Old Fashioned Transsexual Marriage

|

An intriguing piece at Slate by the relentlessly interesting Brendan Koerner notes that conservative states like Texas are actually more likely to recognize one form of "gay marriage"—unions in which one partner is transgendered. That's because those states are more likely to view gender as "fixed at birth," not succeptible to alteration by science. (I wonder how they deal with intersexuals? Can they marry whomever they please? Nobody?)

NEXT: Haitians Look Homeward

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I can’t tell you how utterly, thoroughly boring this whole thing has become.

  2. I’ll always be accepting of other’s non-coercive sexual lifestyle choices because it’s the only fair attitude to have, and also intolerance is self limiting. But, “intersexuals”??….Wow, I’m just lost now and I don’t wanna know.

  3. gmroper,

    It’s not actually a matter of presence of “an Extra X or a Y chromosome”, but rather presence or absence of the sex-determining region of the Y chromosome (SRY). People with two X chromosomes and also a Y chromosome have penises and testes, not vaginas and ovaries. It happens in about one in a thousand male births. And people who get one X and one Y, but who get a Y that doesn’t have the SRY, have vaginas and ovaries.

    There are all sorts of wacky sex chromosome combinations that result in real live people: 47XXY, 47XYY, 49XXXXY, 46XY/47XXY mosaic, 47XXX just to name a few.

  4. Well, it’s not so much a “lifestyle choice” as a genetic condition…

  5. kuro, funny, I thought it was more difficult when we treated homosexuals by lighting up electrodes on their unmentionables. Whatever gets you off, man.

  6. our society is fucked up as is man, picture this sunday afternoon a nice stroll through the park with the kids and a couple of gays are making out, theirs ass grabbin going on tongues evrywhere! think about the kids !

  7. apple,

    pray tell how the sexes of the people involved makes one whit’s difference?

  8. dHex, back atcha. stop by and drop a molotov in my comments sometime – it’s good for business

    (“too scatalogical for my tastes” LOL! I’m still rolling over that one)

  9. No, no, no. Transexuals have to marry transexuals of the opposite sex. (M2F only marries F2M.) That way, all bases are covered, don’t you see.

    “Marriage is a union of a woman and a man”. Reverse transexuals are a step above, because they cover it two times over!

  10. sry,
    its funny how you think so hard about such a ridiculous subject.

  11. >>Marriage, no matter which two people, is a personal choice. I’m getting really pissed off with people who think that it’s their responsibility to be in other people’s personal choices.

    Marriage is about couples, not individuals. Yes, two individuals come together to form a marriage, but marriage itself is greater than that. There is a societal interest in marriage that is not limited by an adult-centric view of familial relationships.

    Even if the State played no role in this, why would anyone demand social recognition for what is purportedly a personal choice? Since the demand has been made by same-sex couples, society at large will naturally respond.

  12. chairm,
    i do agree with you to an extent. It is ones personal choice the problem is that the choice should be made between a man and a woman. Im sorry but familial relationships is how it should be. what two adults do behind closed doors is their own biz. but should be kept behind closed doors for he sake of our childrens future.

  13. Apple:
    “What two adults do behind closed doors is their own biz. But should be kept behind closed doors for he sake of our childrens future.”

    <Sigh> Everyone thinks that how they grew up is the way it’s always been.

    We started out in caves, remember. No walls, no windows, certainly no doors. During much of our early history we followed herds of animals around sleeping in tents. Once we settled down on farms, for the first several thousand years most of us lived and loved in one-room huts. In cities like those of Israel in biblical times everyone slept together on the roof all summer. When we got to the dark ages and the movers and shakers built castles, most people slept in common rooms like the great hall or the kitchen, crowded up near a fire. Even once we got over here (the U.S.) most folks on the frontier slept in one-room cabins or dugouts. (White folks, that is. There were still lots of teepees and long houses.) Only fairly recently has the common family in the U.S. had a home that actually had a master bedroom with a door. There are still lots of third world areas where that hasn’t happened yet. And only in the last fifty years, with the invention of air conditioning, were Mom and Dad able to actually close the door and windows during most of the year.

    I personally remember living in an apartment building where bedrooms were arranged around an airshaft. During the summer, with all the windows open, we could always tell when someone got amorous. All the other couples would be inspired and join in. Didn’t seem to hurt any of us kids much.

    Maybe it was because of all the sex education we got. Out on the farm sitting around Grandpa’s supper table every one of us knew exactly why we’d run short of eggs if we didn’t get a younger rooster.

    But then (after I grew up, darn it) all the teenagers got cars and “doing it behind closed doors” went from being the solution to part of the problem.

  14. Well written Larry.

  15. Forget homosexuals… when is someone going to stop metrosexuals from marrying and having kids?

  16. Part of the problem is redefinition of words. Your gender is not your sex; your sex is determined by having an Extra X or a Y chromosome. The term “Gender” (although some dictionary’s use it as a substitute for sex) is a social construct indicating masculinity or femininity. Thus, a “sexual male” may be feminine in gender and a “sexual female” may be masculine in gender.

    If we are to discuss marriage/civil unions for gays (I support civil unions for sure, marriage I have some misgivings about though I acknowledge that part of it is pure semantics) then we need to not use the term gender and start using the term sex.

  17. Gender, the court concluded, is “fixed by our Creator at birth.”

    Tell this to Jamie Lee Curtis! Urban Legend, still undetermined.

    You know, this whole thing has gotten out of hand. Marriage, no matter which two people, is a personal choice. I’m getting really pissed off with people who think that it’s their responsibility to be in other people’s personal choices.

    The bottom line, is that if this had been done correctly in the first place (state law evolving into national law), hardly anyone would have noticed and they would have gone on with their lives as usual. This will happen in the end as well.

    Right now, this is monumentally difficult. But, when a law does pass (and it will, whether it be this year or in years to come) I’m quite sure that, just a year later, these rabid dogs against the personal choice of marriage will have found another cause worthy of their brown noses.

  18. “will our children one day live in a nation where they will be judged not by the capacity of their reproductive nature, but by the politics of their gender identity?”

  19. One wonders why “the capacity of their reproductive nature” or the “politics of their gender indentity” are adequate metrics for judging a person. The former sounds like some fascist “have children for the health of the state” non-sense, and the latter sounds like some Maoist “you must have the right ideas or you will be shot” idiocy.

  20. it is getting more and more difficult living in this heterosexual dictatorship

  21. Kuro: it is getting more and more difficult living in this heterosexual dictatorship

    Fine. Go kill your mom and dad. they are to blame for your pain.

  22. Larry, your post is interesting.

    Is your overall point that there’s an inter-generational responsibility within families, and within communities, that has been eroded? That the auto, for example, has atomized society and individualism has become less of a choice of philosophy and more of a way of life in our society…? A natural understanding of sexual relations has become distorted? What was once made obvious by day-to-day living has now become more abstract?

    How do you connect your interesting observations with the topic of marriage? Truly, no sarcasm is intended: I think your post does bring a few interesting lines of thought on the matter.

    Cheers.

  23. VM, you rule man.

    for someone with zero respect for the concept of individual liberty and no apparent sense of humor, that is.

  24. Fascinating…

  25. You didn’t answer the question.

    Do those people deserve recognition as a family?

  26. larry,
    i respect your view on this issue, and you brought up very good points. One thing that has been on my mind since yesterday is the fact that certain people have developed this obscure idea about familial values, its outrageous that that some of you out there are throwing out the value of our very existance! Woman and Man, Man and Woman. Its so simple, we were made for each other ! I respect peoples sexual prefs but i strongly believe that this whole issue is whack!
    “Civil Union” is the way to go for all of you same sex lovers out their, ill tell you like i tell my gay freinds. When it comes to marriage, im sorry but your asking for too much. Moral values are being cut to shreads….and your only bringing more discrimination upne yourselves.

  27. >>Do those people deserve recognition as a family?

    How is this question relative to same-sex marriage? It isn’t as far as I can see, as I posted earlier.

    Why do you think it is relevant?

  28. Not in a traditional sense… “Family ” is a broad term and in some aspects they can be recognized as a family as a group of individuals living under one roof, No different than a tribe or fellowship. Although in this case it is leaning toward a more traditional sense in which mutual love is implemented and taxes as well benefits will surely be applied. Listen we can look at this outside the box inside and from different angles but the way “family” and same sax marriages are relevant is they are going about this in a traditional sense. Im sure they will get what they want but the key factors in this are discrimination, morality, and the influence and drastic change in our childrens future. (and i dont even have kids !)

  29. By redefining family you would argue for the redefinition of marriage.

    Parenthood does not bestow marital status to same-sex couples. Nor any of the attributes you claim on behalf of the particular people you know firsthand. Even in terms of the definition of “gay marrige”. I don’t doubt your sincerity and good intentions, but the logic is flawed. It really is not a matter of changing a belief about “gay marriage” based on a loose concept of family.

    apple, I understand what you mean.

  30. “…should be kept behind closed doors for he sake of our childrens future.”

    If I have a choice between letting my son see either two men/two women express love or a family uncomfortable with their own feelings about that, I’ll let him see the loving couples every time!

    I think that if you define family as a man, woman and siblings, you are doing the family unit a great disservice. Whether you want to believe it or not, the definition of the American family has changed over the years.

    Use this as an example for a closing question of mine: I personally know several gay and lesbian couples who are great parents, role models, hard workers and supportive, compassionate partners. Without a doubt, they fit within the framework of the American family.

    For those of you who don’t believe in gay marriage…
    Do they deserve recognition as a family?

  31. Why do you think it is relevant?

    In the interest of saving time, considering that you haven’t answered the question twice (which, by the way, more than adequately expresses your answer), it may or may not be relevant. If you think that they should be recognized as a family, the question becomes how to do that, allowing them the same benefits as every other family.

    Adopting needy children, providing a strong foundation for them by being productive members of society, offering them an education and more love than I’ve seen in most families whose nannies are raising the kids, should be viewed as a very good thing. When I hear people say that this group of people should be less, or not at all, recognized as a family in comparison with a man and woman who are married and on welfare having a bazillion kids and treating them like barnyard animals, I am dissapointed at best.

    Drastic change in our chldren’s future? Damn, I hope so!

  32. apple, I see your point about relevance.

    Family is based on descent (and adoption) or marital status. It is not based on sexual partnership. In the broader social sense, of course, family is what we make of it. Good friends can become like family. But sexual relations between adults does not extend a mother’s parenthood to that second adult. This is so whether or not the couple is homosexual.

    Domestic partnership will evolve on the basis of fixing problems that same-sex couples face; but it hardly makes sense to extend procreative-based incidents of marriage to non-procreative relationships. There may be exceptions and that’s why a blanket transfer of marital status to same-sex couples needs to be examined in state legislatures rather than in court chambers alone.

    Linda, you are correct. Good parents are preferrable to bad parents or no parents. I suppose you mean to say that same-sex couples are just like other couples — except that you emphasize that there are examples of lousy heterosexual parents.

    Besides substitution of a bogus answer for the one I provided, what dissapoints is that a laudable effort to dispel stereotypes of homosexuals is offset drastically by stereoytping mothers on welfare. Most of whom do not abuse their children; and some of whom are actually lesbians who love and care for their birth children. In addition, another stereotype is offered on the other end of the economic spectrum: the stereotype of mothers who hire nannies (or utilize daycare). But even if these problems of negligence exist as described, it is a leap to suggest that new fangled same-sex “marriage” will be a cure-all.

    Social science research of the past 20-years has shown that children do best, by a significant margin, when raised by both birth parents — a mother and a father. The jury is still out on alterative arrangments that might evolve with families headed by same-sex couples. But universally undermining the procreative aspect of marriage is not the answer.

    At the core of this issue is conformity to an important symbol. Advocates of “gay marriage” want society to conform to the particular normative ideal that they claim is the definition of marriage. This overturns the essence of marriage; most of society wants families to conform to the traditional normative ideal of marrige. I think these are two prototypes for two different cultures. And within the gay culture the “gay marriage” ideal remains at the margins; but in wider society the procreative ideal has been shaping families for thousands of years.

  33. …it is a leap to suggest that new fangled same-sex “marriage” will be a cure-all.

    The only LEAP that has been made is the one in your mind, since I have NEVER suggested that same-sex marriage is a cure-all. In fact, you’ve taken much of what I’ve written and made assumptions that work for you while systematically denigrating real life scenarios. That’s your right, but it has become tiresome.

  34. Linda, my apologies if I misread your post as meaning that same-sex “marriage” would be a solution for the examples of parental neglect about which you complained.

    My error appears to be in misinterpreting your remarks which rested on negative stereotypes versus glowing praise of a few particular people in your social circle. I may have misread the impetus for your optimistim:

    You said: “Drastic change in our chldren’s future? Damn, I hope so!”

    And a little earlier: “If you think that they [same-sex couples] should be recognized as a family, the question becomes how to do that, allowing them the same benefits as every other family.”

