Same Sex Marriage
is a Civil Liberties centric issue
What about Biology?
Personally, I think it's not really a "gay" issue. It has more to do with the need to of some people to try to put everyone in boxes & insist they stay there. Most people see the world as black/white, male/female, digital/analog etc. Many people get unhappy, upset or frightened, when confronted with a reality that is more complex than that.
For the moment, let me put aside the issue of homosexuality. Let me pose a question of Biology.
What is a Man? For the moment, let's say folks who are XY = Man/Male
What is a Woman? For the moment, let's say it's folks who are XX = Woman/Female.
What about folks that are born Intersexed? Someone who on a cellular level is not completely male or female. Some intersexed folks might have chromosomes such as: XXY, XO, XXX or even XXY/XY Mosaic.
Intersexed persons occur in 1% - 4% of the population.. about the same rate as Redheads. Most folks who are intersexed, don't realize it. Many of them appear & believe they are 100% male (XY) or 100% female (XX).
With whom should that person love & have the right to build a life-long partnership? Suddenly it gets all complicated. After all, if a person's chromosomes are say XXY or XO or something else, what would be their opposite gender?
And they live their lives, fall in love, and sometimes marry. If we define marriage as something that can only legally occur between men (XY) and women (XX), we have made their love illegal... because of their biology.
Please tell, what would the moral basis for this be?
Max, you've brought up a point that I've never considered before. It only strengthens my view that it doesn't matter who you love, if you do indeed love. Furthermore, the government has no right to try to restrict what kinds of people we can or cannot copulate with, or love, or marry. I can understand a restriction prohibiting ancient Greece-style farm-animal love, but that's a whole other story entirely.
dave says:
"Does liking Jamie Lee Curtis mean I'm gay? ;-)"
No, just that you're aging, Dave. ;)
As for the main point, I think that this is such an interesting topic because there are so many nuances in it. So we all can agree, I hope, that love between a grown man and a young girl around the age of 10 is wrong. This is just common sense. All of us would agree, as well I hope, that love between say, a cow, and a grown man is wrong. So why do we insist that love and marriage between two men is perfectly okay? Just because theyre of the same species? A man and a young girl are of the same species, right? (Please note I am in no way advocating it, hah) What I'm pointing at is the fact that we pride ourselves in knowing the right order of things, that our normative view is universally right. Yeah, love between a man and a child, or a man and an animal is not right, but how are we so sure that love between two men or two women should be so? Personally I think all marriage law should be tossed, Free Love!
daniel says:
... As for the main point, I think that this is such an interesting topic because there are so many nuances in it. So we all can agree, I hope, that love between a grown man and a young girl around the age of 10 is wrong. This is just common sense. All of us would agree, as well I hope, that love between say, a cow, and a grown man is wrong. So why do we insist that love and marriage between two men is perfectly okay? Just because theyre of the same species? A man and a young girl are of the same species, right? (Please note I am in no way advocating it, hah) What I'm pointing at is the fact that we pride ourselves in knowing the right order of things, that our normative view is universally right. Yeah, love between a man and a child, or a man and an animal is not right, but how are we so sure that love between two men or two women should be so? Personally I think all marriage law should be tossed, Free Love!"
Of course most people react "Ew, that is disgusting!" when we hear of an older man and a younger girl.
But when we hear about an older female (especially an attractive teacher) with a young boy, many (men) react simply, "Nice! Nice..." and ask questions like "What's the crime here? That's she's not doing it with me?"
This comment is mostly joking, of course, but if we declare free love, I agree with you; we still need limits don't we? Interspecies sex is unnatural, right? I personally believe that intergender sex is unnatural as well, from a biological standpoint. However, I still feel that as humans with the ability to make judgments beyond that of animals, two consenting, responsible adults should have the right to love each other as they please. I further believe that law should not be based on imposing one's morals on another.
I find it disheartening that some people have such difficulty in standing up for victims of hate, but they will stand up and fight against love.
It is not the role of government to tell people who they can love, who they can sleep with and who they can marry, it is a issue that's only between 2 consenting adults and no one else has a right to stick their nose in. People all too often these days don't seem to get that, perhaps not enough people really know what liberty means. You only have a right to step in when it's not a question of competent choice or force is involved.
I do feel the substitutions of a male and female are not properly defined. Individuals with an abnormality in sexual chromosomes are still classified as male or female, depending on the presence of a Y chromosome. A female has no Y chromosome present, while a male does. Klinefelter syndrome (XXY), Turner syndrome (XO) are the two examples of nondisjunction (faulty seperating of chromosomes during meiosis, the splitting of diploid cells into the reproductive haploids, sperm and egg cells.) occurring in the pre-zygotic stages of reproduction that produce physical defects on the offspring produced. There are other chromosomal abnormalities, but these don't produce any easily-noticeable effects to the person. The main reason I'm detailing the information about the abnormalities is because they don't connect to the topic at hand. The main discussion page is focusing mainly on the governmental benefits that come out of a marriage, and not the allowance of gay relationships. I have several gay friends who have gotten married, but not officially recognized. They could care less, because in their eyes, and the eyes of their peers, they are married. A relationship is one thing; marriage is another. Genetic details of individuals is completely irrelevant.
If someone is not necessarily a male or a female, then what are you? A hermaphrodite? Well, I don't think so... I don't think the people dictating whom shall marry whom even have the slightest idea that there are people with sex-chromosome abnormalities. I'm sure many of them still follow the theologically-speculated sculpting of earth to make babies, rather than the scientifically-proven fusion of two cells.
You make a very good point. My partner and I are both transgender (M2F) and were recently married as a heterosexual couple since my petition to change gender was granted and she has withheld her change (she has some intersex biology issues but is still 'male' on the birth certificate).
I put some of the moments up on youTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLN5RXkDbKs
Marriage is a union to be kept sacred between a man and a woman. It should last a lifetime and never end. We need to keep these rules for marriage. If we break them, it is all a slippery slope. Once we start letting men marry men and women marry women, what will we go to next? Animals?
My two cents worth; issues concerning “Same Sex Marriage” are mind blowing when you consider, “are there children in the couples future”, if so, how will this affect the child’s schooling when the child attends school?
Also, presently, to the best of my knowledge, Insurance Companies will not honor a union between same sex partners, so what laws, rules and policies will have to be revised to incorporate this union?
Company pensions also take the same stance as insurance companies, again a potential concern to be addressed.
With that being said, and the fact that I’m not gay myself; I feel that if two people have feelings for one another society must accept Same Sex marriages. People must live outside the closet!
Like many, I believe "marriage" is a religious or faith based term, and I believe it is the process by which a couple presents itself to God within their faith. This "marriage" is between a man and a woman. However, I do believe Civil Unions would solve the question being presented in this forum. A "Civil Union" that is recognized by the state and gives the same rights as the ones that would be given to a married couple within the state. Now as for the biological question as it relates to the 1-4% of the population... whether a person is XXX, XXO, XYY or XXY. This poses an interesting question, I would believe that each one would tend to lean towards one gender more than another, for example the XYY is considered by some as the alpha male, the XXX is the alpha female. Those that believe themselves to be male or female should be respected and accepted as such. I see the potential for complication, but in the end I don't see a problem.
Corporate Christian says:
"Marriage is a union to be kept sacred between a man and a woman. It should last a lifetime and never end. We need to keep these rules for marriage. If we break them, it is all a slippery slope. Once we start letting men marry men and women marry women, what will we go to next? Animals?"
I love when people make the jump from Homosexuality to Bestiality, it shows how ignorant some people are. ANYWAYS
why is marriage sacred? how is it sacred? You do realize marriage was an institution that when created had absolutely nothing to do with love until no more then 200 years ago. That basically it was just a land and livestock pact made between families to secure their futures. In short, it was a business decision. but hey, i don't have to look that far back in order to see marriage for what it is so lets look at current times. Divorce is on the rise, more marriages fail within the first year then succeed probably because of the social pressures on many people to settle down to early in life or the refusal of some people to give up their individualism for the person they love. So how is this sacred? and how is allowing Homosexuals to get married for that matter in anyway way damaging its sacredness? You have heterosexuals who get married because its expected of them, and homosexuals who would give anything to get married. If anything its your own bigotry that is harming the sanctity of marriage.
A person has the right to love and should have the right to marry anyone they desire to. As for the "Christian" ideal of marriage and being sacred, why is christianity only 2000 years old yet marriage is what 10,000, 15,000 years old. Then there is the notion that it's not within nature for a male to be sexual with another male or female with female. These people have never truely watched the rest of the animal kingdom in action. Same gender sexual activity is not limited to humans.
