Frist Endorses Constitutional Amendment to Ban Gay Marriage

Well, I think for simplicity, I would agree with you. But I do think the issue of gender is much more complex than that. I am a MtF person. I think of myself as a female and yet I also acknowledge that I'm different. I guess it is in the space of that difference that I feel that man/women is at best an approximation. As far as sexuality, I'm mostly attracted to women, however there a quite a few men I am attracted to. (Like Gackt ^.^) However, I generally don't identify as bisexual. *shrugs* I guess my point is that the standard model of gender and sexuality works to a point, but that something is lost at the same time. And perhaps we rely too much on the definitions given to us when instead we could explore other ways to think of ourselves that might be better. Make sense? Eek, my brain hurts, I'm too tired. Oh and as far as people classifying themselves as whatever gender, some people classify themselves as both, neither, or something else entirely. It seems people have a nasty habit of not fitting into nice neat boxes.

 

Cool. Welcome to the BBS Mori! Nice to see other GLBT folks here.

OK I will conceed that. Honestly I'm pretty ignorant about transgendered issues and viewpoints. I've only known one in my life. So I will defer to your expertise.

 

Okay...as is often the case, I've waded into this late, and it's too damed hot, and I'm on my way out, so i can't read 5 pages of posts...but if anyone wants to summarize a legitimate argument against same sex marriages, I am very interested, because I have yet to ever hear one.

It honestly amazes me that we are still working this one out...marriage isn't an absolute, it varries according to time and culture...as such, there is nothing to prevent us adapting the 'insititution' as our social awareness alters. Marriage rights are not excluded to those who have children, nor even those who intend to, so that argument, that marriage is part of an unspoken contract with the state to increase the population doesn't work. I honestly see absolutely no grounds whatsoever for distinguishing between hetro and homosexual couples, in a legal sense.


I believe that, in 50 years, we will look back on this the way we used to look back on a woman's place being in the kitchen...I am surprised we aren't there already.


That's my two cents...

 

wow...okay, just ook a quick look at the posts directly above mine, and it would appear i am well behind this discussion, and we are onto trans gender, MtF(Male to female, I think?) hermaphrodites, and similar...I am completely out of my depth in this discussion, as I know almost nothing about most of the topics therein. That said, basic principle applies: There is more to Heavan and Earth, Horatio, than is dream of in your philosophy, and there is more to sexuality than cookie cutter labels would have us believe. I have argued Moris' point before...a man who likes men has no more effect on my life than a man who likes blondes...Taste is taste...I am straight, but if I'd ever had inkilings that I was into men, I'd surely have tried it out...life is short, and other people's labels only make it dull and short. Same goes for if I'd ever thought I was more of a 'woman', although I have no idea ( having honestly never thought about it) whether I'd opt for surgery, cross dress or what have you.


OFF TOPIC:
I will say this about sexual tastes...I find stuff like cross dressing, S&M, and most of the standard stuff boring as hell...not because they are too counter-culture, but for the opposite reasons...They seem to have created their own cookie cutter cultures, and are usually responding to the social norms they are supposed to reject. True rejection isn't a photo negative of X, it's not taking X into account. None of those standard sexual 'tastes' appeal to me in the slightest, but to each their own...also, I personally find the whole urine/etc. area of sexuality to be just plain gross, with no beneath the surface tinglings of anything but nausea...

 

There are two definitions of marriage:

There is the definition which is commonly associated with religion and then there is the legal issue of marriage.

Religiously speaking (maybe spiritually?), it really doesn't matter what you get married to. Marriage in this sense is not defined by law, its something you agree to. Some say having sex is a acknowlegement of marriage.

Legally, Im against it. IMO, it would cause way too much trouble. The reason why you legally get married is to benifit from the government breaks/reconizition. For the most part, hetro's get married in good faith. The divorce rate is a little over 50%. All the gays I know have not kept a steady parter for very long. I think the divorce courts would fill up.

I really do not see the point in legal gay marriages. There is no real tangiable gain, other than reconization.

 

No tangible gain? How about insurance benefits? Inheritance rights? hospital visitation and decision rights? adoption eligibility? legal protection from testifying against one's partner? basic human dignity?

"all the gays" you know? how many is that exactly? i know couples who have been together 12 years yet their relationship is less valid in the eyes of the law than 2 drunk strangers in Vegas who get married after meeting the same night. You criticize gays for not being able to keep steady partners yet when we ask for something that will encourage partners to stay together you decline to give us the opportunity.

I'm sorry but the docket size of the divorce courts is not a valid argument. We could always air our dirty laundry on court TV shows like you guys do it. keep trying though.

 

Thanks. But as far as being an expert, I can only claim my own experience and can't speak for everyone. To paraphrase Riki Anne Wilchins, "If you put 3 transgenders in a room to discuss gender issues, they will come out with five opinions." I will gladly answer questions and try to give a different view point as best as I can, because I think being out is a good thing for people like me. It will help us gain a better image in society, which is not that good at the moment.

One thing about a lot of the TG (transgender) terminology is that different people have different definitions for the same terms. Even the word transgender has had many different meanings. Although it is now used to mean anyone who would somehow defy gender norms, it used to only mean those people who lived as the gender 'opposite' there birth sex without any sort of hormones or surgery. It was created as a way to describe some people who weren't transexuals or crossdressers. However, it isn't really used that way anymore. Now transgender can cover anything from crossdressers, to transexuals, to androgynes, to feminine men, to butch women or anyone else who sees themselves as violating gender. I think it also covers people with blue hair, but I'm not to sure on that one. Not everyone in that list necessarily sees themselves as TG, though. I've known a number of MtF (male to female) transexuals who thought that after surgery they were "real" women. I personally don't like that for a number of reasons. I don't think of myself as being a "fake" women (I'm pre-op, and although I will have surgery in the future, I think it is quite overrated in how a lot of TSs think it should effect in how you relate to the world. Plus there are a lot of very wonderful TSs who never have surgery. FtM transexuals in particular don't have a high rate of genital surgery among their population.). It implies that there is some sort of ideal of femaleness that we are all striving to obtain and it creates a heirarchy. All this accoplishes is in naturalizing "realness" and oppresses everyone who isn't "real." Anyways, I'm going way off topic. -_-;;

Back to the main issue. I don't think that the argument that allowing gay marriages would be a legal hassle has much merit. Certainly allowing women to vote caused a lot of legal hassle, too. But I think this just means we as a society need to rethink concepts like marriage, or sexuality, or gender, or any number of related things. Sure there would be a lot of problems to work out, but I don't think this is a bad thing. I think humanity would be better off for it. On the other hand, I think an argument can be made to have marriage be completely seperate from the government.

 

The parties don't exactly stand for the same things they did back then.

 

Thankfully, it will take a 2/3 vote in congress and a 3/4 vote of the states to put this one on the books. If the split IS 50/50 then this one is a non-starter.

 

I don't think they're evil, I just don't think they THINK (at least not the ones who make less than $100k). Of course, I haven't voted Democrat in over a decade, so I obviously have problems with that party, too.

 

Can anyone say apples and oranges?

First of all, this was not a questionable ruling, it was a solid 6-3 in favor of keeping the police out of our bedrooms, which would seem to be part of the intent of the constitution.

Second of all, if your scenario played out, it could be a very different ruling based on the fact that gay marriage has implications that go beyone the bedroom in question.

This was an unjust, discriminatory law that was only on the books to give the police the power to harass gay people. The court was absolutely correct and proper when they found this law unconstitutional.

 

God, isn't that the truth!!!

 

This is actually the problem I have with BOTH parties, that they are both run by the extremist wings of each side. All Washington is these days is us v. them, black v. white, right v. left.

When it all boils down to it, I think that there are 10 guys on each side who actually run everything and make all the decisions. My question is, why are WE, the people for whom this government was created, continuing to let the 20 most powerful people in the country run everything?

I see good debate on this board that tells me that if we had REAL Americans running the show, we could see beyond left and right to craft policies that make sense.

Maybe we need to start the Middle Party!

 

Just wanted to thank you for the visual of the Olsen twins munching carpet!

I've been licking this carpet for 3 hours and I still don't feel like a lesbian. - Eric Cartman

 

Everyone was too stunned by the aforementioned visual!

 

Very well said.