I don't believe an actual sex change operation is possible. We can mutilate the body of a person to make them appear to have changed genders. We cannot TRULY change ones gender. Therefore, your question is technically invalid. No matter how much people change ID labeling from m to f or whatever, it does not make them that.
Having you disagree with a commonly known fact does not invalidate an opinion, it just adds your own take on it. I do agree we can't change gender but many people believe they were born with the wrong body for their gender.
__________________
__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
A more compelling argument would be marriage to a corporation, as a corporation is considered a person for many legal purposes. But, while a corporation is legally responsible for its own actions, it cannot make its own decisions, and so is very much like a child. The difference is that a child can eventually become capable of managing its own affairs. A child who is permitted to marry becomes an emancipated minor, recognized to be capable of managing her own affairs. A corporation is always reliant on its board of directors as a sort of guardian. Unlike a child, the "guardian" of a corporation can arbitrarily order its death.
The Supreme Court recently granted corporations the rights of a person. I wonder if we can hold them accountable for corporate suicide or endangering the welfare of a corporation?
__________________
__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
Your assumption that there is no way for the two groups to coincide with each other presumes that the issue of gay marriage should be considered as an entirely separate from any other issue. With that mindset, there is, of course, no reason for the two sides to ever come to agreement.
But limiting the scope to personal opinion on homosexuality or gay marriage simply isn't justified. I've yet to see anyone suggest that marriage isn't a human or civil right, and we have a long tradition of supporting such rights, even when we disagree with their particular method of exercise. By allowing the state to deny a human right, we open the door to other rights being infringed.
Put it into perspective: We as a society are ready and willing to prohibit two people from marrying, as evidenced by DOMA and the various ballot issues demanding recognition of only opposite-sex couples. But, we as a society are unwilling to stop the Westboro Baptist Church from hatefully denigrating the families of dead soldiers, because the tenets of free speech and freedom of religion demand that we do not interfere. (The Freedom Riders act as individuals, not as government, and are under no such obligation)
I think it is self-evident that there is something terribly wrong with a mind that can simultaneously hold these two positions.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
The Supreme Court recently granted corporations the rights of a person. I wonder if we can hold them accountable for corporate suicide or endangering the welfare of a corporation?
Corporate Personhood is a legal fiction, and has been for about as long as the idea of "Corporations" has existed. A "person" can own property, enter into contracts, and can sue and be sued in a court of law. Existing law at the time was forced to adapt to the need for non-human entities to be capable of these things, and classifying them as "persons" was a convenient way of doing that.
Corporate Personhood conveys some of the rights of a natural person, as addressed above. It does not convey others - the right to vote, for example.
(Incidentally, the last line of the AT&T ruling tells us the court has a sense of humor...)
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
I can point to a Supreme Court case involving AT&T earlier this year where the court deemed that a corporation did not have a right possessed by natural persons: Supreme Court Says AT&T Has No Right To 'Personal Privacy' | Techdirt (Supreme Court Says AT&T Has No Right To 'Personal Privacy' | Techdirt)
Corporate Personhood is a legal fiction, and has been for about as long as the idea of "Corporations" has existed. A "person" can own property, enter into contracts, and can sue and be sued in a court of law. Existing law at the time was forced to adapt to the need for non-human entities to be capable of these things, and classifying them as "persons" was a convenient way of doing that.
Corporate Personhood conveys some of the rights of a natural person, as addressed above. It does not convey others - the right to vote, for example.
That's good news and I never read a word on the AT&T case.
__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
Put it into perspective: We as a society are ready and willing to prohibit two people from marrying, as evidenced by DOMA and the various ballot issues demanding recognition of only opposite-sex couples. But, we as a society are unwilling to stop the Westboro Baptist Church from hatefully denigrating the families of dead soldiers, because the tenets of free speech and freedom of religion demand that we do not interfere. (The Freedom Riders act as individuals, not as government, and are under no such obligation)
I think it is self-evident that there is something terribly wrong with a mind that can simultaneously hold these two positions.
