Genderless Marriage
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-02-2014, 04:13 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(13-02-2014 11:39 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 11:11 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  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.

Sorry, right now it's Post 46. But I did give you the first sentence so just a look at that page makes it easy to find.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2014, 04:24 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(13-02-2014 11:44 AM)englishrose Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 11:14 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  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?

Same-sex marriage requires the concept of marriage to change. That means we think differently about what marriage is. Thought affects behavior. So, for instance, if we think marriage has less to do with sex, as a result of same-sex marriage, then we connect them together less.

Consider these three very common arguments used to support ssm:

"1. Marriage is only a legal contract between two people.
2. Marriage is not about procreation.
3. Marriage is not about sex."

This is one way to see that, among other various schools of thought, these concepts and the concept of same-sex marriage are correllated, and thus it stands to reason that the above three with be continued with the legalisation of same-sex marriage.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2014, 04:28 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(13-02-2014 12:18 PM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 11:14 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  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

Do you believe that the moral obligations of heterosexual relationships are indistinguishable from the moral obligations of homosexual relationships? Will you be teaching that to your children?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BeccaBoo's post
14-02-2014, 04:30 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(13-02-2014 12:35 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(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

Question: does society tend to benefit when a man and woman are committed when they make a baby together?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2014, 04:34 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(13-02-2014 02:10 PM)morondog 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.

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 ?

The stop sign is for heterosexual relationships. They are more dangerous, generally speaking.

Question for you: are the inherent moral obligations of heterosexual sex indistinguishable from the inherent obligations of homosexual sex?

(My answer: no. The moral obligations inherent in heterosexual sex are greater in scope.)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2014, 04:37 AM (This post was last modified: 14-02-2014 05:27 AM by BeccaBoo.)
RE: Genderless Marriage
(13-02-2014 02:54 PM)undergroundp Wrote:  
(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.

One can also argue that marriage gave women more stability and safety than they otherwise would have had. Being part of a recognised family unit meant protection, and then greater protection for her children. That still holds true today in terms of well-being of children, they are more likely to have it if their parents are married.

About the frequency of sex being highest for married couples, that was a counterclaim to DLJ, it wasn't the point I was trying to make about "divorcing sex from marriage." However, in retrospect, it is related. My point about "divorcing sex from marriage," is that when heterosexuals think of sex, they will be less likely to associate it with marriage.... So, more along the lines of what DLJ's point (that marriage was not a good predictor of sex in his case) is that eventually marriage will no longer be a predictor, or as much so, as it is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2014, 05:07 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(13-02-2014 08:06 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 08:02 AM)englishrose Wrote:  Well then, that being the case, so what?
The law allowing SSM in France is on the statute books.
Who cares what the law was before?
I must say that I don't quite understand the point you are trying to make in this respect.
Rose

The point is that the ban was not a violation of their rights, and that it was not found to be based on something arbitrary or merely religious.

Until you can name a country without a single orphaned child, then I would say it is based on something completely irrational. Name a country that suffers from such low population that they depend on heterosexuals to have babies in order to survive as a nation. Tell me how it can be rational to live in an overly populated world with about 200 million orphans, and base marriage rights on the potential to make more babies.
It would be like saying you are only allowed to own a dog if you're going to breed it. Except worse. Also, this was the same reasoning presented by the Catholic Church not long ago haha.

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
14-02-2014, 05:10 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(14-02-2014 05:07 AM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 08:06 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  The point is that the ban was not a violation of their rights, and that it was not found to be based on something arbitrary or merely religious.

Until you can name a country without a single orphaned child, then I would say it is based on something completely irrational. Name a country that suffers from such low population that they depend on heterosexuals to have babies in order to survive as a nation. Tell me how it can be rational to live in an overly populated world with about 200 million orphans, and base marriage rights on the potential to make more babies.
It would be like saying you are only allowed to own a dog if you're going to breed it. Except worse. Also, this was the same reasoning presented by the Catholic Church not long ago haha.

IMO the public relevance of marriage is not to get people to make babies, it's to promote commitment between people who make babies together. Even in a declining population, the unstable families that there are, the more burden on the public at large.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2014, 06:26 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(14-02-2014 04:34 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  The stop sign is for heterosexual relationships. They are more dangerous, generally speaking.

Question for you: are the inherent moral obligations of heterosexual sex indistinguishable from the inherent obligations of homosexual sex?

(My answer: no. The moral obligations inherent in heterosexual sex are greater in scope.)

Living is dangerous. I propose that it be made illegal Rolleyes

Heteros can get married despite the "danger", and you *still* think you're justified in interfering with other people's lives ? This is a ridiculous point to argue. You're saying effectively "Gays must not be allowed to marry because pohergkl ddfvrtew bjjsad". *It makes no sense*.

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
14-02-2014, 07:28 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(14-02-2014 04:30 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 12:35 PM)Stevil Wrote:  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

Question: does society tend to benefit when a man and woman are committed when they make a baby together?

Answer : 50 % of marriages end in divorce.
Troll

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: