Genderless Marriage
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-03-2014, 08:12 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 07:56 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(06-03-2014 07:36 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  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.


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.


I disagree. Anna Nicole's sham marriage to that geezer in no way affects the permanency of my marriage. If it does, I am far too concerned about what other people think. For example, my husband's ex wife does not want us to be married. She greatly opposed it. Nor does she respect our commitment and continues to try to insert herself in our marriage. Her objection to our marriage, or her refusal to accept our marriage as a 'real marriage' doesn't affect us in any way. If it did, i would be far too worried about what she thought.

Likewise, your refusal to accept someone else's dynamic in their relationship, doesn't diminish your marriage in any way.

I just don't see the connections you are drawing....

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, 09:04 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 08:12 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I just don't see the connections you are drawing....

I'd say several of us don't, Cath. She just goes to great lengths to justify control of other people's lives and she's using marriage to do it. Her attitudes are archaic and dismissive.

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
06-03-2014, 09:09 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 08:00 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(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.

You think that there is no difference in likelihood of paternal participation between a father married to the mother and the father not married to the mother?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2014, 09:21 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 09:09 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(06-03-2014 08:00 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Based on the sheer number of divorce and paternal abandonment, I would say this is complete, and utterly, wrong.

You think that there is no difference in likelihood of paternal participation between a father married to the mother and the father not married to the mother?

No. There is no difference in the likelihood at all. Why? because there is a difference between correlation and causation. Being married does not cause a father to be involved in his child's life. The correlation is that married couples want to be in a relationship. The causation is that that those who want to be in a relationship will stay in that relationship even if an unexpected child happens.

Couples are involved in their children's lives more frequently when they remain in a committed relationship, because they want to be in the relationship. I know lots of couples who are unmarried, yet in a committed relationship to each other and are parents to their children. Wanting to be in a relationship is what causes a parent to stick around. Not because they are married or not.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

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, 09:22 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 08:03 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  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?

I am not arguing that the exclusivity of marriage would give it more allure.

People pair-bond, this is a quite natural tendency. A lot of pair bonds can occur independent of special legal protections, while there are also special legal protections that are available to pair bonds, like power of attorney and other non-marital contracts. Independent of pair-bonding, people also have the ability, through heterosexual behavior, to create parental bonds when that behavior results in children. Seeing as the state has a duty to help protect children, it makes sense to try to promote behavior where individuals voluntarily confine procreation to monogamous pair-bonds. Part of that means defining marriage as an institution especially intended for these procreative pair-bonds; the definition as between a man and woman implicitly does this.

That is the dynamic of marriage at its most basic.

I do think that the less people associate the concept of marriage with that of a relatively safer situation in which to have children, less people will do what is necessary to try to confine procreation to a marital relationship.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2014, 09:25 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 09:22 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(06-03-2014 08:03 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  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?

I am not arguing that the exclusivity of marriage would give it more allure.

People pair-bond, this is a quite natural tendency. A lot of pair bonds can occur independent of special legal protections, while there are also special legal protections that are available to pair bonds, like power of attorney and other non-marital contracts. Independent of pair-bonding, people also have the ability, through heterosexual behavior, to create parental bonds when that behavior results in children. Seeing as the state has a duty to help protect children, it makes sense to try to promote behavior where individuals voluntarily confine procreation to monogamous pair-bonds. Part of that means defining marriage as an institution especially intended for these procreative pair-bonds; the definition as between a man and woman implicitly does this.

That is the dynamic of marriage at its most basic.

I do think that the less people associate the concept of marriage with that of a relatively safer situation in which to have children, less people will do what is necessary to try to confine procreation to a marital relationship.


That still doesn't follow as to why procreation must be confined to a marital relationship?

I can't help but to notice that when there was the objection about interracial marriage, that those opponents also insisted that blacks must procreate with blacks, and whites must procreate with whites. And if there was a dynamic change, that it somehow created a more hostile parent relationship with the offspring. Thats poppycock.

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, 09:27 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 09:21 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(06-03-2014 09:09 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  You think that there is no difference in likelihood of paternal participation between a father married to the mother and the father not married to the mother?

No. There is no difference in the likelihood at all. Why? because there is a difference between correlation and causation. Being married does not cause a father to be involved in his child's life. The correlation is that married couples want to be in a relationship. The causation is that that those who want to be in a relationship will stay in that relationship even if an unexpected child happens.

Couples are involved in their children's lives more frequently when they remain in a committed relationship, because they want to be in the relationship. I know lots of couples who are unmarried, yet in a committed relationship to each other and are parents to their children. Wanting to be in a relationship is what causes a parent to stick around. Not because they are married or not.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Marriage tends to be an outward sign of an inward commitment. A man being willing to marry, to make that public declaration, is one of many signs that he wants to be with and commit to a woman.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2014, 09:29 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 09:27 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(06-03-2014 09:21 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  No. There is no difference in the likelihood at all. Why? because there is a difference between correlation and causation. Being married does not cause a father to be involved in his child's life. The correlation is that married couples want to be in a relationship. The causation is that that those who want to be in a relationship will stay in that relationship even if an unexpected child happens.

Couples are involved in their children's lives more frequently when they remain in a committed relationship, because they want to be in the relationship. I know lots of couples who are unmarried, yet in a committed relationship to each other and are parents to their children. Wanting to be in a relationship is what causes a parent to stick around. Not because they are married or not.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Marriage tends to be an outward sign of an inward commitment. A man being willing to marry, to make that public declaration, is one of many signs that he wants to be with and commit to a woman.

exactly. So the causation here is the level of commitment. Not the actual marriage.

further. what does this have to do with gay marriage?! a gay couple would make those same outward signs of inward commitment, be parents to their offspring, and the world is a better place for 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
[+] 1 user Likes Cathym112's post
06-03-2014, 09:30 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 09:25 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(06-03-2014 09:22 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  I am not arguing that the exclusivity of marriage would give it more allure.

People pair-bond, this is a quite natural tendency. A lot of pair bonds can occur independent of special legal protections, while there are also special legal protections that are available to pair bonds, like power of attorney and other non-marital contracts. Independent of pair-bonding, people also have the ability, through heterosexual behavior, to create parental bonds when that behavior results in children. Seeing as the state has a duty to help protect children, it makes sense to try to promote behavior where individuals voluntarily confine procreation to monogamous pair-bonds. Part of that means defining marriage as an institution especially intended for these procreative pair-bonds; the definition as between a man and woman implicitly does this.

That is the dynamic of marriage at its most basic.

I do think that the less people associate the concept of marriage with that of a relatively safer situation in which to have children, less people will do what is necessary to try to confine procreation to a marital relationship.


That still doesn't follow as to why procreation must be confined to a marital relationship?

I can't help but to notice that when there was the objection about interracial marriage, that those opponents also insisted that blacks must procreate with blacks, and whites must procreate with whites. And if there was a dynamic change, that it somehow created a more hostile parent relationship with the offspring. Thats poppycock.

I said "confine procreation to monogamous pair-bonds."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2014, 09:32 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 09:09 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(06-03-2014 08:00 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Based on the sheer number of divorce and paternal abandonment, I would say this is complete, and utterly, wrong.

You think that there is no difference in likelihood of paternal participation between a father married to the mother and the father not married to the mother?


In what instance? Such as the instance of children up for adoption? Because more often than not in same-sex marriages - they adopt.
Let's check your argument of father-involvement of those children left for adoption, shall we?

Nearly every single person would agree that adoption is a far better state for a child than living in the 'system'. And many reports have been given over the past 50 yrs of how a child WANTED (ie adoption) is actually a better life than a child born simply due to marriage and family-making pressures of society.

You think inside a box.

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WitchSabrina's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: