Skip to comments.Sex change thrust couple into same-sex marriage debate (Barf alert)
Posted on 01/23/2005 8:52:09 PM PST by Cracker72
click here to read article
There is no "debate" in this story. They are not the same sex. Only if you accept that having an operation to change your physical appearance is their a debate.
Gee, no bias here is there. We are supposed to accept the premise. I don't think so.
I guess society never had to even think about the definition of sex until medical technology made it possible to force the issue.
Can someone please tell me why they insist on referring to this man as "she"?
And why on EARTH are they praying?? What on EARTH do they hope to accomplish by that? Is that supposed to convince me that they love God or something?
I don't see how a lesbian couple could get married under the language I proposed, especially in the case where one got sex reassignment.
Of course the language I proposed was thrown together in a minute as I was typing and would need more rework, but basically anyone who ever had their sex reassigned would become ineligible for marriage (or instantly nullify any pre-existing marriage.)
Thus a freely made decision would make impossible certain future decisions, which is often the case in the course of human events, e.g. I don't work for a private company during my career so I don't get Social Security.
The only case brought up by punster that would seem to create a quandary is AIS where the person from all outward appearances appears to be a woman but is genetically a male, and where it seems in most cases the person identifies as a woman.
If the definition of male and female is genetic then this person would have to identify as a male and marry a woman and create a situation which would look very much like a lesbian marriage. I don't know the answer to this. Off the top of my head, any person with AIS would be required to go through what would appear to be a sex reassignment regimen to look more like the male that he/she is before being allowed to be married. But this seems rather draconian and fascistic on the face of it.
I think your story is touching.
And, in this case, I don't see anything wrong with referring to her as "her". She made a mistake, that she was unable to reverse. I think referring to her as "he" would only make her pain worse. Now, I would not necessarily feel this way if she decided to get married and adopt a kid or whatever. But since she has made the adult decision to live with what she did, and not date or get married, then she definitely doesn't need any more pain of being constantly reminded of that.
Oh, and, just so you know...sounds to me like we worship the same God. ;)
These two critters are blowing smoke. They're just trying to get some publicity.
The "It" portion of the duo was a MAN when they were married. The inevitable phalanx of lawyers will argue that under contract law, that makes the contract binding. A ruling that the contract still stands, even though the former "Man" is now an "It", would set *no* legal precedent w/r/t two people who were both male or both female BEFORE a marriage,
That's all fine and dandy until in three years thet both want to become men...L.O.L....Hetro to lesbo to homo...makin the round trip I guess...Life is just to short......
This is what happened in Belgium a couple of years back.
Unless we decide to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, then it would seem to me that being able to properly define males and females is something that should happen at the national level.
Phyllis Schlafly predicted that the ERA would lead to gay marriages because if a man and woman have the exact same legal status before the law, then a man marrying a woman is legally equivalent to a man marrying a man.
People who say that all this should be left up to the states mystify me. Roe v. Wade has made it difficult to constitutionally define what a human being is, so I guess I shouldn't be that surprised that even fellow conservatives don't seem to care about crossing the T's and dotting the I's when it comes to defining what men and women are!
That's your signal that the rest of your post/flame/rant is a joke, right? About the Bible and marijuana, etc...a parody of an unthinking DU-type, right? And you were trying to suck me in for fun. Anyway, whether you were kidding or not, it made me laugh, thanks. "Female whore moans"... that's good!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.