Transexuals and Marriage: A Question

In a previous thread I asked a specific question that I hoped Faith would answer.Sadly she missed the opportunity to lend her voice to the subject, before the thread closedSo I offer her (and others of the ”No to Gay Marriage’ mind) a fresh chance to stake a claim on the subject.To re-state for Faith’s benefit (as I’m sure she must have missed it first time round, and would relish the opportunity to give it a weighted and balanced answer)

---

Would you have a problem with two transsexuals (post-op) of opposite sex getting married? To spell that one out for you. If Barry became Cathy and Jill became Jack, would you object to Cathy and Jack getting married? What if Cathy met Tom and got married would you object? What if Jack met Sandy, would you object to marriage?

---

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

If they present themselves as a man and a woman I have nothing to say against it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Firstly thank you for answering. I appreciate your time, and I am heartened by your response.What about in states where sex re-assignment is not legally recognised, either at all or for the purposes of marriage?Surely in this case the marriage of Cathy and Tom or Jack and Sandy would be ”legally’ seen as same sex marriage, regardless of the fact that the couples in question were living as man and woman and presenting to be married as such? WikipediaIn this light, and in these states, should these unions be allowed despite their legal status as same-sex marriages?

It could always be argued that someone opting for gender realignment is under a purely psychological distress and should really be councelled rather than re-aligned.The situation of people born physically intersex surely makes a better case? At this stage what qualifies one for maleness or femaleness to entitle one to marry someone of the "opposite" sex but not of the "same" sex? Is it the degree of surgery performed to give a more definite sex to the sexual organs? Is it the genetic sex? And if the genetic sex is screwed as well?

And what about chimeras? They have at least two sets of dna, would the person they married be guilty of polygomy?

The reason I didn't answer you on the other thread is that these are such rare situations that they don't bear on the main point of the issue of gay marriage and it's a red herring to get into them. I have no idea what I'd decide down the road after gay marriage as such is banned. I'd have to think about it I guess. All I know is my take on marriage is that it's for heterosexuals and if two people present as heterosexuals rather than demanding a special accommodation for two of the same kind, which makes a mockery of the whole idea of marriage as a uniting of the two sexes, I can't see any objection to it. Perhaps legal minds have a different view.

Harry met Sally. They got married. Sally had a sexchange operation and is now Sully. So Harry is now married to Sully who is his lover, companion and lifetime partner.Should Texas recognized Harry's marriage as valid?Great Films that should be made.When Harry was Sally.Seven Brides for Seven Sisters.Two Mules for Sister Harry.Edited by jar, : add movie review.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

ohnhai writes

quote:

---

Would you have a problem with two transsexuals (post-op) of opposite sex getting married?

---

Yes, because marriage was originally created for people to establish families. Transexuals are incapable of procreation, which defeats the purpose of marriage.

We let people who are rendered sterile by other means to be married, too. I know a girl who had her tubes tied when she was about 20, was completely open about it, and went ahead and got married anybody. Even though just about everyone at the wedding knew that she was completely sterile, she was allowed to be married.So we can't deny marriage to transexuals due to their infertility, because that violates the "equal protection under the law" clause of the 14th Amendment. Either that, or everybody needs to submit to a fertility test in order to get a marriage license. (Is there even such a test for females?)

vThe rarity of an event or thing doesn’t render it invalid or inappropriate. Diamonds are a rarity yet their existence and sale have profound influences that can not and should not be ignored. Nor is it a red herring.As to their baring on the current issue on gay marriage, it is more a global argument on inclusion and exclusion within the term ”marriage’.Anyway, as to presenting as heterosexuals, I do find my self moved to ask a facetious question. (yes another one)If same sex couples on their wedding day dressed as one bride and one bridegroom, agreed to use the correct pronouns ”her’ & ”him’ and also agreed to the live by the legal labels ”husband’ and ”wife’ (which one get to be which would be decided by a toss of a coin I guess) would this be enough?As I said it’s a dumb question but it slides into a valid point. That is how far down the road must you travel to present as a heterosexual female if you were or are a male?If transsexuals are ok, what about trans-gender? What about transvestites? What about if you legally changed your name to Sally? (was Bob) what if you are considered to be a bit metro? Where do you cross the line between ok and not ok?

As Crash frog points out this is a totally bogus argument and was put to bed quite soundly in the other thread. Sterility in normal heterosexual couples is not a barrier to marriage thus it is wrong to make this an argument for Transsexuals or Gays.So back to our Transsexuals. If the sterility issues are not a valid argument do you have any more arguments to prevent Cathy and Jack a marriage licence?

Sure if both partners are willing to continue. But in reality a marriage rearly survive this (seen it happen in RL)

But Texas is one of those States that did pass a really poorly written law that only recognizes marriage as between a man and a woman.So...Harry and Sally get married in Dallas, valid as a Texas marriage, man and a woman.Case 1:Harry, sometime after the marriage, has a sex change operation and becomes Sarah. Since they still live in Texas, should Texas continue to recognize the marriage between Sarah and Sally as valid?Case 2:Sally, sometime after the marriage, has a sex change operation and becomes Barry. Since they still live in Texas, should Texas continue to recognize the marriage between Harry and Barry as valid?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

ohnhai agrees with crashfrog

quote:

---

As Crash frog points out this is a totally bogus argument and was put to bed quite soundly in the other thread. Sterility in normal heterosexual couples is not a barrier to marriage thus it is wrong to make this an argument for Transsexuals or Gays.

​

So back to our Transsexuals. If the sterility issues are not a valid argument do you have any more arguments to prevent Cathy and Jack a marriage licence?

RGB writes:

​

Yes, because marriage was originally created for people to establish families. Transexuals are incapable of procreation, which defeats the purpose of marriage.

As Crash frog points out this is a totally bogus argument and was put to bed quite soundly in the other thread. Sterility in normal heterosexual couples is not a barrier to marriage thus it is wrong to make this an argument for Transsexuals or Gays.

​

So back to our Transsexuals. If the sterility issues are not a valid argument do you have any more arguments to prevent Cathy and Jack a marriage licence?

---

God originally created that girl that crashfrog mentioned with the right tools to reproduce. Even though she decided to sin against her creator by making herself sterile, the covenent between her and god remains. This is why she is still allowed to get married.Cathy and Jack, on the other hand, were never intended by the creator to reproduce.