    It appears that you perceive an unsubstantiated connection: you’ve asserted that same-sex “marriage” would bestow family status (currently denied) on their living arrangments and that this would certainly enhance the lives of children. But maybe again this, too, is a misreading.

    What is the change for which you hope; and from that change what are the benefits that children would gain that they are currently denied?

    Since one shouldn’t assume too much: it is not clear whether your are speaking of children who may potentially be adopted by same-sex couples, or birth children of one parent being adopted by the second adult in a same-sex household. Or if you just mean society’s children in general.

  35. Regarding the quote about change in children’s future, I am hoping that my own son, in addition to many other children can live in a world that is more accepting of diversity; be it diversity of race, religion or sex.

    I think that too many Americans have an unhealthy outlook on sexuality. If you have lived abroad, as I have, you quickly realize that America has a lot of hangups. There are naked women in TV commercials abroad and no one thinks a thing about them. Yet here, we have people freaking about about Janet Jackson’s breast, and those same people bringing their church youth group to see the Passion of Christ. There is something terribly wrong with that!!!

    So, yes, I certainly want change for our children’s future.

    I want same-sex couples to have equal rights as opposite-sex couples, especially when they are providing an equal amount of care to their families, or better as I’ve seen in a few cases.

    I want people to be less worried about the personal lives and choices of others and perhaps work on their own fears and insecurities.

    To quote Tolstoy, “Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.”

  36. >>a world that is more accepting of diversity; be it diversity of race, religion or sex.

    A noble goal, no doubts.

    Acceptance of diversity helps when there are differences in opinion on very difficult issues. It helps when people with whom one disagrees are not dismissed as uptight or unworldly but are welcomed both as potential teachers and as potential learners. When diversity produces knee-jerk acrimony instead of opennes, it is an arrogant brand of diversion.

    >>I want same-sex couples to have equal rights as opposite-sex couples, especially when they are providing an equal amount of care to their families, or better as I’ve seen in a few cases.

    For what it is worth, I agree to a large extent. We differ on marital status, but parental status is not derived from marriage.

    The exception is when a husband is lawfully presumed to be the father of the children born into his marriage; his wife’s children are his birth children by default due to the procreative model of marriage. This socially useful presumption can’t apply to same-sex couples.

    There is no shortage of heterosexuals (married and unmarried) who are eager to adopt children. And for the most part, there are no prohibitions on homosexuals adopting children. Where there may be obstacles, these are about the estension of the privilege of adoption for the sake of children, not for the sake of the supposed rights of adults. No one is about to wrip children from birth mothers on the basis of sexual orientation; adoption by same-sex partners is available.

    >>I want people to be less worried about the personal lives and choices of others and perhaps work on their own fears and insecurities.

    With all due respect, I detect undue an unrealistic view of others in this remark.

    People are profoundly concerned about the potential loss of marriage as society’s normative ideal for parenting. This isn’t about fear of gays or insecurity about sexuality.

    People can see the price paid by children for the weakening bond between men and women. There are loads of things bigger than homosexuality that have pushed marriage down the slippery slope, but that’s no reason for society to throw-in a white flag and severe procreation from the idea of marriage. A slippery slope can be climbed; people do not want to rush toward the cliff’s edge. Look to our inner cities for a hard look at what can happen and where we need to do the most to restore authentic marriage as the norm. Kids aren’t as adaptable as the fiction would have it.

    Domestic partnership is a reasonable solution for a new type of non-procreative model of intimacy among homosexuals. It is long overdue. Licensing is secondary to the actual implementation in homosexual homes.

    As I posted earlier, the prototype that some suggest as the new ideal for homosexual couples is currently accepted only on the fringes of gay culture. Marriage — especially the monogamous and life-time ideal — is actually opposed or ridiculed throughout the homosexual community. It has a long way to go before it will be practicably supported in the community; without that acceptance among homosexuals this prototype will have next to no chance of succeeding as a new norm. For now the ramparts are being stormed for political reasons. And perhaps in a vain hope that this can force society to convert tolerance into approval.

    To that extent, gay domesticity has something in common with modern marriage: it needs a special status that will be widely accepted as valid and benefitial to society. This does not discount the sincere and authentic religious beliefs of the orthodoxies of Judaism, Catholicism, and others. No more than the beliefs of those who are devoted to congregations that favor same-sex marriage. Or the secularists among us on either side of the issue.

    Cheers.

  37. > Well, it’s not so much a “lifestyle choice” as a genetic condition…

  38. dj of raleigh, what you believe matters. To you to post it. To me to read it. Matters of substance matter in style if not in-emotion and wile.

    >>Boy, be like your dad, want a woman like your mom. Girl, want a man like dear old dad. Be like mom & dad. These are all learned, taught, behaviors.

    >>That people get to be one way or the other, there is no doubt, and that people change, there is no doubt, either, since hetero- can go homo is de facto proof of that.

    So being gay is a choice, afterall?
    Just lessons to learn and changes to make.
    Changes to words, not to oneself.
    All lessons discerned to play and to fake.
    A guy and a guy; a gal and a gal;
    too much the same and too much unalike.
    Monogamy-in-a-box on a shelf
    in a closet with counterfeiti-lite
    littered in the creases of a license
    to redefine licence as marital blissings.
    A human being sexual is not
    the same sex marital as begets human beings.

    Shalom.

  39. >>The KKK is a diverse group … we’re Jewish.

    To equate the KKK with people with whom you disagree on the marriage issue is pretty low, Linda. Another hostile stereotype.

    >>it seems to me that the gay community mocks us because we fuck up when it comes to fidelity and divorce…a lot!

    The gay community opposes and ridicules its own advocates of monagamy and lifetime commitment. The ideal of monogamy and commitment that advocates use to sell an image of normality is benignly rejected by the vast majority of homosexuals. In word and in behavior. Marriage — even as reconstructed by SSM advocates — is a nonstarter except on the margins of gay culture.

    In the broader society, most people expect that they’ll marry and that they’ll have children. If couples live together, they generally do so as a pre-marriage; they get hitched after the first child is conceived or born. Sure there are exceptions, but the normative procreative model still applies as a natural, if embattled, influence. Government has no business enforcing it; but society can support it without the interference of redefinitions.

    The exceptions in gay culture are roughly the inverse of the exceptions in heterosexual culture. Despite 30 years of deterioration, most people who marry stay married; and most of those who eventually divorce will remarry; most stay together for at least 10 years. Gay couples quit after less than a year, on average, and even when there’s a longer commitment there is a redefinition of fidelity and monogamy that is a very different sort than that of heterosexuals. Exception prove the rule in both cases.

    >>If marriage between opposite-sex couples are what’s most important and sacred to some people, why aren’t they working to stabilize THAT instead of destabilizing the idea of same-sex marriage?

    As I said, most people make it work based on a normative ideal that is a nonstarter in gay culture — except on its fringes. And defenders of marriage are very involved on many different fronts. If you are strong on the merits of adoption of needy children, for example, visit the local office of Catholic Charities or Jewish agencies that are also on the forefront of opposition to the SSM movement.

    There’s plenty of diversity there for lessons to learn about tolerance and acceptance.

  40. “There’s plenty of diversity there for lessons to learn about tolerance and acceptance.”

    There sure are.

  41. “Acceptance of diversity helps when there are differences in opinion on very difficult issues. It helps when people with whom one disagrees are not dismissed as uptight or unworldly but are welcomed both as potential teachers and as potential learners. When diversity produces knee-jerk acrimony instead of opennes, it is an arrogant brand of diversion.”

    Knee-jerk acrimony is usually produced by more than diversity. The KKK is a diverse group, but I’m neither endorsing it, nor teaching my son to be accepting of it; especially since we’re Jewish. They do have a right to their own opinion and their organization, though. Most of the time they don’t bother me. So, I tolerate them. If they hurt someone, that becomes another issue.

    I assume that most people against same-sex marriage/civil union/adoption/families/traditional anything feel that in some way, someone is hurt by this. I just don’t get it.

    If you’re going to deal with facts and figures about same-sex partners raising children, why aren’t you dealing with facts and figures about opposite-sex couples and infidelity or divorce rates. Because, it seems to me that the gay community mocks us because we fuck up when it comes to fidelity and divorce…a lot!

    If marriage between opposite-sex couples are what’s most important and sacred to some people, why aren’t they working to stabilize THAT instead of destabilizing the idea of same-sex marriage?

  42. EMAIL: nospam@nospampreteen-sex.info
    IP: 210.18.158.254
    URL: http://preteen-sex.info
    DATE: 05/20/2004 11:40:19
    Genius is of no country.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.