Genderless Marriage
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-03-2014, 09:35 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 09:29 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(06-03-2014 09:27 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  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.

The legalisation of marriage helps to advertise the singular importance of confining procreative sexual relationships to marriage.

When a gay couple procreates, always with the particpation of a third party, they must already go through some process of mutually committing to parent the child.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2014, 09:35 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 09:30 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(06-03-2014 09:25 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  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."


[Image: box_dimensions_1_1_1_1_1_1_1_1_1_1_1_1_1_1_1_1_1.jpg]

The height of your box is ignorance
The width of your box is bigot ism
The length of your box is control

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
06-03-2014, 09:36 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 09:30 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(06-03-2014 09:25 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  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."

and therefore gay marriage would be exactly that.....confining procreation to a monogamous pair bond.

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, 09:37 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 09:35 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  When a gay couple procreates, always with the particpation of a third party, they must already go through some process of mutually committing to parent the child.


Which is bad how?

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, 09:38 AM (This post was last modified: 06-03-2014 09:41 AM by Cathym112.)
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 09:35 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(06-03-2014 09:29 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  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.

The legalisation of marriage helps to advertise the singular importance of confining procreative sexual relationships to marriage.

When a gay couple procreates, always with the particpation of a third party, they must already go through some process of mutually committing to parent the child.

uh huh. So in my heterosexual marriage to my husband, where we now are using a sperm donor to become pregnant, this somehow diminishes YOUR marriage because my husband and I cannot procreate vis-a-vis normal channels? (we are also on the adoption lists) Or that the legitimacy of my marriage is questionable because we cannot confine our marriage to a normal procreative sexual relationships and therefore must use a third party?

Thats incredibly insulting to me.

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, 09:40 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
ok. lets just get this out there. You think gay sex is icky. And thats why you oppose it.

Lets just call a spade a spade and not waste all this time of faux justifications for your squeamishness.

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, 09:44 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 09:32 AM)WitchSabrina 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?


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.

Most children are not up for adoption, nor in state care. However, when needed, adoption is great. I don't oppose adoption by same-sex couples.

Perhaps a child who is adopted generally fairs better than the average child. But most children, the vast majority, still live outside or reach of that. What I am talking about is directly related to trying to reduce the number of children who need to be adopted in the first place.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2014, 09:46 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 09:37 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  
(06-03-2014 09:35 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  When a gay couple procreates, always with the particpation of a third party, they must already go through some process of mutually committing to parent the child.


Which is bad how?

It's not bad at all, on the contrary. My point is that the children of gay couples inherently have parents who've already mutually committed to raising them. That is not true of children of heterosexual couples, which is why it is important for the state to promote confining heterosexual behavior to marital relationships.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2014, 09:49 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 09:46 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(06-03-2014 09:37 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  Which is bad how?

It's not bad at all, on the contrary. My point is that the children of gay couples inherently have parents who've already mutually committed to raising them. That is not true of children of heterosexual couples, which is why it is important for the state to promote confining heterosexual behavior to marital relationships.


You do not draw any coherent lines here. In one sentence, you concede the benefit of gay marriage, and in the next, you restrict marriage to heterosexuals.

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, 09:50 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 09:44 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(06-03-2014 09:32 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  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.

Most children are not up for adoption, nor in state care. However, when needed, adoption is great. I don't oppose adoption by same-sex couples.

Perhaps a child who is adopted generally fairs better than the average child. But most children, the vast majority, still live outside or reach of that. What I am talking about is directly related to trying to reduce the number of children who need to be adopted in the first place.

Which is fine. But we can also reduce the number of children waiting to be adopted by.........allowing them to BE adopted by same sex couples.
And you cannot deny that the couple's lives and the lives OF those children would greatly benefit IF/When those of the couple are allowed to marry.

So............ there's that.

No not all same-sex couples wish to adopt or have children.
But then raising kids isn't the ONLY reason for marriage.

THAT is the box you're demanding with your archaic attitude.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: