Marriage Debate
- Thread starter Hardenbergh
- Start date
ImaginalDisc
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2005
- Messages
- 10,219
Maggie dropped the ball. The Boy Scouts are allowed to exclude anyone they want for whatever reason they chose, but what they are doing is excluding people, while demanding federal dollars. You can't have it both ways.
What do chruches have to do with government recognized marriages? My parents got married by a county clerk on their lunch breaks. If a chruch choses not to perform gay marriages that's fine, gay people can go get married the same way my parents did. Maggie's spectre of Gay marriage destroying chruches is nonsense.
slingblade
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2005
- Messages
- 23,466
I think that would be three-fold. The person who has such surgery is attempting to reassign his or her own gender; the surgeon has a couple of hands in it, pardon the pun; and society, in the way we react to any given individual based on surface appearance. I think for the most part, however, it would be society "doing" the reassigning through perception once the genitalia have been altered.
I see no reason why a gay couple could not be bound by "economic interdependence." In fact, some of the debate over civil unions has centered on the desire to increase the economic interdependence of gay couples -- giving partners the same rights as spouses in cases where one partner dies or is otherwise unable to continue the same financial support they had previously.
Also, many gay couples have "a shared committment to parenthood" and have adopted children. To argue that these couples' commitment to parenting is lessened by the fact that they did not biologically produce those children is to disrespect all people, even heterosexual couples, who have loved and raised adopted children as their own.
Giddens may be concerned that marriage is being reduced to a "strictly emotional connection," but I am equally concerned by arguments that reduce marriage to a strictly procreative one.
Earthborn
Terrestrial Intelligence
No, because it does not tell us whether the genitalia are altered. A person can change gender without necessarily having a sex change operation, just by changing the role he/she plays in society and perhaps by changing some of his/her secondary sex characteristics. The term "sex reassignment surgery" is used when that person's primary sex characteristics are also changed to match the target sex more closely.
They also called them "planets", which means "wanderers". We still call them planets.imaginaldisc said:
It's a good thing to revise simplistic classifications, but it is not necessary to use different terms when the old terms suffice. It is also not necessary to redefine old terms to mean else entirely. Unless you think it is good idea to reclassify someone who is commonly recognised as a woman to the label "man" just because she happens to have a Y chromosome.
It depends on what primary and secondary sex characteristics they do develop. If that person has the characteristics of a woman, even identifies as female, then I see no harm in calling her a woman. If the characteristics are ambiguous, and the person identifies with neither sex, I see no harm in saying that person does not fit into the false sexual dichotomy.
Last edited:
ImaginalDisc
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2005
- Messages
- 10,219
The old terms do not suffice. If a person does not develop any primary or secondary sexual characteristics, what sex are they? Is this person allowed to marry? Coustomarily, if there isn't a penis present, doctors have tended to classify a person as female. Since people like BPSCG view sex as a fixed characteristic, and many of these intersexed persons feel that they are male, they are denied marriage rights with females, thanks to our society which forbids gay marriage. That is a demonsterable harm, ergo, our classification system requires revision.
No it doesn't. The laws prohibiting same-sex marriage need revision (or repeal).
Earthborn
Terrestrial Intelligence
Not only that, they also use the terms "sex" and "gender" correctly. Note that when they speak about "gender assignment" they specifically mention that surgery is not necessary for that. It is just about what role the child is raised in.
When genital surgery is involved they call it "sex (re)assignment", which is something else entirely.
ImaginalDisc
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2005
- Messages
- 10,219
Those laws need revising too. If that results in making a making a person's mis-assigned sex cause no harm to them, then it would become a much less pressing issue. I would still be upset if I changed my plumbing and the government refused to recognize it, it'd be annoying, but probably not harmful.
Again what have these articles got to do with good arguments as to why two adults of the same sex (sorry Earthborn I'm old fashioned!) shouldn't be able to marry?
Earthborn
Terrestrial Intelligence
When refering to the vast majority of people, the terms do suffice.
Since I believe people should be able to marry regardless of gender or sex, I'd say "yes, of course". When discussing the right to marry, I think sexual characteristics are irrelevant.
BPSCG isn't always right, y'know.
I'll await your proposal for an alternative classification system and your plans for implementing it. Until then I'm sticking with my opinion that gender registration by the government should be abolished but people should be free to classify others they way they choose to.
Hardenbergh
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2004
- Messages
- 1,073
If nothing else, it creates a diversion so that advocates of gay marriage will be reading all those articles instead of going out canvassing.
ImaginalDisc
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2005
- Messages
- 10,219
Egads!
My proposal: In places where it might actually matter, such as in an employment form, the form be written as such:
Birth Sex: Male/Female/Intersex/Prefer not to answer
Current Sex: Male/Female/Intersex/Prefer not to answer
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,821
Besides, what's wrong with marriages that ARE based on "strictly emotional connection"? That is what my wife and I have right now.
Is she equally against the marriage of senior citizens? Or couples who get married after the woman has had a hysterectomy because she had cancer?
I have no objections about people to whom their family and children are a critical part of their marriage. Bully for them. If that is what makes you happy, good enough. But why is that the only acceptable version of marriage? Why is a childless marriage based solely on the emotional connection between the husband and wife wrong?
The gay marriage issue is about equal rights. If it were about "protecting the sanctity of the married couple and family" or whatever, then make those who are going against what you want the target. Start with me. Come on, pass the law requiring all married couples to procreate. They won't do that, and they don't even think they should do that. Pass the law preventing women over the age of 65 to get married. Or people who are sterile.
But they won't do that. Because they don't care about families or kids. They only want to discriminate against homos.
HeavyAaron
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2005
- Messages
- 1,208
That last disclaimer is how I know you're not Claus's sock puppet.
slingblade
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2005
- Messages
- 23,466
Well, then, as with so many things in life, I shall simply sit confused and uncertain.
Earthborn
Terrestrial Intelligence
For what kind of job might it actually matter?
Here is my proposal (which does not include sex, only gender):
Gender issues
I prefer to be refered to as:
He/She/Ey/No preference
Very good point; your entire post is very well thought out, and I agree with you.
Just to clarify my earlier assertation that I'm concerned by arguments that reduce marriage to its procreative activities: I don't have any issue with people who do get married solely for procreative reasons. I don't have any issue with people who do it only for financial reasons (though if they were friends of mine, I'd be disappointed and hoped they'd receive some sort of emotional benefit). I do have an issue with other people claiming that any of these reasons should be the benchmark for the legal validity of my marriage.
If nothing else, it creates a diversion so that advocates of gay marriage will be reading all those articles instead of going out canvassing.
(This is an aside but it would therefore seem that you do not wish to engage in a discussion.)
Will you actually answer my question?