Genderless Marriage
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-02-2014, 07:30 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(14-02-2014 05:10 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(14-02-2014 05:07 AM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  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.

So it's divorce you oppose really. Have you ever considered a course in critical thinking ? Opposing ssm will do NOTHING to change the divorce rate. Nice try, granny.

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
14-02-2014, 07:41 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
I think I can see what you are trying to say, albeit ineptly.
Your argument against SSM is that marriage is mostly about sex and you seem to be labouring under the misconception that homosexual people don't have sex and that they therefore have different reasons than heteros for getting married which then makes heteros think that marriage is not about sex so they then might not get married and have precious babies.

All I can say to that is:

WHAT PLANET ARE YOU ON?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2014, 07:54 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
I've come to the conclusion that marriage is all about registering your partnership with the state. Your friends, family and colleagues already know that you are a couple. It used to be that you could just have a ceremony with your clan and daub mud on your heard or do something else symbolic.

My husband and I got married last May after living together for 10 years. We do not have children and will not be having any. We live in Germany and I would not have managed it without the help of a native colleague. We had to get our birth certificates officially translated. We had to sign lots of documents, in the presence of an official translator, to put in a request to get married and wait for approval. Getting married allowed me to change my tax code and put my husband on my medical insurance.

Getting married made no difference to our relationship except that we can now refer to ourselves as husband and wife. The difference it made was purely in terms of finances and legal standing. That is the meaning of marriage in today's society.

So when people say that they do not believe in same sex marriage, what they are really saying is that they believe that gay couples should be denied the same legal recognition and rights that straight couples have solely because of their sexuality.

It is a position born of prejudice.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Mathilda's post
14-02-2014, 08:33 AM (This post was last modified: 14-02-2014 08:37 AM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: Genderless Marriage
(14-02-2014 04:24 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 11:44 AM)englishrose Wrote:  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.

Repeating the same failed bullshit over and over AD NAUSEUM doesn't make it true.



(14-02-2014 04:28 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 12:18 PM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  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?

WHAT "moral obligations" are you claiming exist here? Loaded question much?


(14-02-2014 04:30 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  Question: does society tend to benefit when a man and woman are committed when they make a baby together?

Does the fucking PLANET benefit when humans crowd it with more babies? No.


(14-02-2014 04:34 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  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.)
WHAT moral obligations?

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
14-02-2014, 08:42 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(14-02-2014 04:24 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  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.

So what. You have in NO way demonstrated the change is less productive. SSM IN NO WAY affects straight marriage, or it's stability, nor have you deomonstrated it will. You have ASS-erted it might. The moon is made of green cheese.

(14-02-2014 04:30 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  Question: does society tend to benefit when a man and woman are committed when they make a baby together?

Yes. So what. Irrelevant. A (causal) link between the two has not been established.
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
14-02-2014, 08:45 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(14-02-2014 04:37 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  One can also argue that marriage gave women more stability and safety than they otherwise would have had.

....because cave men and women didn't have that. Not.


Quote: 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.

That is not true at ll.

Quote: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.

But -- then you DENIED making this claim.


Quote: 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.

Who gives a fuck. Marriage has always been wrapped up part and parcel with religion as well. All you are doing is spouting theist bullshit. "We've GOT to build Bypasses!"

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
14-02-2014, 11:35 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
[+] 1 user Likes Losty's post
14-02-2014, 11:41 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(14-02-2014 04:28 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 12:18 PM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  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?

Absolutely. The moral obligations are no different. They can only be different if someone has a misunderstanding of homosexuality.

I'll just play the 'can I help you' lick!!!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Monster_Riffs's post
14-02-2014, 11:57 AM (This post was last modified: 14-02-2014 12:00 PM by rampant.a.i..)
Genderless Marriage
(13-02-2014 08:04 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 07:46 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Time to join the 21st Century, idiot. Couples can have children in many ways today. Is France really THAT backwards ?


The problem is you have provided NOT ONE LEGITIMATE REASON why YOUR opinions (and that's all they are) need to be imposed on others, OR what good would come of it.


Another assertion with NO reference or ONE reason. Heterosexual marriage is NOT "unique" IF you're not straight. Gay people have kids all the time, idiot. You live under a fucking rock ?

Troll.

The only way children are created is through sexual reproduction, with a contribution from a female and a contribution from a male. In most cases this occurs naturally, without any artifical help from a third party.

If you don't understand something I say, you are welcome to ask me to elaborate, which I can do.

Heterosexual couples are unique from all other human relationships because they can have children through a sex act. That is what I said. If you don't understand why this is relevant, you are welcome to ask.

I'll say this to you once, if you want to have a civil debate, I am here. Otherwise I would prefer spending my time responding to people who do.

You still haven't addressed marriage being a legal union, and not a contract with the government for producing children.

My fiancé and I are going to be married. Neither of us want kids. Do we, as a heterosexual couple, not quality for marriage under your definition?

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2014, 12:11 PM
RE: Genderless Marriage
I thought some basic info could be useful for the OP




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