Well, I'm about to get my legal name and gender change done. I believe my court petition and order are based on the one used by Phyllis Frye, but I could be wrong on this. Also the one I have may be slightly different from hers. But one of the things on my petition/order is that it cannot be used to alter the gender on my birth certificate, nor can I use it to marry a man. I had a friend who had a judge that made her add something similar to her order when she got hers done. As far as the olympics thing, I would think they would require hormone testing or something similar. I'm nowhere near as strong as I used to be; there are certainly many woman out there much stronger than I. And as far as height, what about non-trans women who are tall? Do they have an unfair advantage?
I think the stat I heard on a TV special recently was 7 in 1000 births involve some degree of transgender. Our legal system needs to find an inclusive solution for these people. The time has long past that people should be discriminated against for reasons for which they have no choice.
Speaking of 'overlooked factors' - I would still like someone to explain to me how opposing gay marriage is discriminatory. Where's the discrimination? If you say men can only marry women, and vice versa - does everyone not have the same rights? Just because a homosexual man would rather marry another man doesn't mean he has any less rights than a straight man. In other words, outlaw may want to marry Brad Pitt (I hope you don't mind me using you as an example outlaw...I believe we've talked about this before), but he isn't able to - but neither am I. outlaw has the right to marry a woman, like me - he just wouldn't want to. I'm sure I'll be called a bigot for suggesting this - but I assure you that is not the case. Stupid, maybe, but not bigoted.
Freaky question: Could a hermaphrodite theoretically get pregnant with his/her own child (could it biologically be possible)? Not saying anyone should try, but...if all necessary organs are somehow there...
Cool. We're good. j/k TheFreak. But I'm sorry, your argument doesn't hold up to the ideas of freedom and the pursuit of happiness. Your example is akin to saying (pre suffrage movement) "well, if I was a woman, I couldn't vote either! So we're even steven!" You're only giving up the "well, if I was gay" possibility. A gay man not being able to marry a man is like the government prohibiting you from marrying a woman. Wouldn't that stink? Anyway, if you want to read an interesting story about a hermaphrodite ("fiction" mostly), read the book by Jeff Eugenides, *Middlesex*. It's very popular, but even so, I really thought it was interesting.
I don't think it's like that at all. Is the government not already limiting my options by saying I can only marry one person? Is this not discriminatory towards polygamists?
I just don't think polygamy is so relevant, even though it's a favorite red herring. The time honored tradition throughout most of the world is that of partnering, saying I want my property to go to this wonderful person if I die. I want to share my life with this person, etc. Let's have separate polygamy threads if it's so interesting. 3 is not equal to 2. You'd need a whole new legal code. For same sex marriage, what do you need to change in the legal code? A word or two. Speaking of red herrings, you saying to a gay man "hey, you have the right to marry a woman, just like I can! We are equal!" ... is like someone telling you that you have the right to eat soil, even though you're not a terraphage (person who eats dirt). "We like to eat dirt, and now you can too!" That's how interesting a heterosexual marriage would be to a gay person.
Yep. Lucky for you (and me) that a government isn't telling us that our only option is same sex marriage. There's a funny Onion piece about this (last week? this week?), where the Mass. supreme court orders everyone to enter a gay marriage.
Define 'relevant'. One could say gay marriage isn't relevant since what, only 5 percent of the population is gay. If you're going to use tradition to discount polygamy, you can do the same to discount gay marriage. The 'time-honored tradition' throughout this country and the world is of marriage b/t a man and woman, is it not? Not sure how complications in the legal code is really an issue, if we're talking about a right here. Btw...I do appreciate not being called a bigot yet. I don't doubt that traditional marriage doesn't interest them. There are many rights that people would never choose to take advantage of. I may never wish to own a gun, but that right is available to me. As for the hypothetical of whether or not it would be okay for the gov to say only same-sex couples could marry: I'm not sure there's anything that would forbid that. I admittedly don't know the law though. It seems to me that if the people wanted it that way, it could happen. Go easy on me please.
I just don't see how gay marriage and poly marriage are related any more so than straight marriage and poly marriage are. if you want to marry another person then you can get a divorce from your current spouse and do so. there is no similar recourse if you want to marry someone of the same sex. i just don't consider poly marriage to be a case of discrimination (yes i know you feel the same way about gay marriage).
