Originally posted by Veraticus Men being tough and manly is as silly as men being in dresses.
Sensitivity doesn't require me to put on a dress. If it were done to be plain "silly" that would be one thing, but then you have these idiots who go around in dresses saying they are "women" and demand the right to use the women's restroom.
There once was an intelligent little boy on Kindergarten Cop that sums this up very well, "Boys have a penis, girls have a vagina". Simple as that.
And please, do tell, what Constitutional rights have been infringed upon? Someone compared this to the fight for civil rightsfor blacks. Are you allowed to vote, go to an integrated school, etc? If so, your civil liberties are not infringed upon. Legal recognition of marriage is not an infringed upon right. Those seeking the recognition of gay marriage only wants it for the financial benefits of marriage - otherwise they wouldn't care.
You can tie the knot in your own ceremony, wear your ring and get your name changed to whatever you wish and viola - you are "married".
Originally posted by Dekron Sensitivity doesn't require me to put on a dress. If it were done to be plain "silly" that would be one thing, but then you have these idiots who go around in dresses saying they are "women" and demand the right to use the women's restroom.
There once was an intelligent little boy on Kindergarten Cop that sums this up very well, "Boys have a penis, girls have a vagina". Simple as that. And please, do tell, what Constitutional rights have been infringed upon? Someone compared this to the fight for civil rightsfor blacks. Are you allowed to vote, go to an integrated school, etc? If so, your civil liberties are not infringed upon. Legal recognition of marriage is not an infringed upon right. Those seeking the recognition of gay marriage only wants it for the financial benefits of marriage - otherwise they wouldn't care. You can tie the knot in your own ceremony, wear your ring and get your name changed to whatever you wish and viola - you are "married".
The demand to use a women's restroom is more of what I was talking about earlier: what exactly makes a person a man? A woman? Chromosomes? So why don't we have a third restroom for people with non-standard genetic makeups, like XXYY or XXY and so on? And what do you do with men who were assigned to another gender at birth, due to having micropenises or botched circumcisions? Perhaps we should judge instead on what genitals you have. So do post-op transsexuals get to use the restroom of their "real" gender, or their "birth" gender? Do we then use instead what gender you identify as?
It's just showing again that the artificial construction of gender in our society oppresses a small but increasingly visible minority.
And being sensitive doesn't require you to put on a dress, but the traditional concept of the male gender role doesn't involve nearly as much sensitivity as the female role. That's the point; that the gender roles are arbitrary and artificial, and by showing that they lose some of their power.
Boys have a penis and girls have a vagina? Would that it could be so simple for everyone. Transsexuals, transvestites, non-standard chromosomal types... gender is not binary and it's fallacious to believe it is. There is a spectrum from man to woman encompassing not only social characters but also physical and mental ones. That's what this is about!
It's difficult to answer what constitutional rights have been infringed upon because the constitution refuses to define so many rights. If you're a strict constructionalist, there's no actual right to privacy; it's implied in many amendments but never voiced completely. Similarly there's no amendment that says marriage should only be between a man and a woman, so why should it be thus? Simply speaking, though, if we assume the constitution protects everyone's equal access to legal institutions regardless of their personal differences, gay people are being restricted from accessing the legal institution of marriage merely because of their sexual orientation.
And it's not only financial benefits. If my husband were in a car accident, I wouldn't be able to see him or even weigh at all on the decisions of surgery, even though he's my spouse. If we had children and they were adopted in his name, custody would go to the state if he were to die, rather than me. And, of course, there's the tax benefits. There's a plethora of legal benefits to being married that shouldn't be denied to me only because the gender of my spouse is the same as my own.
That's what's important. Ceremonies and changing names is fine, but the government doesn't recognize it, and that is important.
1) Transsexuals, transvestites 2) If my husband were in a car accident, I wouldn't be able to see him or even weigh at all on the decisions of surgery, even though he's my spouse. If we had children and they were adopted in his name, custody would go to the state if he were to die, rather than me.
Point #1 - Transsexuals and transvestites are whatever gender they are born as whether or not they are post-op. I hate to make this sound so damned disrespectful, but they are freak shows. You straight up said that one barrier that gays are trying to break is the gender barrier (as your definition), but yet there are "trans-gendered" people that try to look like the stereotypical female in dress, looks and even the extreme of augmented penises to look like a vagina.
As for genetic malformations, well, that sort of falls under the same issue. Sure there are hermaphrodites, but there is a minority that are so extreme that they must choose whether or not they are male or female. The majority have such small deformities that it would not even be noticeable without close medical inspection. And for those that are the minority born with the extreme, then yes, they should have the ability to choose their gender, but if you are born with a penis, then you are a male, if you are born with a vagina, then you are a female. If you like the same sex, then fine, you like the same sex. No big deal.
Point #2 - As far as having the right to medical care, that is incorrect. If your husband has a living will that has been properly documented through legal means, then yes, you do have the right in the states that recognize living wills. The same for the adopted children. They can go to you if there is documentation that has been filed.
Now do not consider my disagreements as being homophobic or bashing. I just disagree with you on some points. As I said before, gay lifestyle doesn't bother me, but don't expect me to go out and hold up signs in protest for rights. If laws are passed that allow it, then so be it. I am not a protester against it either. It may sound harsh, but frankly I just don't care.
Comments
Sensitivity doesn't require me to put on a dress. If it were done to be plain "silly" that would be one thing, but then you have these idiots who go around in dresses saying they are "women" and demand the right to use the women's restroom.
There once was an intelligent little boy on Kindergarten Cop that sums this up very well, "Boys have a penis, girls have a vagina". Simple as that.
And please, do tell, what Constitutional rights have been infringed upon? Someone compared this to the fight for civil rightsfor blacks. Are you allowed to vote, go to an integrated school, etc? If so, your civil liberties are not infringed upon. Legal recognition of marriage is not an infringed upon right. Those seeking the recognition of gay marriage only wants it for the financial benefits of marriage - otherwise they wouldn't care.
You can tie the knot in your own ceremony, wear your ring and get your name changed to whatever you wish and viola - you are "married".
The demand to use a women's restroom is more of what I was talking about earlier: what exactly makes a person a man? A woman? Chromosomes? So why don't we have a third restroom for people with non-standard genetic makeups, like XXYY or XXY and so on? And what do you do with men who were assigned to another gender at birth, due to having micropenises or botched circumcisions? Perhaps we should judge instead on what genitals you have. So do post-op transsexuals get to use the restroom of their "real" gender, or their "birth" gender? Do we then use instead what gender you identify as?
It's just showing again that the artificial construction of gender in our society oppresses a small but increasingly visible minority.
And being sensitive doesn't require you to put on a dress, but the traditional concept of the male gender role doesn't involve nearly as much sensitivity as the female role. That's the point; that the gender roles are arbitrary and artificial, and by showing that they lose some of their power.
Boys have a penis and girls have a vagina? Would that it could be so simple for everyone. Transsexuals, transvestites, non-standard chromosomal types... gender is not binary and it's fallacious to believe it is. There is a spectrum from man to woman encompassing not only social characters but also physical and mental ones. That's what this is about!
It's difficult to answer what constitutional rights have been infringed upon because the constitution refuses to define so many rights. If you're a strict constructionalist, there's no actual right to privacy; it's implied in many amendments but never voiced completely. Similarly there's no amendment that says marriage should only be between a man and a woman, so why should it be thus? Simply speaking, though, if we assume the constitution protects everyone's equal access to legal institutions regardless of their personal differences, gay people are being restricted from accessing the legal institution of marriage merely because of their sexual orientation.
And it's not only financial benefits. If my husband were in a car accident, I wouldn't be able to see him or even weigh at all on the decisions of surgery, even though he's my spouse. If we had children and they were adopted in his name, custody would go to the state if he were to die, rather than me. And, of course, there's the tax benefits. There's a plethora of legal benefits to being married that shouldn't be denied to me only because the gender of my spouse is the same as my own.
That's what's important. Ceremonies and changing names is fine, but the government doesn't recognize it, and that is important.
Point #1 - Transsexuals and transvestites are whatever gender they are born as whether or not they are post-op. I hate to make this sound so damned disrespectful, but they are freak shows. You straight up said that one barrier that gays are trying to break is the gender barrier (as your definition), but yet there are "trans-gendered" people that try to look like the stereotypical female in dress, looks and even the extreme of augmented penises to look like a vagina.
As for genetic malformations, well, that sort of falls under the same issue. Sure there are hermaphrodites, but there is a minority that are so extreme that they must choose whether or not they are male or female. The majority have such small deformities that it would not even be noticeable without close medical inspection. And for those that are the minority born with the extreme, then yes, they should have the ability to choose their gender, but if you are born with a penis, then you are a male, if you are born with a vagina, then you are a female. If you like the same sex, then fine, you like the same sex. No big deal.
Point #2 - As far as having the right to medical care, that is incorrect. If your husband has a living will that has been properly documented through legal means, then yes, you do have the right in the states that recognize living wills. The same for the adopted children. They can go to you if there is documentation that has been filed.
Now do not consider my disagreements as being homophobic or bashing. I just disagree with you on some points. As I said before, gay lifestyle doesn't bother me, but don't expect me to go out and hold up signs in protest for rights. If laws are passed that allow it, then so be it. I am not a protester against it either. It may sound harsh, but frankly I just don't care.