Any guesses of where "defenders of traditional marriage" stand on this issue?

[Boojatta]

Hypothetical situation:
An asexual man and asexual woman share accommodations.

Question #1:
If the man agrees to use artificial insemination to help the woman have a baby, and also wants a role in raising the baby, and the man and woman get married, then is their marriage a threat to traditional marriage?

Question #2:
If the man and woman later (for example, after the baby has reached adulthood) decide that they don't want to continue their relationship, then should they be allowed to get an annulment or does protection of traditional marriage require that they get a divorce?

[unpossibles]

1. my guess is that the average 'defender of traditional marriage'

would be completely stumped at the idea of someone being "asexual" - they would at best see that as some sort of choice, like celibacy. I mean, they don't really seem to grasp homosexuality, much less bisexuality, transgender issues, and all sorts of other more nuanced orientations, so I'd have little confidence that they'd even understand the point, much less consider it.

That said, they would probably champion a man and a woman being married and having children for any reason, despite any lack of love/sex/lust between them.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

2. +1

[SacredCow]

3. You lost them at "hypothetical," if you want to know the truth....

As far as I've been able to tell, these people aren't "defending traditional marriage." That's just their tag-line to rally up support. Their thought process is more like, "Marriage is for straight people, and we don't want homosexuals to have any part of it because it's OURS."

So, their responses to your situation and questions will be completely and utterly irrational and I can't fathom what direction they'd go. Just a guess- First off, they'd insist that an unmarried man and woman living together is a sin- sex or no sex. Then, they'd bristle at the artificial insemination, because obviously if the man won't have intercourse with the woman then he's probably gay and shouldn't be fathering children anyway. Finally, they'd insist that question 2 is moot because they shouldn't have been allowed to marry.

[closeupready]

4. Yeah, you got it exactly right. Trying to use logic against these homophobes is pointless.

They aren't ever going to get it because they don't WANT to get it. They want to keep teh gheys down and heteros up. By any means necessary.

[Boojatta]

5. "That's just their tag-line to rally up support."

Of course, it's some kind of advertisement. However, if they prefer to live in a society with less sexual promiscuity, then shouldn't they support same-sex marriage?

In their experience, does marriage simply cause them to classify their promiscuity as "adultery", but not affect the frequency of their own promiscuous sexual activities?

If one HIV-positive bisexual man would have been in a same-sex marriage, but instead had unprotected sex with a straight woman who later died from AIDS, then isn't that one too many straight women who died because same-sex marriage wasn't available? If it's not one too many, then how many dead straight women would be too many?

[BR_Parkway]

6. Which choice would they be able to raise more money with? I'm thinking

the divorce because more people would understand that one

[sui generis]

7. I hate that phrase "should they be allowed"

as if anyone has a right to make that decision for anyone else

Here's the best part: I could marry my chica lipstick lesbian gal pal who tells me how she can't stop thinking about anything but PUSSY-USSY-ussy (echoes die out), and we could live in separate states, in separate houses, have a weekly competition to see who lays the most pipe with the most partners, so to speak, and be married to each other for the fuck of it, and THAT'S OKAY.

Gay OPPOSITE marriage is allowed - go figure. :shrug: and Thuh Institution of Marriage remains unsoiled by us pesky non-breeders marryin' the same gender.

These people are so profoundly stupid even they don't get it. The idea that mixed gender marriages automatically imply sex is as absurd as requiring two straight men or women to get married and expecting them to have sex, so what's the point?

And WHEN we have equal marriage we promise we won't try to deny marriage to opposite gender pairs because of what we think they do with their pink parts, or for any reason, actually.