Genderless Marriage
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-03-2014, 07:31 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 07:23 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(06-03-2014 07:06 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  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.

I had similar feelings as well.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2014, 07:36 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 06:40 AM)nach_in Wrote:  
(06-03-2014 06:13 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  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.

Thank you for your thoughts. One thing that immediately jumps to mind is that, to some degree, the law does perform an educational function. It does also legitimize teaching about the danger or relative security of behavior in state-run institutions, like public school and public education agendas. I agree with giving people as much freedom as possible and as much education as possible.

For me, I still see women and young women as being in an especially vulnerable position, because of pregnancy and childbearing and childrearing and all that those entail. So it seems very clear to me that, for their own best interests, girls and women benefit by associating marriage with being the relatively safer place for sex and procreation, and that males do the same, and that either see premarital sex as riskier, something to be avoided or something at minimum to be treated very seriously and cautiously.

You may have said this previously, but do you think about broadening the definition of marriage to be blind to gender will widen the separation between marriage and procreation, or is that gap already there without it? (Speaking in terms of statute, ajudication of parental responsibilities, etc...)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2014, 07:36 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 07:11 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(06-03-2014 06:33 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  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.

ah yes, the slippery slope argument. question: what does this have to do with gay people marrying? Each situation should be argued on its own merits...but it still has nothing to do with gay marriage. Considering that we once made the same slippery slope arguments for banning interracial couples to marry...we can see that the slippery slope arguments are nothing but a knee jerk reaction to something we might consider icky.

Quote: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.

Do you not recognize that the normalizing model of marriage has been constantly changing? Women are no longer property of men (in some countries anyway), women are now allowed to work outside of the home (changing the dynamic of childrearing) without a stigmatization. People can now divorce and engage in adultery without being stoned to death. A woman's bridal virginity is no longer a requirement of marriage. Different races can now marry and so on....

Question for you: Abuse in any system happens regularly. Its human nature to take advantage of incentives and to manipulate them to one's advantage. Do you consider the formalization of say, Anna Nicole Smith, to the 90 year old Mr. Marshal, (which was clearly done for no other reason than for Anna to gain publicity, and have access to spousal survivorship benefits when the old man kicked it) diminish the normalizing model of marriage? Its clearly an abuse to the system. After all, sex was completely nonexistent, as they never consummated their marriage through vaginal intercourse.

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, 07:38 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 07:31 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(06-03-2014 07:23 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  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.

I had similar feelings as well.

If stability and security is your goal for the sake of the people involved and any offspring, how does extending those same benefits to other kinds of relationships diminish their stability or security?

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, 07:48 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 07:36 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  For me, I still see women and young women as being in an especially vulnerable position, because of pregnancy and childbearing and childrearing and all that those entail. So it seems very clear to me that, for their own best interests, girls and women benefit by associating marriage with being the relatively safer place for sex and procreation, and that males do the same, and that either see premarital sex as riskier, something to be avoided or something at minimum to be treated very seriously and cautiously.

Nice theory, however, it completely ignores reality.

So by your logic, unmarried men would consider having sex outside of marriage more risky and therefore would get married in order to have sex? This is complete nonsense!

Premarital sex is no riskier than married sex. The result is the same. Unmarried men and women who practice safe sex have no greater chance of getting pregnant than men and women who are married and practicing safe sex.

Since two people are equally obligated to care for a child (i.e., child support), there really isn't a risk to one parent over another. I think the "risk" you are referring to is the risk of raising a child as a single parent. However, be married doesn't automatically mean you will be raising a child with "help" from the spouse. I know lots of husbands that can barely change a diaper, or refuse to get up with the child, or who are completely away from home for work (i.e., military, oil rig, etc.)

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, 07:52 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
Sorry, double post.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2014, 07:54 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 07:48 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(06-03-2014 07:36 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  For me, I still see women and young women as being in an especially vulnerable position, because of pregnancy and childbearing and childrearing and all that those entail. So it seems very clear to me that, for their own best interests, girls and women benefit by associating marriage with being the relatively safer place for sex and procreation, and that males do the same, and that either see premarital sex as riskier, something to be avoided or something at minimum to be treated very seriously and cautiously.

Nice theory, however, it completely ignores reality.


So by your logic, unmarried men would consider having sex outside of marriage more risky and therefore would get married in order to have sex? This is complete nonsense!

No, either they would be more cautious when having premarital sex or avoid it.

(06-03-2014 07:48 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Premarital sex is no riskier than married sex. The result is the same. Unmarried men and women who practice safe sex have no greater chance of getting pregnant than men and women who are married and practicing safe sex.

The risk of being a coparent with someone you don't want to be with is greater outside marriage than within.

(06-03-2014 07:48 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Since two people are equally obligated to care for a child (i.e., child support), there really isn't a risk to one parent over another. I think the "risk" you are referring to is the risk of raising a child as a single parent. However, be married doesn't automatically mean you will be raising a child with "help" from the spouse. I know lots of husbands that can barely change a diaper, or refuse to get up with the child, or who are completely away from home for work (i.e., military, oil rig, etc.)

Still, a father is more likely to be more involved with the upbringing of his children if he is married to their mother.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2014, 07:56 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 07:36 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(06-03-2014 07:11 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  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.

ah yes, the slippery slope argument. question: what does this have to do with gay people marrying? Each situation should be argued on its own merits...but it still has nothing to do with gay marriage. Considering that we once made the same slippery slope arguments for banning interracial couples to marry...we can see that the slippery slope arguments are nothing but a knee jerk reaction to something we might consider icky.

Quote: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.

Do you not recognize that the normalizing model of marriage has been constantly changing? Women are no longer property of men (in some countries anyway), women are now allowed to work outside of the home (changing the dynamic of childrearing) without a stigmatization. People can now divorce and engage in adultery without being stoned to death. A woman's bridal virginity is no longer a requirement of marriage. Different races can now marry and so on....

Question for you: Abuse in any system happens regularly. Its human nature to take advantage of incentives and to manipulate them to one's advantage. Do you consider the formalization of say, Anna Nicole Smith, to the 90 year old Mr. Marshal, (which was clearly done for no other reason than for Anna to gain publicity, and have access to spousal survivorship benefits when the old man kicked it) diminish the normalizing model of marriage? Its clearly an abuse to the system. After all, sex was completely nonexistent, as they never consummated their marriage through vaginal intercourse.

Yes, I think that, assuming the details you presented, such a situation would count as abuse of the system. Yes is diminishes the normalizing model of marriage. Some abuses cannot, however, be prevented. Intent in such cases before the fact can be nearly impossible to objectively establish by a third party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2014, 08:00 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 07:54 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  Still, a father is more likely to be more involved with the upbringing of his children if he is married to their mother.

Based on the sheer number of divorce and paternal abandonment, I would say this is complete, and utterly, wrong.

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, 08:03 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
Becca - what does marriage mean to you? What role should a woman play? what role should a man play?

the point of my question is that what marriage might mean to you, is different than what marriage might mean to me. Likewise, the roles each gender should play, is completely different from what I think they should play.

The point here being that there are different dynamics of all relationships. And those dynamics do not - in any way - change the dynamic of your relationship. Hence, it could never be diminished.

Further, where did you get it into your head that the exclusivity of a "club" means that more people inherently will want to join it?

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: