[quote]forlife wrote:
NealRaymond2 wrote:
A marriage of ‘Ann’ to a man should not be legally recognized, because ‘Ann’ is a man. A marriage of ‘Ann’ to a woman should not be legally recognized, because ‘Ann’ is known in advance to be impotent.
Good luck trying to pass a marriage law banning everyone known to be impotent, gay or straight.[/quote]
Second best law would be to legally recognize a marriage between ‘Ann’ and a woman; but not between ‘Ann’ and a man: because ‘Ann’ is a man.
Third best law would be one that attempts to only legally recognize marriage between a man and a woman, but makes an error in a small number of cases such as ‘Ann’, by counting them as the wrong sex.
And regardless of the law, ‘Ann’ would be better off seeking love and companionship outside of sex and marriage.
Perhaps you did not care to understand what I wrote. I will repeat myself in simple declarative sentences, for your benefit, but only once:
–I find no exception.
–Ann is phenotypically a woman.
–Women can marry men.
–Ann may marry a man.
(–This is so even if Ann cannot be an Olympic Female Shotputter.)
I do not feel the need to generalize from this example, because frankly, it serves no purpose.
Now, it is clear you do not understand the meaning of “phenotype.” It is not synonymous with appearance. I suggest you learn the meaning of your terms, since this is your example.
Your own examples undermine your logic, and it is your logic, not mine.
[/quote]
Let’s cut the condescension and discuss the actual points being presented. From Wiki:
You’re arguing that if a genotypical male presents as phenotypically female, he should be allowed to marry another male.
What is your rationale for this? Several others in this thread have suggested that genotype is the defining characteristic that should determine whom a person should be able to marry. Why is phenotype the qualifying standard in your mind, while genotype is irrelevant? Are you arguing that appearance is more important than substance?
Are you suggesting that transsexuals are not phenotypically female? If not, would you by logical extension allow them to marry men as well?
Ann should and can marry whomever she wants man or woman. Marriage is an outdated institution that institutes sex for security by an increasingly matriarchical soceity.
the familial unit surves to raise children and is a societal institution but varies from culture to culture (witness it takes a village to raise a child) and marraige is not a prerequisite. Women make babies. Period. relationships cross gender boundaries and should have no bearing on “being married”. Making babies is overrated, kids are born every day. marriage is overrated, divorce happens everyday. Being in a meaningful loving supportive relationship is a great reward, gender doesn’t matter.
Unfortunately, the law and several institutions are biased to reinforce and reward marraige. Married people are rewarded financially through taxes, insurance, just to name a few. Divorce is financial rape to threaten you to stay married. Single folks are penalized. Don’t even want to start a religious discussion here, but as it applies to Ann’s case, it is just another institution that controls people’s behavior.
Homosexual marriage is also a pipedream. It is only for equal protection and benefits and equal protection/penalties under the law. If domestic partnerships had the same benefits there would be no issue. It is for political purposes and agenda that it has come to the forefront.
The argument by exception discussion in the posts above is also valid.
to lend any semblance of credibility here: Military, was married, have kids, divorced am now out and WAAAAY happier.
One reason I find cases like Ann’s intriguing is that they cast a new light on the rigid models used by the religious right to define what is right, natural, and good.
In my old church, gender roles were clearly defined and enforced. It was a very black and white world. As a believer, I got a little queasy thinking about cases like Anne’s that didn’t fit nicely into the mold that my church told me was God’s plan for all of His children.
God doesn’t make mistakes, right? So how do you explain a person who is genetically male, but doesn’t have fully developed sex organs? How do you explain transgender people who are psychologically opposite to their genetic gender? How do you explain gays and lesbians who are sexually and emotionally attracted to their own gender?
Religion (particularly fundamentalist religion) has no answers for these people. They buck the mold.
Ironically, Jesus was sent to the outcasts, the persecuted, and the unwanted. And yet it is these very people that most religions claiming his name are unwilling and/or unable to serve.
I am very anti-organized religion. Poeple are welcome to their beliefs, but there is no one true way/right way. Believe what you want, but don’t impose your standards on me.
Lots of religions gave ways of living to help save lives. Example: Kosher foods for hebrews or Quoran standards for living in the desert where sanitation and water are difficult. encapsulating societal behaviors and standards (10 commandments, there are like 120 in Islam) also helped build society no doubt. However, it is the twisting of these codifications and the people that use their positions of power within that organization for aggrandizement and control.
Catholic chuch is a prime example. They are more interested in keeping their position and status than actually helping people. They are also resistant to change. So is Islam, there is only one Quoran, and it is in Arabic only. No translations allowed.
BTW, was a born again for several years and was at a retreat once, and I started to eat, and this lady said to me,“only dogs eat before giving thanks to God” and smacked my hand down. That was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Too much control. religion is between an individual and the almighty whoever it is, Buddhist enlightenment, Yahwei, Western/christian God, Allah, whatever you believe. no middlemen required telling me to tithe for their benefit.
End Rant. sorry. Ann deserves to be happy, and as long as it doesn’t adversely impact someone else’s well being, so be it.
[quote]b12sblue2002 wrote:
Believe what you want, but don’t impose your standards on me. [/quote]
Exactly how I see it. Unfortunately, some of them twist it back on us by saying that we are imposing our standards on them by having the gall to demand equal protection on civil issues.
Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins.
problems begin when religion is intertwined into society so inextricably they are almost the same, (see Saudi Arabia).
Granted I have a biased opinion, having grown up in the west and there is thin veil of church and state separation (in god we trust et al), but for the most part, better than any other shithole country I have been to.
Extreme right wing christians are complaining because they can’t persecute homosexuals as is their religion. Mormonism is a cult.
But at least they have the right to protest as opposed to being taken in an alley and shot because they don’t follow a state religion.
That’s why I am glad Huckabee never got elected. he wanted to re-write the constitution to reflect “God’s law”. Fucking crackpot.