I love that "everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, so no one's rights are denied" argument.
Let's turn it inside out.
Let's say that everyone had a right to marry someone of the same sex, and there was a constitutional amendment that said marriage was ONLY two men or two women, thus denying legality to man+woman marriages.
Now, you're attracted to the opposite sex. But the law forbids you to get married to the partner you're attracted to.
But, hey, you can get married to someone of your gender, right? What's the big deal? It's legal. I'm sure you'll find someone you'll like spending an intimate 10+ years with. And the official union comes with over 1350 beneficial federal and state rights! What? You're attracted to a member of the opposite sex? That's not allowed!
If you're opposite-sex oriented, you probably feel a certain revulsion to the idea of entering into a marriage to someone of the same sex.
Same-sex oriented folk feel the same way about entering into opposite-sex intimate pairings.
Put yourself in their shoes, and try to see how ingenuous and hurtful that 'no rights are denied' argument is.
And let's add another wrinkle. I'm a male-to-female transsexual who's had the sex-change operation. Who should I marry? Someone opposite to my current presentation, or someone opposite to my birth-sex? If I prefer guys, am I 'straight' or 'gay'? If I prefer gals, am I 'straight' or 'lesbian'?
And if I 'choose right' for a particular jurisdiction, will my marriage be recognised should we move to a state, county or city that interprets my gender differently?
I'd love to hear your comments on that question;
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Dueling arguments Posted by Mollie
Posted by Mollie