not married?

I'm asking how you felt about having children before you were married. Did you feel that that time was less stable--for the purpose of having children-- than it was after you became married?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2014, 07:11 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 06:33 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(06-03-2014 06:28 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  Thanks for asking. Please see the post above to see if that helps you see where I am coming from.

Nope. I still don't see how fertility help to a Ssm nullifies a union anymore than fertility help to a hsm is normalized and accepted.

In the post I asked you to read I spoke about formalizing pair-bonds, not nullifying them. So it would be, what unions are eligible for formalisation and why?

My FIL's cousins are sisters. They have lived together their entire lives, neither married, neither with children. However, there are other sibling pairs out there in joint households, and there are also pairs of adult parent and child in joint households. Do you believe these sisters or other close relatives should be allowed to marry? If not, why not? My answer would be, no, because it could normalise a situation of diminished consentability, that's assuming that close relatives have the potential to exert extreme amounts of influence, so it would be better to not allow such formalisation. The existence of some people abusing or misusing their influence (resulting in incest) is the reason for not allowing formalising in all cases of close relatives.

The point of the reference to incest is to show that there are reasonable arguments restricting law-abiding citizens, due to the danger of other people taking advantage of the law and misusing and abusing their personal influence.

My argument is not about making homosexuals out to be immoral or bad or less-deserving, it is about the concern that changing the normalising model of marriage can affect the way heterosexual behavior is managed on a personal level. When people see marriage as something independent of procreation, I think there is danger of more harmful behavior, (having unprotected sex outside marriage, having children outside marriage without a thought to creating a stable relationships with the father first, and so on...) especially among those people who are already disadvantaged socially and economicially. And then there are also the legal consequences that may be inevitable after the implications of the new law has run their course through the system.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2014, 07:15 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 07:11 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  My argument is not about making homosexuals out to be immoral or bad or less-deserving, it is about the concern that changing the normalising model of marriage can affect the way heterosexual behavior is managed on a personal level. When people see marriage as something independent of procreation, I think there is danger of more harmful behavior, (having unprotected sex outside marriage, having children outside marriage without a thought to creating a stable relationships with the father first, and so on...) especially among those people who are already disadvantaged socially and economicially.

So you're making a gigantic assumption and then a few more faulty extrapolations based on it? That's your argument?

Gotcha.

(06-03-2014 07:11 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  And then there are also the legal consequences that may be inevitable after the implications of the new law has run their course through the system.

One of which would be "treating people equally". The horror!

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
06-03-2014, 07:23 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 07:06 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(06-03-2014 07:03 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you asking me if I would feel more stable having children in a relationship that was legally married vs having children with someone with whom I was not married?

I'm asking how you felt about having children before you were married. Did you feel that that time was less stable--for the purpose of having children-- than it was after you became married?

The stability of a marriage has nothing to do with the legal contract/formalization of marriage. I wouldn't have children in a marriage where my spouse was clearly not married to me (in his state of mind). Again, the reason I desired to marry was the public pronouncement of one's commitment to another person on a permanent basis.

I felt more secure in my relationship after my spouse publicly declared - to all his friends and family - that he considered himself married to me. The fact that I am his second wife was completely irrelevant. Just because he had been married and divorced before, did not equivocate the possible temporality of his statement.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: