Skip to main content

View Diary: What the fight for marriage equality really means: Advancing the gay agenda (50 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  My Sincere Question about "Same Sex" and "Gay" (3+ / 0-)

    Legal definitions seem to include only male and female.

    But a percentage  are  born "intersex"....ranging from hermaphrodites to ambiguous genitalia to chromosomes and brains that don't exactly fit what other people think of as "male" and "female"......

    What if the USA could first settle the question of "sex"?

    Wouldn't marriage equality follow?

    I am thinking about interviews I've seen on TV with people who were somewhere between what used to be considered male and female.

    I cringe whenever I hear "same-sex" or "gay" marriage because of the baggage of Ye Olde Wrong Thinking about sex/gender. . . .

    •  Then again… (18+ / 0-)

      How about just taking gender orientation and/or sexual identity out of the picture entirely? Maybe it's nobody's $%^&*( business whether your "outie" fits into someone else's "innie" (or vice versa).

      How about if we can define marriage as between two human beings who want to be together in every way that they find meaningful for reasonable values of "forever"?

      •  This! This is is what a mature society would (6+ / 0-)

        look like. A society that just sees people as people. No more descriptive qualifiers, I know it's easy to be pollyannish. I have seen my daughter and her friends move beyond labels. That gives me hope.

        "Find out for yourself what is truth, what is real. Discover that there are virtuous things and there are non-virtuous things. Once you have discovered for yourself give up the bad and embrace the good." -Buddha Shakyamuni-

        by Sam Sara on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 11:13:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Hear hear! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I wanted to throw something while reading the transcript.

        Lawyer wants gay marriages banned for not being procreative. But age wouldn't be an issue in het marriages because 'men don't usually outlive their fertility' and het marriages to men already in prison on no-parole life sentences would still be okay because of the lawyer's presumption they'd be consummated physically at least once even if they were using ALL THE BIRTH CONTROL EVER during the conjugal visit when that took place.

        (And note, the het consummation issue has been one of the religious objections in Britain - the Anglican church in England didn't so much have an issue with the genders of the spouses as with marriages between spouses who couldn't perform Tab P - Slot V consummation.)

        I had to stop reading after that.

        Prayers and best wishes to those in Japan.

        by Cassandra Waites on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 12:17:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  That's the "T" part in GLBT (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JerryNA, rserven

      I have no clue why some people are so ignorant about transgendered people.  That "T" is there because some people flip out about anything involving genitalia, even if it's obviously a physiological issue.

      Of course, I think it's just one more case of certain people needing someone to kick when they're down.  For example, overt racism against African Americans has become quite unacceptable, and even the code words and dog whistles are becoming well understood.  As a result, the same idiots are now focusing on hating on brown people.  Same thing with equality.  A lot of these folks are beginning to realize that they can't make gay people go away, so they're using transgendered people as a proxy.  Anyone want to lay bets on how long it will take for the wingnuts to start claiming that trans people are a threat to stable same sex marriages?

      I wonder if bigotry is a medical problem that can be cured.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site