Genderless Marriage
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-02-2014, 10:49 AM (This post was last modified: 13-02-2014 11:48 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Genderless Marriage
(13-02-2014 10:41 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 09:05 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  I'm sorry....but f@cking does not produce society. Also, while children might be seen as 'consumers', they 8n no way, shape or form 'determine' anything about society.

Heck, my cute as a button little 15 month old neic wouldn't understand 'society' if it were a fifteenfoot tall plush toy. Tongue

Very much cheers to all.

Posting from phone.

Society is a direct result of sex. Humans are social creatures, so yup, sex does produce people who produce society. The question is, how stable are those children's lives? When their parents are not committed to each other, that burdens them (all three parties) and society in general.

Humans reproduce in many ways, INCLUDING straight couples (who use "in vivo", and "in vitro" and many other artificial means in 2014). Your premises are unexamined. You have presented no facts, only prejudiced opinions.
There are MANY reasons humans marry, OTHER than JUST for reproduction. Did the Fucking French Court tell you what to do about THAT ?

Troll.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
The noblest of the dogs is the hot dog. It feeds the hand that bites it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 11:05 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
I still don't understand how allowing same sex marriage will make heterosexual couples view marriage in a different way.
Why would anyone think that?
Why do you think that?
It makes no sense to me whatsoever.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 11:07 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
Here's the thing. Even IF homosexuals marrying, in some way devalued, changed or reinterpreted marriage for some people, or even if it divorced sex from marriage. So what?

My partner and I are planning on marrying each other for love. If I then find out at a later date, one of my friends is marrying someone for, lets say, they're friends and want to buy property together. It doesn't mean my reasons for marrying my partner change. ... If this cryptic 'stop sign' that has been alluded to a couple of times means for example, more blokes will hit on my partner, that just means more blokes will get told no...

I honestly think people struggle with understanding what is and isn't their business. Just because more people can now marry for more reasons, it shouldn't and doesn't have any effect on an individual and their own reasonsto marry. Be it 'traditional' or not.

A man blames his bad childhood on leprechauns. He claims they don't exist, but yet still says without a doubt that they stole all his money and then killed his parents. That's why he became Leprechaun-Man

Im_Ryan forum member
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 11:09 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(13-02-2014 10:43 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Actually what is MOST "uncivil" is claiming for yourself rights, you think you get to deny to an entire class of people.

I don't oppose kinship rights or other bundles of rights for domestic partners.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 11:11 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(13-02-2014 10:47 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 10:43 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  I care because in order for same-sex marriage to occur, the legal concept of marriage changes. When the concept changes, the communication changes. In many ways the legal concept functions like a stop sign at a dangerous intersection. If we make that stop sign less visible, then the intersection becomes more dangerous.

That is the most inane thing I've ever read.

What goes on between two people is there business. If they want to marry they should be allowed.

What communication is changed?

Marriage is a public institution, so it is everyone's business.

I elaborated more on communication in Post 42, my response beginning with "It's actually not about what homosexuals will do, it's about what heterosexuals will do, that's the problem...."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 11:14 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(13-02-2014 11:07 AM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  Here's the thing. Even IF homosexuals marrying, in some way devalued, changed or reinterpreted marriage for some people, or even if it divorced sex from marriage. So what?

My partner and I are planning on marrying each other for love. If I then find out at a later date, one of my friends is marrying someone for, lets say, they're friends and want to buy property together. It doesn't mean my reasons for marrying my partner change. ... If this cryptic 'stop sign' that has been alluded to a couple of times means for example, more blokes will hit on my partner, that just means more blokes will get told no...

I honestly think people struggle with understanding what is and isn't their business. Just because more people can now marry for more reasons, it shouldn't and doesn't have any effect on an individual and their own reasonsto marry. Be it 'traditional' or not.

Do we have an obligation, to say, teach youth about sex? The obligations inherent to sex? The responsibilities, for example, that arise from pregnancy and childbirth?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 11:31 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(13-02-2014 11:09 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 10:43 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Actually what is MOST "uncivil" is claiming for yourself rights, you think you get to deny to an entire class of people.

I don't oppose kinship rights or other bundles of rights for domestic partners.

But I just bet you claim the right of marriage for yourself.

If straight people are unable to have children, you will deny them marriage also ?
What a joke you are. Do you "divorce" married people when they are too old to have children ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
The noblest of the dogs is the hot dog. It feeds the hand that bites it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 11:39 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(13-02-2014 11:11 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 10:47 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  That is the most inane thing I've ever read.

What goes on between two people is there business. If they want to marry they should be allowed.

What communication is changed?

Marriage is a public institution, so it is everyone's business.

I elaborated more on communication in Post 42, my response beginning with "It's actually not about what homosexuals will do, it's about what heterosexuals will do, that's the problem...."

So, it's everyone's business what I do with my husband in our home?

Are you implying that allowing gays to marry will influence heterosexuals? How so?

You're not really making a case, you're just throwing out statements.

I don't know what you mean by post 42 if you're referring to this thread or another. Post 42 isn't by you in this thread.


Wind's in the east, a mist coming in
Like something is brewing and about to begin
Can't put my finger on what lies in store
but I feel what's to happen has happened before...


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 11:44 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(13-02-2014 11:14 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 11:07 AM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  Here's the thing. Even IF homosexuals marrying, in some way devalued, changed or reinterpreted marriage for some people, or even if it divorced sex from marriage. So what?

My partner and I are planning on marrying each other for love. If I then find out at a later date, one of my friends is marrying someone for, lets say, they're friends and want to buy property together. It doesn't mean my reasons for marrying my partner change. ... If this cryptic 'stop sign' that has been alluded to a couple of times means for example, more blokes will hit on my partner, that just means more blokes will get told no...

I honestly think people struggle with understanding what is and isn't their business. Just because more people can now marry for more reasons, it shouldn't and doesn't have any effect on an individual and their own reasonsto marry. Be it 'traditional' or not.

Do we have an obligation, to say, teach youth about sex? The obligations inherent to sex? The responsibilities, for example, that arise from pregnancy and childbirth?

Yes, or at least parents do. Of course.
But what does that have to do with denying marriage to gays?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 12:18 PM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(13-02-2014 11:14 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 11:07 AM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  Here's the thing. Even IF homosexuals marrying, in some way devalued, changed or reinterpreted marriage for some people, or even if it divorced sex from marriage. So what?

My partner and I are planning on marrying each other for love. If I then find out at a later date, one of my friends is marrying someone for, lets say, they're friends and want to buy property together. It doesn't mean my reasons for marrying my partner change. ... If this cryptic 'stop sign' that has been alluded to a couple of times means for example, more blokes will hit on my partner, that just means more blokes will get told no...

I honestly think people struggle with understanding what is and isn't their business. Just because more people can now marry for more reasons, it shouldn't and doesn't have any effect on an individual and their own reasonsto marry. Be it 'traditional' or not.

Do we have an obligation, to say, teach youth about sex? The obligations inherent to sex? The responsibilities, for example, that arise from pregnancy and childbirth?

Yes. We are also obliged to teach them about contracts and what entering one means.
I will also teach my children that peoples belief systems should not entitle them to anything in society, ie; ownership of marraige. My children will be taught everything about safe sex, respect and love. ... As they will understand marriage they will make their own decisions about it as adults. They will unlikely be virgins by then and will hopefully experienced and learned from their experiences and the rich tapestry of life. If my partner and I have done it good job, hopefully we will have intelligent, considerate and compassionate children we can be proud of.

They will understand marriage and sexual inter course as stand alone concepts and together, they will hopefully become happy members of society who are confident and secure in their own minds.

With all of that said, I am hoping they will marry or settle with a partner of their choice and even invite the neighbours round for tea, whether the neighbours are Derek and Denise or Kevin and Craig, it would be great if my children will not see any difference, having a full understanding that Kevin and Craig have every right to marry whomever they wish and that a genetic predisposition has no bearing on this.

My children may even think that someone taking such a small difference like sexual preference and deciding based on a 2000 year old book of fiction, or some feat of subjective mental gymnastics to arrive at the conclusion 'people outside of my sexual demographic can't marry' well, hopefully my children will think those folks a bit silly and arrogant.

So yes, I do think we should teach sexual responsibility to our kids AND it's contexts. AND many other things to prepare them for life in modern society ... Shame your parents didn't do it Drinking Beverage

A man blames his bad childhood on leprechauns. He claims they don't exist, but yet still says without a doubt that they stole all his money and then killed his parents. That's why he became Leprechaun-Man

Im_Ryan forum member
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Monster_Riffs's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: