Genderless Marriage
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-04-2014, 02:54 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 11:41 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(06-03-2014 10:23 AM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  The idea that heterosexuals should only have sex inside a marriage and that said marriage is for the protection of the woman is a nauseating ideal to me also.
Those are the exact two reasons that parents made me marry when I was 17. They found out I had had sex with my 25 year old boyfriend and they said 1) sex is to be confined to marriage as per god and 2) getting married is for your own protection so you won't end up a single mother.

See how well that went for me? We planned it all out, even bought a home before we had children. I was 19 when my first was born, so married for 2 years before having a child. If you disregard the horrible things he did to me, even sometimes in front of our children. If you disregard the irrational fear I still feel at 6:30 (his coming home time from work), the ideals seem nice.
No I am not in the majority there are plenty of married couples who do not have this issue!
I would say, however, that the number among people who get married for these to reasons is great. Great enough to be considered of importance on a larger scale than just the individual cases.

I would argue that these 2 ideas
1) heterosexual sex should be restricted to marriage
2) marriage is for the protection of women
Ruin the commitment that marriage is supposed to espouse and the advantages that children are supposed to get from having married parents on a far greater scale than same sex marriage ever could!

Clap I agree!! This notion that women need marriage for their protection is absolute nonsense and further indignities the woman to say: You need a man.

How many cases of domestic violence would be avoided if he or she just knew that marriage does not equal safety, or respect, or support. Nor should they ever be pressured to marry someone for survival.

Today, in the 21st century, we marry for L.O.V.E. And women are not "made whole" by a man.

Men need it too, it's just that, because of proximity, a mother will usually end up with the child while the father won't. Neither mother or father are truly autonomous, their child's needs become paramount.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-04-2014, 03:00 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 10:09 AM)WitchSabrina 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."



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

Actually, no, many ssm supporters would argue that marriage is needed to help them procreate through in vitro or surrogacy. In vitro is publicly funded in some countries.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-04-2014, 03:02 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(24-04-2014 02:44 AM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  Oh FFS mothonic cathicgal. You see what you've done!?!? Well do you!?
Facepalm you've awakened the beast.

sorry iam still figuring out this site

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
[+] 1 user Likes Mothonis's post
24-04-2014, 03:04 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(24-04-2014 02:48 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(06-03-2014 11:50 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  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.

Also, Cathy, adopted kids are not the same as "the number of children in need of adoption." There are thousands of children who need adoption but age out of the foster care system without being adopted.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-04-2014, 03:05 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(24-04-2014 03:02 AM)Mothonis Wrote:  
(24-04-2014 02:44 AM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  Oh FFS mothonic cathicgal. You see what you've done!?!? Well do you!?
Facepalm you've awakened the beast.

sorry iam still figuring out this site

I will forgive you if you make it stfu

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
[+] 3 users Like Losty's post
24-04-2014, 06:03 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 11:18 AM)Flowergurl 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:*******
[b]
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.

Says a narrow minded person who has never experienced love for the same sex nor has she considered marriages where one or both parties do not wish to procreate...

Now THAT is what is narrow-minded, thinking that all people having one kind of experience will have the same opinions about marriage. There are gays in ss relationships who oppose ssm.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-04-2014, 06:06 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(24-04-2014 02:44 AM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  Oh FFS mothonic cathicgal. You see what you've done!?!? Well do you!?
Facepalm you've awakened the beast.

To be fair, I don't think I got a chance to smack the fuck out of the bigot in this one. Maybe I'll give it a go if I get bored... Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
24-04-2014, 06:09 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(24-04-2014 06:06 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(24-04-2014 02:44 AM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  Oh FFS mothonic cathicgal. You see what you've done!?!? Well do you!?
Facepalm you've awakened the beast.

To be fair, I don't think I got a chance to smack the fuck out of the bigot in this one. Maybe I'll give it a go if I get bored... Drinking Beverage

It's not worth it. You can't slap the ignorant bigotry out of people sadly. But go for it if you must. I won't say I told you so.

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
24-04-2014, 06:10 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 10:07 AM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  
(06-03-2014 10:02 AM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  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]

That might characterize it IF gays were the only ones who could participate in ssm. But no, same-sex marriage creates a compete shift in the meaning of marriage.

Many people still see "marriage" in "same-sex marriage" and see it as the intimite, romantic, monogomous type of relationship, but that can change, too, and is much more likely to fall out of the definition as a result of ssm.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-04-2014, 06:13 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(24-04-2014 03:00 AM)BeccaBoo 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

Actually, no, many ssm supporters would argue that marriage is needed to help them procreate through in vitro or surrogacy. In vitro is publicly funded in some countries.


Case in point...

I've never even seen a single person express a desire for or support for SSM for the express purpose of in vitro fertilization, which to my knowledge is utilized overwhelmingly by heterosexual couples.

Even if it was true, why would this be a problem for SSM over HSM?


"In vitro is publicly funded in some countries."

Once again, your point is? Even if it was true, why would this be a problem for SSM over HSM?



So is grasping at irrational straws to prop up your bigotry an acquired skill, or are you just stupid? Consider

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: