Genderless Marriage
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-03-2014, 11:50 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 10:24 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  
(06-03-2014 10:09 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  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



Crickets


She seems to think that by virtue of being married, that any unplanned pregnancies will be: 1) carried to term; and 2) reared by their biological parents.

She is misguided due to the inherent lack of actual research on this matter. To her defense, it is mainly because as of recently, 99.9% of all adoptions were closed adoptions. In closed adoptions, to protect "the privacy of the mother", those records are sealed by a court order. The statistics simply just weren't available to gather. Now, closed adoptions are becoming less and less popular in favor of open adoptions, where the child can have access to their history.

The number of children placed for adoption has nothing to do with one's age, or marital status, but is directly correlated with the state of the economy. When the economy is bad, more children are placed for adoption. When the economy is good, less children are placed for adoption.

She doesn't seem to know that the majority of children placed for adoption are NOT from unwed teenage mothers, but from older women, often married, who simply cannot afford any (or another) child.

Since I'm now in the adoption circles, I know many parents (virtually at least) who have adopted. One parent is adopting a little boy from a married couple that already have 4 children and cannot afford a 5th. It would literally put them on welfare to do so. So instead of bringing everyone down to poverty, they opted for adoption so that their child may live in an environment that can provide for them.

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, 01:44 PM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(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.

Your opposition to SSM has absolutely nothing to do with reducing the number of children in need of adoption.

Your opposition to SSM absolutely reduces the opportunities for adoption of children.

Same-sex couples who are married and adopt provide a more stable legal foundation than unmarried ones.

Your opposition to same-sex marriage is irrational.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Chas's post
06-03-2014, 01:53 PM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 01:44 PM)Chas 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.

Your opposition to SSM has absolutely nothing to do with reducing the number of children in need of adoption.

Your opposition to SSM absolutely reduces the opportunities for adoption of children.

Same-sex couples who are married and adopt provide a more stable legal foundation than unmarried ones.

Your opposition to same-sex marriage is irrational.
While calling her irrational is nicer than sadistic bastard, both are true and mine is more fun Tongue

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
[+] 1 user Likes Losty's post
06-03-2014, 02:38 PM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 07:36 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(06-03-2014 06:40 AM)nach_in Wrote:  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...)


No it wouldn't, the gap is there and won't grow, it may even be smaller if the laws are well made and responsibility is well distributed.

Again, marriage is not an institution meant for the children, is meant for the couple, the children are benefited indirectly by it, but are protected by other.

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes nach_in's post
06-03-2014, 03:34 PM
RE: Genderless Marriage
And we have

CricketsCrickets

crickets............ so..............

debate over?
Clap for the forum
Zero for the bigot!!!

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
24-04-2014, 02:14 AM (This post was last modified: 24-04-2014 02:23 AM by Mothonis.)
RE: Genderless Marriage
(13-02-2014 06:59 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  ***I'm taking this from my comments in a previous thread, which I had made after the thread had been buried. It was recommended that I start a new one, so, here goes:*******

Why defining marriage as between a man and woman is constitutional:


Some food for thought to start: The high court of France has indeed found it constitutional to restrict marriage to man and woman. This is in a country that embraces the political doctrine of allowing no entity (like church) between a citizen and the state. So, there must be some explicit and implicit reasoning outside of religion which supports the idea. And before anyone points it out, yes, I know France is different and has no authority over US law, obviously. Yet I do have immense respect for the French and their fairly consistent ability to analyze sides of an argument. Watch the daily French news programs and talking heads and (if they understood the language) many Americans would be bored to tears, while there actually is a French audience for long, drawn-out philosophical exchanges.

Ok. So, I do oppose "genderless" marriage, where marriage is defined without consideration of the gender of either party.

This is constitutional because equal treatment applies to treating like groups the same, and there is no type of human relationship quite like that of a heterosexual couple, and the difference--procreation through sexual relations--is significant and impactful to society.



Why same-sex or "genderless" marriage is harmful:

The harm is that such a concept divorces sex from marriage. IMO a primary reason for state involvement in marriage is much like a stop sign at a busy intersection, it can communicate to people the importance of confining a heterosexual relationship within a marital relationship. Once "sex" is divorced from the concept of "marriage" it can no longer serve as such a signal.
Just because a couple gets married doesn't mean they are required to procreate,how they conduct their marriage is their bissnuss not anyone elses

Blessed are those who worship Talos's rule,and follow the teachings of his prophet Heimskir,peace be apon him.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-04-2014, 02:17 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(24-04-2014 02:14 AM)Mothonis Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 06:59 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  ***I'm taking this from my comments in a previous thread, which I had made after the thread had been buried. It was recommended that I start a new one, so, here goes:*******

Why defining marriage as between a man and woman is constitutional:


Some food for thought to start: The high court of France has indeed found it constitutional to restrict marriage to man and woman. This is in a country that embraces the political doctrine of allowing no entity (like church) between a citizen and the state. So, there must be some explicit and implicit reasoning outside of religion which supports the idea. And before anyone points it out, yes, I know France is different and has no authority over US law, obviously. Yet I do have immense respect for the French and their fairly consistent ability to analyze sides of an argument. Watch the daily French news programs and talking heads and (if they understood the language) many Americans would be bored to tears, while there actually is a French audience for long, drawn-out philosophical exchanges.

Ok. So, I do oppose "genderless" marriage, where marriage is defined without consideration of the gender of either party.

This is constitutional because equal treatment applies to treating like groups the same, and there is no type of human relationship quite like that of a heterosexual couple, and the difference--procreation through sexual relations--is significant and impactful to society.



Why same-sex or "genderless" marriage is harmful:

The harm is that such a concept divorces sex from marriage. IMO a primary reason for state involvement in marriage is much like a stop sign at a busy intersection, it can communicate to people the importance of confining a heterosexual relationship within a marital relationship. Once "sex" is divorced from the concept of "marriage" it can no longer serve as such a signal.

This thread is dead. Let it rot in peace

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
24-04-2014, 02:41 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 02:38 PM)nach_in Wrote:  
(06-03-2014 07:36 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  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...)


No it wouldn't, the gap is there and won't grow, it may even be smaller if the laws are well made and responsibility is well distributed.

Again, marriage is not an institution meant for the children, is meant for the couple, the children are benefited indirectly by it, but are protected by other.

Can I ask what country's legal and historical perspective you are looking from?

I don't agree that marriage is not meant for the children. It is an institution built for the participation of adults, made publicly necessary because of children.

I know that you see family laws as the protections for children, but the thing is, paternity, custody, and enforceable parental rights and obligations are all part of responding to conflict when they occur. It is much better to help prevent it from happening in the first place, and marriage can help to do that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-04-2014, 02:44 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
Oh FFS mothonic cathicgal. You see what you've done!?!? Well do you!?
Facepalm you've awakened the beast.

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
24-04-2014, 02:48 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 11:50 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(06-03-2014 10:24 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  Crickets


She seems to think that by virtue of being married, that any unplanned pregnancies will be: 1) carried to term; and 2) reared by their biological parents.

She is misguided due to the inherent lack of actual research on this matter. To her defense, it is mainly because as of recently, 99.9% of all adoptions were closed adoptions. In closed adoptions, to protect "the privacy of the mother", those records are sealed by a court order. The statistics simply just weren't available to gather. Now, closed adoptions are becoming less and less popular in favor of open adoptions, where the child can have access to their history.

The number of children placed for adoption has nothing to do with one's age, or marital status, but is directly correlated with the state of the economy. When the economy is bad, more children are placed for adoption. When the economy is good, less children are placed for adoption.

She doesn't seem to know that the majority of children placed for adoption are NOT from unwed teenage mothers, but from older women, often married, who simply cannot afford any (or another) child.

Since I'm now in the adoption circles, I know many parents (virtually at least) who have adopted. One parent is adopting a little boy from a married couple that already have 4 children and cannot afford a 5th. It would literally put them on welfare to do so. So instead of bringing everyone down to poverty, they opted for adoption so that their child may live in an environment that can provide for them.

Look at it from the whole picture. Not just adoption, but all children, and not even children, but potential. There are women and men out there who use the fact that they are not married as the guide for their behavior regarding creating children in the first place. For many woman, for example, the chance of being a mother became foregone because they were never married.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: