A hypothetical question for those against gender-neutral marriageability..

[Velaniz]

Where do you stand on the rights of marriage of a person who is intersex? It seems like this would be impossible to answer satisfactorily in a fashion that's logically consistent if you're a person who thinks marriage should only ever be between two people of opposite genders. For those who don't know, an intersex person is someone who's biologically ambiguous in terms of sex, and often possesses an admixture of both male and female genitalia. The precise degree to which an intersex person can be male or female is entirely unique to them.

These seem to be your only options, and they all leave a lot to be desired as far as logic. Do suggest others in case I've missed them.

- Ban them from marriage entirely.

That's unequivocally a gross transgression of their rights, especially since the "gays can get married, just not to another guy" argument is one of the primary pillars of a position defending traditional marriage.

- Let them only marry other intersex people.

So they can marry someone BOTH male and female, but not someone who is only either one of those?

- Let them choose their gender once they're of a certain age, and thereafter only permit marriage for them to someone of the opposite gender of what they decided.

What's to stop them from changing their minds on what their gender is? You could suggest refusing accommodation to such situations to prevent abuse of such a system, but how would you know that it was in fact abuse, and not a genuine confusion on their part?

- Let them marry anyone at all.

How do you concede to this, yet remain adamantly against marriage between people of the same gender?


What I propose is to alter the institution of marriage, if it must remain, so it becomes a civil union that does NOT concern itself with the genders of the people making the union. Any adult should be able to marry another adult, with no regard to whether those people are men, women, or intersex. Your eligibility for marriage to someone else would be entirely gender-neutral. When considering actual biological gender permutations that go beyond the traditional binary we've become accustomed to, this seems to be the only position that stands up to scrutiny.

[TZucchini]

I don't want to detract from your thread, but I'm not sure why anyone should give two shits about the opinion of an individual that opposes same-sex marriage. Surely they'll find some way to project their bigotry on inter-sex individuals as well.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

New definitions:

Marriage: the legal process of recognizing two people's relationship by the government, regardless of sexuality or biological gender.
Wedding: the celebration of the secular Marriage process.

[LilSaihah]

delete marriage as a legal term
replace it with civil union
all legal benefits are attached to the civil union rather than 'marriage'
enjoy having marriage back, bible nuts, now your bigotry isn't stepping on the rights of other people

two people who are of age and natural people can get married. there's no problem if there's no gender/sex argument at all in the equation

[DemoBytom]

I don't care who marries who, what they have in their pants and what they do in their beds. As long as they keep their private life private and let me have my private life - I'm totally ok with that. Everyone has right to love and be loved by whoever-the-fuck-they-want..

[Stormdash]

I'm assuming the question pertains to hermaphrodites? As a matter of objective biological fact, those are the only ones to whom I think the term "intersex" could really apply? Now, to be honest, I'm really not sure how marriage competency laws deal with people who are biologically (i.e. factory, not after-market) both sexes where the law does not apply marriage to same sex couples. I would guess tie-breaker would be allow them to marry? For that matter, though, I really don't know what most states do with fully post-ops either, if they are given de jure changed sex status (relevant obviously in states that prohibit) regardless of the genetic facts on the ground *shrug*

[Velaniz]

I don't want to detract from your thread, but I'm not sure why anyone should give two shits about the opinion of an individual that opposes same-sex marriage. Surely they'll find some way to project their bigotry on inter-sex individuals as well.

Part of the purpose of this was to illustrate how quickly anti gay-marriage arguments crumble when dissected.

[DemoBytom]

delete marriage as a legal term
replace it with civil union

Isn't it a thing already? I mean, it might b e lost somewhere in translation, but in my country you need to get a civil marriage, so the government recognizes it. That's what makes it legal etc..
And then you might want to get a church marriage where you wove before priest/god/whoever.
You can do both at once, but you always must have civil marriage. THe other one is optional..


Now the question is how open the civil marriage is.. And unfortunately here - it's not that open, LGBT can't marry for ex.. But that's another thing we need to fight about with the conservative people in our government :?

[TZucchini]

Part of the purpose of this was to illustrate how quickly anti gay-marriage arguments crumble when dissected.

Certainly. I think it's a legitimate question that deserves an answer. I also think that any honest answer you receive will be completely unsatisfactory.

[Stormdash]

delete marriage as a legal term
replace it with civil union
all legal benefits are attached to the civil union rather than 'marriage'
enjoy having marriage back, bible nuts, now your bigotry isn't stepping on the rights of other people

Could also, in the alternate, just dissolve any and all civil benefits to monogamous union of any kind. Civil benefits accrued to marriage like barnacles on a ship, because of the esteem for the institution and its place at the root of the nuclear family. If the point of "marriage" anymore is nothing other than as a pretext to obtain certain civil benefits, we can make everyone equal before the law regardless of sexual preference by just eliminating all such benefits; clean the hull, as it were.

[Naxere]

People should be allowed to marry whomever they want to.

[Velaniz]

Could also, in the alternate, just dissolve any and all civil benefits to monogamous union of any kind. Civil benefits accrued to marriage like barnacles on a ship, because of the esteem for the institution and its place at the root of the nuclear family. If the point of "marriage" anymore is nothing other than as a pretext to obtain certain civil benefits, we can make everyone equal before the law regardless of sexual preference by just eliminating all such benefits; clean the hull, as it were.

I think this would be ideal, but in a society where monogamy is as deeply entrenched as it is, I think the feature of officially recognizing two people as a couple could have its benefits.

[Revi]

Part of the purpose of this was to illustrate how quickly anti gay-marriage arguments crumble when dissected.

Anti gay-marriage mostly stem from religious, cultural or ideological reasoning and personal values, the existence of hermaphrodites doesn't make it crumble at all.

The legal aspect of marriage should be available to anyone, the religious aspect should be decided by the respective religious leaders.

[Valech]

Oh well, I will make enemies with this post.

I regard gender and sexual orientation a naturally given thing. Thus, if you are male or female is given by your genes not by your state of mind. Even if you, as for example a person with male genitals, have transformed your penis surgically to a vagina, you are still a guy with a no longer functional reproductive organ. All gender-based confusion is a clear sign of a mental disfunction for me. Please do not get me wrong, that does not disqualify a person to be likeable or a valuable member of society. Just as depressed, anorexic or suicidal people can be likeable or be of value to society.

Marriage however is a difficult term. If we speak of religious marriage, like promoted by the bible, I think people should cling to what that very religion tells them. In other words, if you want to marry with any god´s blessing, you shall follow that god´s rules. And if the christian god happens to ban homosexuality I do not understand how homosexual people still want to claim that god´s blessing.
If we speak of marriage as a economical union, I think everyone should be free to "marry" who he or she likes. I think in that case we should redeem the term of marriage and speak of a personal union. I would even be open to such a union, that includes more then two people, if someone could invent a reasonable system for that. However, that should be something regulated and executed by the state and it should be strictly seperated from religious marriage.

As a sidenote: What you do with whom in privacy or what you claim to be in your four walls is neither of my concern nor object of my interest. If you want to sleep with men, women, dogs or stuffed toypets is up to you. But I do not think that displaying that behaviour in public should be tolerated. Just as I would not tolerate self-harming behaviour in public of someone with a borderline disorder.

Also, I am male and not religious. Just in case that matters.

[Darsithis]

As well thought-out and constructive of a thread this is, we don't allow gender/sexuality threads here.