This is exactly what I am talking about. You present it as the WBCs protest is merely more "offensive" than other types of protest, and is legally tolerated as such (which is correctly presented). But then liken same sex marriage as if it is the same as any other marriage but more "offensive", which deems it a "double standard". You see, it is more than"offensive" to many people (wait for it, this is why they are not the same...)... It is just plain unnatural. Whereas marriage between a man and a woman is natural. (you can ask "what defines natural" and whatever all you want... I don't think we will ever agree on this issue if you ask something like that...)
Again, I will say there are folks who want to see same sex marriage equated as being absolutely no different than marriage between a man and a woman.
There are many who want to prevent that. I do not see a compromise.
As I said earlier, it is like abortion. There is not really a compromise. There are different philosophies that are polar opposites in practice.
This is exactly what I am talking about. You present it as the WBCs protest is merely more "offensive" than other types of protest, and is legally tolerated as such (which is correctly presented). But then liken same sex marriage as if it is the same as any other marriage but more "offensive", which deems it a "double standard". You see, it is more than"offensive" to many people (wait for it, this is why they are not the same...)... It is just plain unnatural. Whereas marriage between a man and a woman is natural. (you can ask "what defines natural" and whatever all you want... I don't think we will ever agree on this issue if you ask something like that...)
You've attempted to cut off argument by refusing to define "natural". I will point out that unless you can define "natural" in non-arbitrary terms, it's still just your opinion, and your opposition is based solely on your opinion of homosexual activity.
I will also point out that governments cannot legislate the fundamental laws of existence; only the laws of man. If a government can point at it and change it with a word, it's not a fundamental law of existence.
Considering that governments CAN change the nature of marriage - they've done so repeatedly throughout history - there is no dispute on the fact that marriage is a human creation. There is also no dispute on the fact that homosexual activity is NOT a human creation - homosexual behavior has been recorded throughout the animal kingdom. In many species, homosexual activity is the predominant form of sexual activity.
The current nature of marriage does not require the ability to procreate, the ability to engage in sexual activity, or even cohabitation. Aside from the issue under debate, the only thing that is legally required for marriage is the ability to enter into a legal agreement. There is nothing about marriage (aside from a government's fiat declaration) that fundamentally requires parties of opposing genders.
Quote:
Again, I will say there are folks who want to see same sex marriage equated as being absolutely no different than marriage between a man and a woman.
There are many who want to prevent that. I do not see a compromise.
As I said earlier, it is like abortion. There is not really a compromise. There are different philosophies that are polar opposites in practice.
The compromise is in the recognition that preventing homosexual marriage is incompatible with the fundamental individual rights recognized by government, and that permitting homosexual marriage does not affect the rights of those opposed to the practice. The compromise is the recognition that currently recognized human rights demonstrate that a ban on gay marriage is an infringement, just as coverture laws were demonstrated to be an infringement; just as anti-miscegenation laws were demonstrated to be an infringement; just as state-defined gender roles in the marital bargain were demonstrated to be an infringement.
The "compromise" is in recognizing that our form of government demands that human rights be valued as "inalienable" - beyond the authority of individuals and governments to infringe.
The abortion debate concerns the balancing the human rights of the fetus against the human rights of the mother. Balancing human right against human right is complicated. The gay marriage debate concerns the balancing the human rights of gay people against the opinions of third parties. The answer is simple and obvious - human rights always trump contrary opinion.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
It is just plain unnatural. Whereas marriage between a man and a woman is natural. (you can ask "what defines natural" and whatever all you want... I don't think we will ever agree on this issue if you ask something like that...)
If it was that "unnatural" why does gayness occur in animals like the two male penguins that raised a chick? What the heck is bisexuality about? Overindulgence? I really don't see many sane people wanting to buck societal preferences so I conclude that choice of sexuality is not a choice we on earth in any form choose to make.
I can't believe anyone wants a sex change operation but I can believe some may feel they need it. For that matter why is it mostly the uneducated who bring the strongest negatives to any conversation about sexuality? Is this the voice of reason they identify with?
__________________
__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
Linear Mode
