Just a Thought Regarding Homosexual Marriage
 

Here's some food for thought:

I am a t-girl. If that confuses you, it just means that I am a Male-to-Female transsexual; though physically male, I live my life entirely as a girl (And am considered a girl by pretty much everyone who knows me. Oh, apparently I'm also a hotty to.) This is because I have a female personality inside and being a girl suits my identity better than being the gender I was assigned at birth.

Now then, I also happen to be a lesbian-leaning bisexual and am currently in a relationship with another t-girl who I love very much. We've even spoken about getting married. Us residents of Canada, as too loving consenting adults we'd have no trouble having our marriage legally recognized here without being discriminated against because of our lifestyle.

Still, it kind of bothered me to think that by merely stepping over the border into the US that my marriage would be somehow annulled as long as I'm in the country. Of course, that wouldn't actually happen because, guess what, the US government would actually legally recognize my lesbian marriage. My partner is planning on getting Sexual Reassignment Surgery and thus will be legally considered a female.

I on the other hand am opting out of SRS because I'm happy with my body the way it is (What with being considered such a stunningly attractive girl everywhere I go anyway.) Thus, I will be, at least legally, considered male. So there you go; because legally we're both different sexes, the US would recognize our marriage.

This despite the fact that we're both genetically and anatomically male, despite the fact that in any given normal social situation we'd be taken as a pair of dikes (Having guys ogle and hoot at you for that isn’t so bad when you know the jokes on them!) Our marriage would be perfectly legit in the US.

So really, isn't all of this effort to make sure same sex couples can't get married a little silly? Looking at how queer our relationship must seem, it's funny that amongst all the other gays it would be our union that would be recognized by the government. Well, that's what you get when you forget that transsexual, transgended, intersexed, two-spirited, and androgonous people exist.

You can always count on the gender queer to make life that much more fun!

hah, 'at a way to get around the system Devon. a real life bishonen!

personally, I'd change marriage to civil union (or whatever name you want) to be recognized by the state, and then leave marriage or whatever to religious institutions.

that way, you and another person want to get a civil union and get all the tax breaks, rights to visit if in hospital, and all that stuff, go for it! if you want to get married go find a church that will do it, its of no concern of the state.

Agreement with Viper. In fact, I wouldn't be suprised if that kind of change actually happens in our lifetimes. Despite some people's belief to the contrary, the US is, for the most part, very moderate. Making marriage a purely religious institution simply makes sense, and the practicality of making gay/transexual/whatever civil unions legal is mostly inevitable, if for no reason other than the fact that many americans believe the government is not empowered with the ability to make moral judgements on this kind of level. Is robbery or murder morally wrong? Of course. Should the government be concerned with people's relational statuses(statusi?)? Of course not.

What's amusing to me about people against gay marriage is that so many of them object to it because they're worried the government will unilaterally force churches to perform gay marriages. They don't seem to understand that it doesn't need to -- good old-fashioned social pressure is going to do the trick nicely. All the government needs to and should do is what Viper describes -- the churches will fall in line of their own accord eventually, whether that's twenty years from now or two hundred.

One of the few instances where a simple change in terminology would make all parties happy. Civil union, marriage...Only difference I can see is spelling. The Methodist church already performed gay marriages before all this humbug flared up, so the churches have already started their reforms. A long time ago, in fact. The pressure to ban same-sex unions will not last that much longer, people will lose interest.

or jsu ttake the benefits (and penalties) out of marriage all together. why should a non-spouse be barred from visiting a friend or loved one anyway? Why not make teh whole institution a private thing. The government is just there to enforce the legal contract that was made between two people in regards to children, divorce, etc.

Because it's easier for the government to tax couples rather than individual persons living in the same household. I don't know, but I like the idea of being able to list my offspring as "dependants" and get that nice little tax break there. I also like the tax cuts offered to married couples. I likes me them benefits, and so do same-sex couples. It would be silly to get rid of them.

from what i understand, you actually get screwed more by the IRS if youre married.

Nah, I wouldn't call myself a bishounen because they still identify as guys. I'm all girl accept for a peice of flesh made quite small and useless by hormone therapy.

I beleive you're right. My freind's parents actually considered getting divorced so that they could just live together as a common law couple for that very reason... How cheap is that?

Anyhow, this is just symantics, but I've never thought of marriage as a particularly religious institution. Of all the married folks I know, I can scarcely think of any of them who would consider their marriage "a union UNDER THE ALL MIGHTY LORD". To me, any legally recognised union of two people, athiest, agnostic, secular, ecclesiastical, whatever, is a marriage. If we really need to distinguish between these types of marriage (Which the government doesn't.) well those terms just so happen to be adjectives for a reason.

As I see it, marriage is mostly a legal agreement. You just exchange a bunch of vows in a sort of handshake contract that you seal with a kiss. The government's only duty is to oversee marriages as they would any other such agreement.

I am Southern, I am White, guess what I'm going to say...
 

I see the whole marriage establishment as a way to attempt to create a semi-stable environment for the raising of children. It's best that there is love between the parents because it helps with the children. Now as far as the uh, "non-reproductive" couples, I honestly don't know. I see nothing immoral with homosexuality, transvestites, et al provided that it is consenting between informed people. So dogs and mules are out, sorry. ;)
As far as the whole civil union goes, I think that they should be allowed. When it comes to the issue of adoption for non-reproductive couples I think that there could be potentially overburdensome psychololgical stress placed on children of these couples. Most people aren't qualifed parents to begin with, but I'll assume that a gay couple would be as caring and talented parents as a straight one. There would, however, be outside social stigma. I recall in gradeschool having to do silly little projects about who my mom & dad were. This could be stressful on the child because their response would mark them as different, and it has been proven in numerous studies that people alienate what they feel is different.
I'm not saying that alternative couples should be denied civil unions, or right to adopt children. I'm just saying that the ones who do had best be damn careful about it.