Genderless Marriage
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-02-2014, 08:36 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
I just can't see why allowing everyone to participate in marriage should somehow denigrate it.

Surely making it open to all shows how important it is and that it is to be encouraged.
For the record, I am not gay, I am married and I have one child (from a previous marriage as it happens) and I have just turned 50.

My husband and I married in our late 40s and we're pretty much unlikely to have children (it certainly was not on the list of priorities).

No-one made it a pre-requisite of our marriage that we should have children.

I just don't get why people are so concerned about what goes on behind someone's bedroom door between consenting adults and why that should have a bearing on someone's rights.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes englishrose's post
13-02-2014, 08:37 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(13-02-2014 07:55 AM)undergroundp Wrote:  Am I the only one who is not making any sense out of this?

As far as the state is concerned, a marriage is simply a legal contract, not necessarily a relationship with the sole purpose of procreation, thus gender is irrelevant.

When marriage is defined as between a man and woman, then we can already say that in itself is a fertility test, because a man and woman are more fertile (greater than zero) together than same-sex couples (zero fertility) together. Because it was generally accepted that marriage was heterosexual in nature, there was no need to stipulate that they could procreate or that they did procreate, because in all likelihood they would procreate. The state benefit was, therefore, about synthesizing those relationships with commitment, monogamy, and joint households.

In most cases for a child, neither parent has lost their parental rights. So except in the cases where parental rights have been taken away or given up from one or both parents and then replaced by new legal parents, this is true: a child is better off when in the care of their married biological parents.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 08:39 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(13-02-2014 07:34 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 07:19 AM)englishrose Wrote:  Hi BeccaBoo
I live in France and I can't find any reference to same sex marriage being ruled unconstitutional here. Could you provide me with an article or something please.
I do know that the new law which was passed last year allowing same sex marriages was challenged in the constitutional court and ruled to be constitutional. Has that now been reversed?
Thanks.
Rose

I am referring to the court decision before the new law legalising same-sex marriage. That court decision upheld the ban. Therefore, a ssm ban is not unconsitutional in France, but as of now same-sex marriage law is also not unconstitutional.

I live in France, too. Hi from Alsace! Smile

The new law overruled the old. There is a reason for that.

Marriage isn't solely for the purpose of procreation.

Your strawman of "genderless" marriage is disgusting.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 08:41 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(13-02-2014 08:36 AM)englishrose Wrote:  I just can't see why allowing everyone to participate in marriage should somehow denigrate it.

Surely making it open to all shows how important it is and that it is to be encouraged.
For the record, I am not gay, I am married and I have one child (from a previous marriage as it happens) and I have just turned 50.

My husband and I married in our late 40s and we're pretty much unlikely to have children (it certainly was not on the list of priorities).

No-one made it a pre-requisite of our marriage that we should have children.

I just don't get why people are so concerned about what goes on behind someone's bedroom door between consenting adults and why that should have a bearing on someone's rights.

Please see if my response in post 32 addresses this.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 08:47 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(13-02-2014 08:39 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 07:34 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  I am referring to the court decision before the new law legalising same-sex marriage. That court decision upheld the ban. Therefore, a ssm ban is not unconsitutional in France, but as of now same-sex marriage law is also not unconstitutional.

I live in France, too. Hi from Alsace! Smile

The new law overruled the old. There is a reason for that.

Marriage isn't solely for the purpose of procreation.

Your strawman of "genderless" marriage is disgusting.

My point was that the French court found the ban to be rational and upheld it. A new law was passed based on the opinions of the leaders who voted on it and then, probably, individual voters.

"Genderless" is just another way of saying that the law does not consider the gender of either party.

Procreation does impact society significantly, it creates society, so it stands to reason that the way it occurs, within a stable or unstable relationship is relevant enough to have some kind of social institution promoting the former.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 08:47 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(13-02-2014 08:37 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 07:55 AM)undergroundp Wrote:  Am I the only one who is not making any sense out of this?

As far as the state is concerned, a marriage is simply a legal contract, not necessarily a relationship with the sole purpose of procreation, thus gender is irrelevant.

When marriage is defined as between a man and woman, then we can already say that in itself is a fertility test, because a man and woman are more fertile (greater than zero) together than same-sex couples (zero fertility) together. Because it was generally accepted that marriage was heterosexual in nature, there was no need to stipulate that they could procreate or that they did procreate, because in all likelihood they would procreate. The state benefit was, therefore, about synthesizing those relationships with commitment, monogamy, and joint households.

In most cases for a child, neither parent has lost their parental rights. So except in the cases where parental rights have been taken away or given up from one or both parents and then replaced by new legal parents, this is true: a child is better off when in the care of their married biological parents.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Your opinions are not reality. Go back to 1950's UhMurriKKKA, troll.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 08:48 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(13-02-2014 08:41 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 08:36 AM)englishrose Wrote:  I just can't see why allowing everyone to participate in marriage should somehow denigrate it.

Surely making it open to all shows how important it is and that it is to be encouraged.
For the record, I am not gay, I am married and I have one child (from a previous marriage as it happens) and I have just turned 50.

My husband and I married in our late 40s and we're pretty much unlikely to have children (it certainly was not on the list of priorities).

No-one made it a pre-requisite of our marriage that we should have children.

I just don't get why people are so concerned about what goes on behind someone's bedroom door between consenting adults and why that should have a bearing on someone's rights.

Please see if my response in post 32 addresses this.

Sorry but I can't see the post numbers on my iPad.
I can't see where you have addressed the point that we should butt out of people's private affairs and live and let live.
On what level do you find it disagreeable to allow same sex couples the same rights as heterosexual people?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like englishrose's post
13-02-2014, 08:53 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(13-02-2014 08:35 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 08:31 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  I don't think it is supposed to be a summary exactly. I think it is an exam or assignment for a university biology subject with sample answers included. I think the assignment was supposed to verify that students are able to adequately analyse and report on the findings of such a survey.

Also - when it talks about married people getting more sex than unmarried it isn't clear to me whether it is comparing married to de facto or similar, or instead comparing married to single.

Anyway, I think this is the report referred to: http://popcenter.uchicago.edu/data/nhsls.shtml

A 22 years old study?

I'm convinced.

Drinking Beverage

Cheers Haffy.

I'm sorry I may have confused the link I gave you with a summary of a pretty recent one out of Indiana.

"To look at the statistics about marriage and sex, you wouldn’t even know that there was an issue to begin with. “Studies have found that married people have more sex than single people, and they also have more varied sex,” says sexual health expert and best-selling author Dr. Laura Berman, who hosts “In The Bedroom with Dr. Laura Berman” on OWN. ”Oral sex is also more common among married people.”

One of the most comprehensive studies on the subject, which was released in 2010 by the Center for Sexual Health Promotion at Indiana University, confirmed this, compiling statistics on sexual attitudes and habits of 5,865 people between ages 14 and 94. An average of 61 percent of singles reported that they hadn’t had sex within the past year, compared with 18 percent of married people. Looking specifically at those between the ages of 25 and 59, 25 percent of married people reported that they were still having sex two to three times per week versus less than five percent of singles."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/13...22644.html
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 08:54 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(13-02-2014 08:47 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 08:39 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  The new law overruled the old. There is a reason for that.

Marriage isn't solely for the purpose of procreation.

Your strawman of "genderless" marriage is disgusting.

My point was that the French court found the ban to be rational and upheld it.
And THE PEOPLE told the french court to go fuck themselves.


Quote: A new law was passed based on the opinions of the leaders who voted on it and then, probably, individual voters.

Yes, adn they told the court to go fuck themselves.


Quote:"Genderless" is just another way of saying that the law does not consider the gender of either party.


It's perjorative.

Quote:Procreation does impact society significantly, it creates society, so it stands to reason that the way it occurs, within a stable or unstable relationship is relevant enough to have some kind of social institution promoting the former.

There is no correlation between homo/heterosexuality and "stability. You can't make up your own facts.


And you can go fuck yourself, too.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 08:57 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(13-02-2014 08:48 AM)englishrose Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 08:41 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  Please see if my response in post 32 addresses this.

Sorry but I can't see the post numbers on my iPad.
I can't see where you have addressed the point that we should butt out of people's private affairs and live and let live.
On what level do you find it disagreeable to allow same sex couples the same rights as heterosexual people?

Post 32: "When marriage is defined as between a man and woman, then we can already say that in itself is a fertility test, because a man and woman are more fertile (greater than zero) together than same-sex couples (zero fertility) together. Because it was generally accepted that marriage was heterosexual in nature, there was no need to stipulate that they could procreate or that they did procreate, because in all likelihood they would procreate. The state benefit was, therefore, about synthesizing those relationships with commitment, monogamy, and joint households.

In most cases for a child, neither parent has lost their parental rights. So except in the cases where parental rights have been taken away or given up from one or both parents and then replaced by new legal parents, this is true: a child is better off when in the care of their married biological parents. "

In regards to the harm of ssm, if marriage becomes less about sex and more about the desire and convenience of adults, indiivduals are less likely to think of confining sexual behavior within a marital relationship.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: