Genderless Marriage
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-02-2014, 12:35 PM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(13-02-2014 06:59 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  Why same-sex or "genderless" marriage is harmful:

The harm is that such a concept divorces sex from marriage.
There are three views of marriage.
One mandatory and two optional.

Government sanctioned marriage - This is the compulsory one. It gives two people certain legal privileges. Tax incentives, prison visitation rights, hospital visitation rights and ability to make medical decisions on behalf in the event that a partner cannot make those decisions for themselves. It also means that you can have only one marriage partner at a time.

The recognition of defacto relationships and affording them all the benefits of marriage makes government sanctioned marriage a redundant contract.

Cultural marriage - (Optional) Big expensive wedding in front of family and friends. Celebrant saying some words, Two people making some kind of spoken commitment together in front of the guests. Some cultures have issues if lovers or mothers and fathers are not married. Some cultures don't have these issues.

Religious marriage - (Optional) God, god, god, oh yeah there's also a bride and groom.

Regarding sex and procreation. I don't think government sanctioned marriage has a requirement of the couple to have sex, and in most countries people don't have to be married in order to have sex.

Religious marriage is generally more concerned about the couple making a commitment that if they do have children then they are to indoctorine them with a particular flavour of religion
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stevil's post
13-02-2014, 02:10 PM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(13-02-2014 10:43 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 09:06 AM)morondog Wrote:  Rolleyes

Becca, why do you care ? If I get married to another guy, how does that affect you ?

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.

OK. What's the stop sign warning us about ? What's so dangerous about me and my mate getting married ? Are we going to: make more gay kids ? Traumatise people by holding hands in public ? Fuck up the couple numbers at the local dancing society ? What's so *bloody* dangerous ?

Hey here's a thought. You stay out of other people's love lives and they stay out of yours, how does *that* sound hmm ?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
13-02-2014, 02:54 PM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(13-02-2014 08:37 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  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.

The first humans on earth didn't marry and were certainly not monogamous.

It was only when couples had dealings with the law and the state that the idea of a legal contract between a man and a woman was born. Matters of property, inheritance and merging of families' finances and reputations were the motives behind it, not love, not even procreation.

You may say that men chose wives to bear their children, which is true. However, it was a matter of legitimacy, inheritance, legacy. It was not a matter of love, as it mostly is today.

The concept of marriage has changed millions of times in history, yet people have not stopped getting married. It was once illegal for a white man to marry a black woman. It would be unthinkable by a person at that time, because it would destroy what the state wants; pure white citizens.

Why does it matter what the state wants? Why does it matter what you want?


It's also ridiculous to say that married couples have more sex than single people. Well, duh. Did they compare married couples with unmarried couples? That's one research I'd like to see.

"Behind every great pirate, there is a great butt."
-Guybrush Threepwood-
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 03:25 PM
RE: Genderless Marriage
It really does bug me that in this supposedly enlightened day and age that something like gay marriage is such an issue for supposedly enlightened and open minded people.

"God is a thought who makes crooked all that is straight." - Nietzsche

You can follow/read my blog on religious text and things related at: http://alookatholytext.wordpress.com/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 07:44 PM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(13-02-2014 08:57 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  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.

This is pure, unadulterated bullshit. And the notion of "confining sexual behavior within a marital relationship" is bullshit, too. It's none of the State's business, and none of your fucking business.

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, 07:48 PM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(13-02-2014 09:01 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  "Genderless" is not perjorative, it refers to the literal legal irrelevance of gender to the law in question.

Yes, it is, and your sad attempt at gaslighting doesn't make it any different.

Quote:I didn't compare homo to hetero stability.

Yes, you most certainly did, just like you lied when you claimed you didn't claim married couples had more sex.

Quote:I'll say the same thing to you that I said to Bucky. If you want to have a civil debate, I'm here. If not, I would prefer to spend my time with those who do.

Trolling outrageous statements and then claiming you didn't say them isn't civil debate. Andhere conducts themselves. If you don't like it, fuck the hell off.

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, 07:52 PM (This post was last modified: 13-02-2014 08:00 PM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: Genderless Marriage
(13-02-2014 10:38 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 09:02 AM)englishrose Wrote:  Errrr, who said same sex couples don't have sex whether they're married or not.
Still not making sense to me.

It's actually not about what homosexuals will do, it's about what heterosexuals will do, that's the problem. If heterosexuals think of marriage as something independent of sex, they'll be less likely to put the two together. I do think that is likely a consequence of same-sex marriage.
Bullshit ad hoc assertion, founded only in your own fantasy world.


Quote:Here's an example: We already know that "convenience" marriages exist, however, same-sex marriage will make it easier for heterosexuals to have convenience marriages, because they can just find a same-sex platonic friend to marry, having their own separate sex lives, without the worry of or the real jealousy of someone that might be attracted to them.

Who gives a fuck.

Quote:Another way to understand how ssm further helps to divorce sex from marriage

Are you some kind of KatholiKKK nutjob from that SD forum?

Quote: is the arguments frequently used to support ssm, for instance,
"1. Marriage is only a contract between consenting adults.
2. Marriage is not about procreation.
3. Marriage does not require sex and people are allowed to have sex outside of marriage."

Every one a straw man. Insert the word "JUST" in each one of those statements.


Quote:Isn't it reasonable to assume that the people who are using and agreeing with these statements actually believe them? Then, that people will take them at their word?

It's none of your fucking business.



(13-02-2014 10:41 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  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.

And what the fuck makes you think that gay couples can't be committed to each other?



(13-02-2014 10:43 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 09:06 AM)morondog Wrote:  Rolleyes

Becca, why do you care ? If I get married to another guy, how does that affect you ?

I care because in order for same-sex marriage to occur, the legal concept of marriage changes.

No, it doesn't.

Quote: 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.

You aren't even making sense.


(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.

No, it isn't, and you bleating it over and over again doesn't change that.


Quote: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...."

And it was bullshit then, and it remains bullshit.

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, 08:02 PM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(13-02-2014 03:25 PM)SpaceMonkey Wrote:  It really does bug me that in this supposedly enlightened day and age that something like gay marriage is such an issue for supposedly enlightened and open minded people.

This "BeccaBoo" is neither.

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, 08:14 PM
RE: Genderless Marriage
The state has no business on how people conduct their private business and relationships within a reasonable limit. The heteronormative family model is beyond the scope of a state that follows the rule of law and it invades people's freedoms.

To follow your analogy with the road sign (ill conceived as it is), it's like a road sign that only allows to turn left in a corner when there's no good justification to forbid turning right, and the only "reason" is because it is good (according to some people) for drivers to practice their left turns.

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 08:55 PM (This post was last modified: 13-02-2014 09:12 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Genderless Marriage
(13-02-2014 08:57 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  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.

Prove it. Prove ONE thing you ASSert, BeccaOnlyMakesCrapBooBoos. Assertion is proof of nothing.

[Image: 5122012204412iwsmt.jpeg]

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: