Quote:
Originally posted by Colonel Quack
There's something really subtle that nobody's bothered to bring up. If you want to define marriage as between a "male" and a "female", well, you'd have to then define what it is to be "male" or "female".
Pause for a moment.
I'm supposedly male, right? Well, what happens if I cut my genitalia, and take some hormones to grow breasts. What sex am I then, and who can I marry? Am I previously male, and therefore able to marry men in my now female apparence? Am I female, and then unable to marry women in my now female apparence?
I think you understand the complexity of this. It's not just transexuals, it's intersexuals. "Hermaphrodites." Some doctors would just assume cut them up at birth, "assigning" them genders at birth, but I believe they should be allowed to live out their lives however they see fit. Seriously, who can a hermaphrodite marry? Both? Neither? We're all human. I think we should all be able to agree that we should be able to marry other sentient beings. (I'm somehow reminded of Star Trek.) I don't see why what we have between our legs should dictate what type of human we are allowed to marry.
|
It doesn't have anything to do with what we have between our legs. It has only to do with prejudice, fear of something different, "abnormal", different from ourselves.
Throwing sex changes and hormone treatments in people's faces won't really help. Then they'll say, let's decide the sex based on chromosomes... If it has two X chromosomes, it's a girl. If one X and one Y, it's a boy. Okay... What about cases of aneuploidy, like Turner's or Klinefelter's syndrome? What defines the sex then?
There's always a counter-opinion to each opinion, a counter-thought to each thought. I don't believe we can argue this point with logic, because the opposition's opinion is based on fear, and fear is not necessarily logical, or at least may not provide people the means to assess things logically.