[quote]ZEB wrote:
Jimmy Tango wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Jimmy Tango wrote:
Here’s an interesting resource presented by a collective of Religious-based peoples. What I find most interesting are the quotes from the 1960’s about inter-racial marriages, and how similar they sound to many of the views expressed on gay marriage.
That’s one of the poorest arguments (and most frequently used) by the pro gay marriage crowd.
Fact: Homosexuality is a behavior (a behavior which has not even been proven to be genetic!) not a race or gender. Any comparison to African Americans struggle for equality is an insult to Blacks everywhere. And the same goes for the womens suffrage movement, before you go there.
Next…
Pay attention–I am only mirroring a well-documented sentiment from a highly-regarded institution–and stop making wild assumptions about entire demographic categories of people. All I was pointing out was how similar the rhetoric sounds–just as it was inconceivable back then (and still to some backwards individuals to this very day) to allow interacial marriage, it seems inconceivable to allow homosexual marriage now.
Next!
Your “opinion” does not change the facts does it?
Race and gender are not a “behavior.”
And if you want to talk about what large groups of people are saying then pay attention to what the American public is saying every single time that some sort of gay marriage referendum is on the ballot: NO NO NO!
Next…
[/quote]
Um, where in the above quoted passages was I stating “my opinion”? Actually, I was stating other people’s opinions–the opinions of people that you had misappropriated and misrepresented when in actual fact you were presenting your own.
Nothing that you have stated factually indicates that marriage is by definition something that should remain between a man and a woman only.
As far as our opinions are concerned, I think your argument falls under the appropriate title of “The Kettle Calling The Pot ‘Black’”.
So what about voting? Just because 99 out of 100 people says something doesn’t mean it’s right. And large groups of people can change their views: the Vatican finally conceded that Gallileo was right and issued a formal apology. Yeah, it takes time, but people can be shown the error in their ways.
Here’s something else that’s interesting:
http://www.tgcrossroads.org/news/?aid=914
Now, it seems that the ruling in the above case goes along with your argument, but it introduces a problem in the definition of what is a “man” and what is a “woman”.
Is it just about penises and vaginas and anal sex? I mean, it makes little sense that a person can legally change their gender from male to female… (just look at their driver’s license) and still not be able to marry?
Even weirder still, can this transsexual be allowed to marry someone that was the same birth sex?
If the anti-SSM (same sex marriage) side wins this battle, what the hell happens with transsexuals that have legally had their gender identities changed back surgically? Or are they henceforth deemed invalid for any kind of marriage since they’ve technically been both genders at some point in their lives?
Are we all going to have to start carrying around two gender categories–one to indicate our current gender, and one to indicate our birth gender?
I’m getting real confused, ZEB. And it only gets worse…
Sometimes when children are born, they are hermaphroditic in nature, or they simply do not have identifiable genitalia, or they are born with genitals that are the opposite to what their chromosomes have indicated “should” be there.
In many cases doctors have misassigned their gender and men have grown up to be women when in reality they had one X and one Y choromosome (denoting, genetically, that they “should” have been a man)–so what happens then?
They have grown up believing and acting and being supported as being one gender, having been equipped through surgery and hormone therapy with the right biological components, and yet, genetically, they are not who they were “originally” meant to be. Society said they were a man. But society was wrong. Or was it?
How do we protect their rights? How do we ensure that these people, who have through no fault of their own been led to believe that they were one gender but are now something else, has as much of a chance to be granted the same rights and freedoms as everyone else?
Are previous marriages to be rendered null and void because it is discovered that there is a discrepancy between each partners chromosomes? Or is the genitals that we should be paying attention to?
What is the exact definition of a man?
What is the exact definition of a woman?
IS NOT MUCH OF THAT DEFINITION BASED ON BEHAVIOUR?
So, if you grew up as a man, ZEB, how sure can you be that most of your manliness is dictated genetically versus a learned behaviour from other men that you have happened to observe while growing up?
How do you know? Sure, ZEB, you may be a real smart person, able to just look at what’s going on downstairs and tell, but not everyone is born with that luxury.
But what if you found out tomorrow that you had been assigned a gender at birth and it was found out to be incorrect when you were seven?
Perhaps GENDER is a BEHAVIOUR:
“General usage of the term gender began in the late 1960s and 1970s, increasingly appearing in the professional literature of the social sciences. The term came to serve a useful purpose in distinguishing those aspects of life that were more easily attributed or understood to be of social rather than biological origin (see e.g., Unger & Crawford, 1992).”
http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/intersex/sex_gender.html
Perhaps it is GENDER, like BEHAVIOUR, that can be CHANGED, and NOT SEXUALITY:
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200304/ldjudgmt/jd040506/chief-3.htm
Still don’t believe me? Then read all about the zany implications these American citizens are faced with, here:
http://www.transgenderlegal.com/albanylr1.htm
Perhaps you should look at the other links too and expand your mind to the possibilities:
http://www.gendercentre.org.au/world_news.htm
http://inquirer.gn.apc.org/gender_intro.html
http://www.grsmontreal.com/anglais.html
I grow tired of the lack of foresight people such as yourself display. And if you want to talk about just how effective giving voters the opportunity to decide things, will all the problems disappear just because they define marriage as being one man, one woman: NO NO NO!
In fact, as the lengths of my posts and numbers of my examples can testify, the problems will only continue to multiply for such a shallow and unenlightened definition of marriage, despite what common sense would dictate.
I prophecy that same-sex marriages will become legally sanctioned in the United States one day… the continuing American love affair with lawsuits will see to that.
