Genderless Marriage
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-03-2014, 09:51 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 09:38 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(06-03-2014 09:35 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  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 man and woman have the likelihood of procreating at least during some point during their lives if they have a sexual relationship, as a result of it. The likelihood of a same-sex couple's sexual relationship resulting in a child is zero. And no, for the record, I do not think "gay" sex or sex at all is "icky."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2014, 09:52 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.


How will confining marriage to heterosexuals reduce the number of children who need to be adopted in the first place? Answer: it won't.

you realize that the majority of people who put their child up for adoption are married? There are very few teenage mothers or single mothers who give their child up for adoption. I know this, because I'm going through the adoption process now.

These families put their child up for adoption because they can't afford to have any more.

You aren't making any sense.

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, 09:53 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 09:51 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(06-03-2014 09:38 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  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 man and woman have the likelihood of procreating at least during some point during their lives if they have a sexual relationship, as a result of it. The likelihood of a same-sex couple's sexual relationship resulting in a child is zero. And no, for the record, I do not think "gay" sex or sex at all is "icky."


uh huh. So you are making an exception for infertile couples (like myself) to access outside third parties in order to have a child and still maintain the validity of my marriage.

Why is THIS particular exception okay, but not the SAME exception for ssm allowed?

Why is it okay for one but not the other?

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, 09:55 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 09:49 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(06-03-2014 09:46 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  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.

I conceded the benefit of children being raised by people committed to raising them. My great-grandmother was raised by a group of older siblings and their often absent father. That, too, was much better than being left in the system.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2014, 09:59 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 09:52 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(06-03-2014 09:44 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  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.


How will confining marriage to heterosexuals reduce the number of children who need to be adopted in the first place? Answer: it won't.

you realize that the majority of people who put their child up for adoption are married? There are very few teenage mothers or single mothers who give their child up for adoption. I know this, because I'm going through the adoption process now.

These families put their child up for adoption because they can't afford to have any more.

You aren't making any sense.

Do you have a source for that?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2014, 10:02 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?

The troll is saying that they're already bonded so they should not be allowed to express that bond publicly through marriage.

The overwhelming vibe I keep getting is dont let the gays marry bc then they will have far too many advantages over us straights.

Maybe there is a fear that people will see how gays marry one time, have children, and stick around to raise them. Then gay marriage will become too popular and straight people will start getting gay married too.

Swing with me a while, we can listen to the birds call, we can keep each other warm.
Swing with me forever, we can count up every flower, we can weather every storm.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2014, 10:02 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 09:53 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(06-03-2014 09:51 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  A man and woman have the likelihood of procreating at least during some point during their lives if they have a sexual relationship, as a result of it. The likelihood of a same-sex couple's sexual relationship resulting in a child is zero. And no, for the record, I do not think "gay" sex or sex at all is "icky."


uh huh. So you are making an exception for infertile couples (like myself) to access outside third parties in order to have a child and still maintain the validity of my marriage.

Why is THIS particular exception okay, but not the SAME exception for ssm allowed?

Why is it okay for one but not the other?

There's no exception being made. As a man and a woman, you already conform to the rule. Fertility is not something that can always be easily measured. The mere fact that the couple consists of a man and woman means that, statistcially, they are already more fertile than a same-sex couple. And this falls in line with real-world behavior, too: individuals NEED to know that heterosexual behavior tends to carry unique risks of creating further, long-term obligations...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2014, 10:07 AM
Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 10:02 AM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  
(06-03-2014 09:37 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  Which is bad how?

The troll is saying that they're already bonded so they should not be allowed to express that bond publicly through marriage.

The overwhelming vibe I keep getting is dont let the gays marry bc then they will have far too many advantages over us straights.

Maybe there is a fear that people will see how gays marry one time, have children, and stick around to raise them. Then gay marriage will become too popular and straight people will start getting gay married too.

That's the impression I'm getting from it.

The weird, antiquated belief that exposure to or acceptance of gay and lesbian couples will "turn kids gay" faster than watching Spider-Man dance.

[Image: spider-man-dance-o.gif]

β€œIt is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes rampant.a.i.'s post
06-03-2014, 10:09 AM (This post was last modified: 06-03-2014 10:13 AM by WitchSabrina.)
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 09:51 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(06-03-2014 09:38 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  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 man and woman have the likelihood of procreating at least during some point during their lives if they have a sexual relationship, as a result of it. The likelihood of a same-sex couple's sexual relationship resulting in a child is zero. And no, for the record, I do not think "gay" sex or sex at all is "icky."



LMAO
So you stated to ME that you wish to reduce the NUMBER of children needing adoption. I do believe you've just given us all the Exact way to make that happen:
Same sex marriage = results in (wait for it) ZERO procreation.


(still laughing)


You should just stop.
You are going No where Fast!!!



Checkmate

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, 10:11 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 10:02 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:   you already conform to the rule.


Say no more.







No......really............. SAY NO MORE!!!

This is your position: Confirm to the **rule**.






archaic ass

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: