Are There Transsexuals here who have successfully married?

[izZyLiciOuS]

Are there TS here who have been married??
Or any guy married to a TS??
Share us your experience and how did you arrange for papers and necessary documents..
Hope to have response. Just curious.

[transjen]

I'm not married yet but will be soon, As far as paperwork goes after SRS you are given a letter from your surgeon stating your new gender then you can get all the proper paperwork declaring your new gender, Here in the US it's a hassle but once it's all done i can legaly marry a man Jennifer

[ila]

My desire is to marry the girl of my dreams.

[Rambam]

Is it possible to marry as a tgirl in the Phils? Or do you wanna marry a guy outside the Phils?

[racquel]

Originally Posted by izZyLiciOuS

Share us your experience and how did you arrange for papers and necessary documents..

There is a lot of paperwork to do in the US, and it varies quite a bit from state to state. Some states it is fairly easy to get the gender on your birth certificate changed. Some states it is impossible.

But getting married? That's complicated. Even if same sex marriage is legal in a specific state, the federal government refuses to recognize same sex marriage in the US. And some states refuse to change your gender on your birth certificate even after SRS.

I'll think I might be able to forge a letter from Thailand to get my gender changed without getting SRS... That'd be nice. It's just so much paperwork.



Are you really "just curious" or are you wondering about how it applies to your personal life? There are several LGBT organizations in Manila you could contact.

[rockabilly]

Why should the state or government say who can or cant be married. Dont get me wrong i want to have a Tgirlfriend and spend my life w/ her but i feel like "big brother" should butt out of our life. It should be enough that i want to share a life w/ a Tgirl that a piece of paper shouldn't hold us back. Maybe i'm wrong but Marrige is just a word for the ceremony of joining two people together.

[transjen]

Originally Posted by rockabilly

Why should the state or government say who can or cant be married. Dont get me wrong i want to have a Tgirlfriend and spend my life w/ her but i feel like "big brother" should butt out of our life. It should be enough that i want to share a life w/ a Tgirl that a piece of paper shouldn't hold us back. Maybe i'm wrong but Marrige is just a word for the ceremony of joining two people together.

Sadly that's the way things are, The marriage will not be legal unless the Tgirl has SRS and gets her new birth cert, Then the marriage is legal. But the sad part is a Tgirl could marry a woman. Yeah makes no sense to me either Jennifer

[fionahavelock]

i have some friends that married and living together happily. i want to get married one day. marriage is a human right, not a heterosexual privilege.

[racquel]

Originally Posted by rockabilly

Why should the state or government say who can or cant be married.

They shouldn't, but apparently the majority of this country doesn't agree. Old white fundamentalists outnumber the LGBTs by a lot -- and they always vote.

But if everybody just had their own little ceremony, gave each other rings, and just said they were married without doing a bunch of paperwork things would be a lot simpler in life anyway.

[fionahavelock]

i don't really agree with that term.. well of course people getting married also for many reason, protections, rights and also benefit. such as divorce protection, medical, social security and so on.
so i believe in legal marriage then just declare it..
it's just my thought...

fi

[Rambam]

Originally Posted by rockabilly

Why should the state or government say who can or cant be married. Dont get me wrong i want to have a Tgirlfriend and spend my life w/ her but i feel like "big brother" should butt out of our life. It should be enough that i want to share a life w/ a Tgirl that a piece of paper shouldn't hold us back. Maybe i'm wrong but Marrige is just a word for the ceremony of joining two people together.

Don't get me wrong, but I didn't know that all countries all over the world do allow a homosexual marriage. Don't know where you live, mate.
And, this question comes from a Filipino tgirl, not from a European or American tgirl. You talk about that topic as would it be an ordinary marriage between a genetic woman and man.

[darkstargemini]

> strange but true there r transgenders who i no that r married have kids ah yes a real job r accepted by sociaty so why would u ask i guess u don,t get out a lot or u need to listen learn understand and that,s all i got to say about that.

[desirouspussy]

I was once actually proposed to by a lesbian lover. Ironically, it was my fast growing fascination for the third gender that made me turn her down.

Same gender marriage has been legal in my country for several years and there's nothing to stop a man or woman from having a transsexual woman as his or her wife. Perhaps it will happen to me one day.:D

[tslust]

Originally Posted by fionahavelock

marriage is a human right, not a heterosexual privilege

That's great, I'm gonna have to remember that one.

Originally Posted by racquel

They shouldn't, but apparently the majority of this country doesn't agree. Old white fundamentalists outnumber the LGBTs by a lot -- and they always vote.

The core people involved with the "Defense of Marriage" probably are driven by their sense of morality. However the majority of its supporters, I believe, are motivated by fear. Fear of changing events, fear of outsiders, and fear of what they do not understand.

Originally Posted by racquel

But if everybody just had their own little ceremony, gave each other rings, and just said they were married without doing a bunch of paperwork things would be a lot simpler in life anyway.

The biggest reason for all that paperwork is, money. You have to pay all those fees, pay to get your marriage license, and pay for the actual ceremony. Even if you are married at th courthouse, you still have to pay the judge and court for their time.

[Rambam]

Originally Posted by darkstargemini

> strange but true there r transgenders who i no that r married have kids ah yes a real job r accepted by sociaty so why would u ask i guess u don,t get out a lot or u need to listen learn understand and that,s all i got to say about that.

If you are talking to me, so show me any Asian TG who can marry a man in her country. Come on man, tell it to me. Where is it possible?
Know you, English isn't my native language but I can read and understand what the question is. The Starter of that topic lives in the Philippines and not in Europe where homosexual marriage isn't a problem.
And, we talk either about a transgendered woman who is marry with a GG.
I hope now you undertstand.

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by rockabilly

Why should the state or government say who can or cant be married. Dont get me wrong i want to have a Tgirlfriend and spend my life w/ her but i feel like "big brother" should butt out of our life. It should be enough that i want to share a life w/ a Tgirl that a piece of paper shouldn't hold us back. Maybe i'm wrong but Marrige is just a word for the ceremony of joining two people together.

Well, it's really NOT just a word because...

Originally Posted by fionahavelock

Well of course people getting married also for many reason, protections, rights and also benefit. Such as divorce protection, medical, social security and so on.

Bingo. Fiona has it exactly right. THAT'S why marriage is more than a word. Over time, we've based quite a few laws and protections in our country around the rights that a spouse will LEGALLY have regarding health care, insurance coverage, divorce proceedings, property distribution, inheritance rights, tax stature...all sorts of things.

I know it sounds simple to simply say "I should just be able to marry who I love", but as a society the ramifications of are very far reaching. Mind you, I'm not saying there shouldn't be same sex marriage or whatever, I'm just saying that even if today -- some how, some way -- someone magically waved a wand and passed same sex marriage laws in all 50 states you'd STILL see YEARS of legal debates over the things I just listed above and more, because even THEN you'd get into legal fights over "when" should certain changes and rights be legally recognized.

In short, this is going to be a mess for at least another decade or more as people continually slug it out in the court system. In short, look at California. Prop 8 passed and now to challenge it, opponents will have to wait for yet another election -- at which point there's still no guarantee they'd even win. Which means ANOTHER cycle of years waiting for ANOTHER election period or MORE years of court battles.

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by racquel

They shouldn't, but apparently the majority of this country doesn't agree. Old white fundamentalists outnumber the LGBTs by a lot -- and they always vote.

Well, I wouldn't blame it all on "old white fundamentalists". A recent Gallup poll showed support for same-sex marriage was still only hovering in the 40-44% region, so it's still NOT in the majority. And last time I checked, Barack Obama DEFINITELY wouldn't qualify as an "old white fundamentalist" and let the record show that he's gone on the record as being against same-sex marriage, too.

The problem for the LGBT community is the same problem they've had all along -- it's over the emotional charged use of the word "marriage", which is still holds back most of Middle America from throwing their full support behind the movement. Middle America is still religious at heart, no matter what their age and no matter which way they lean politically (Left or Right). Basically, most Americans have no problem with same-sex couples, they have no problems with them getting legal rights, but the flat out truth is that they ALSO don't want same-sex couples destroying what they feel are their religious beliefs, and they absolutely don't want to see same-sex marriages impeding on their churches or their personal rights.

At that point, public support drops drastically. As NEWSWEEK noted not too long ago (and this bears out the Gallup poll numbers): "Americans continue to find civil unions for gays and lesbians more palatable than full-fledged marriage. Fifty-five percent of respondents favor legally sanctioned unions or partnerships, but only 39 percent support marriage rights."

Originally Posted by racquel

But if everybody just had their own little ceremony, gave each other rings, and just said they were married without doing a bunch of paperwork things would be a lot simpler in life anyway.

Except that brings forth the argument that those who are AGAINST same-sex marriage will always pull out: if being together is REALLY what same-sex couples are after...if that's REALLY their end goal and they are just looking to be a committed couple...then WHY do you even need a church ceremony to validate your commitment to each other? Hey, if you want to be a couple that's committed for life, then fine -- stay at home, exchange some rings in private, open some champagne and toast each other, and congrats -- you're now committed to each other. Go have a nice life. NO ONE is stopping same-sex couples from doing ANY of that.

Which brings us full circle to what I posted above. As an issue, same-sex marriage is NOT about love and commitment or anything even remotely sentimental like that. Anyone arguing that is just putting up a smokescreen, trying to tug at the heart strings to make same-sex marriage seem more palatable to the general public at large. The truth is this battle is ALL about the legal rights and side benefits/perks that come from slapping the word "marriage" on, and that's what everyone is scrambling over.

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by Rambam

Don't get me wrong, but I didn't know that all countries all over the world do allow a homosexual marriage. Don't know where you live, mate.

Originally Posted by Rambam

If you are talking to me, so show me any Asian TG who can marry a man in her country. Come on man, tell it to me. Where is it possible?

Here is a quick list of countries, where you can find out what their marriage laws are relative to same-sex unions...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_...e-sex_marriage

[fionahavelock]

Originally Posted by Rambam

If you are talking to me, so show me any Asian TG who can marry a man in her country. Come on man, tell it to me. Where is it possible?
.

i know one couple here, she's well known ts. she was married with local guy. they married in moslem religion. they have some pictured to show us. i'm not really sure that it's legal by government, thats what i mean, they didn't have the same rights and benefit with heterosexual couples. so i guess it could happen by traditional society, but not recognized by government.
that makes me thinking, what the point getting married if it's not recognize then. but they married and live together happily..

[racquel]

Originally Posted by fionahavelock

i don't really agree with that term.. well of course people getting married also for many reason, protections, rights and also benefit. such as divorce protection, medical, social security and so on.
so i believe in legal marriage then just declare it..
it's just my thought...

I totally agree. I'm just saying it's not the end of the world. Gay and TS people have lived together for a long time, and you can get some of the same protections with business partnerships, civil unions and various contracts. Anybody can get a joint checking account.

Originally Posted by CreativeMind

...but the flat out truth is that they ALSO don't want same-sex couples destroying what they feel are their religious beliefs, and they absolutely don't want to see same-sex marriages impeding on their churches or their personal rights.

We all hear the cries of religious folks saying that gay marriage destroys the religious sanctity of marriage. There's one major, major problem with that argument. If you're going to truly follow your religion then for the most part you need to say that everybody who doesn't is going to hell. If you're a fundamentalist Christian you must think that atheists, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists and probably Catholics are all going to hell. They're all heathens, not just the gays and trannys. Therefore all their marriages are an abomination -- an affront to God, Jesus and Scripture. So if you oppose gay marriage you should also oppose all marriage outside your faith because it all destroys the religious sanctity of marriage.

But all these fundamentalists are just hateful. They don't even care about what they're supposed to believe. If you actually read the Bible you will find that gays and transsexuals are not in any way condemned by Jesus. Moses said in Leviticus that you shouldn't have gay sex, but he also said you shouldn't eat pork or do any work on Saturday or you'll burn in hell. Jesus said over and over that people shouldn't try to follow the law of Moses, though. And remember that whole part where Sodom was destroyed because they were gay? Try actually reading it. The entire city wanted to gang rape two angels that God sent, and that is why they were destroyed. Of course, the Bible is all made up, but if you're going to say you follow it you should actually read it.

And the other argument that any marriage infringes on anybody else's rights is absurd.

[fionahavelock]

So if you oppose gay marriage you should also oppose all marriage outside your faith because it all destroys the religious sanctity of marriage.


well said racquel, i agree with it.

[Darha]

people will change and new opportunities exist, all will can live together, I look forward especially to find some tgirl for married with her. Of course I really want a good relationship with someone

[The Conquistador]

But the issue of gay marriage is not a federal matter; it is strictly a state matter and dependent on which states would ratify such legislation and how accepting the people are.

And I quote 10th amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Unfortunately the Constitution does not mention anything about marriage so it will be entirely left up to the residents of whatever state gay marriage is proposed in.

However, I see it becoming more widely accepted sooner if it was brought before SCOTUS. In a legal view, marriage is nothing more than a binding contract between two consenting adults. If it is ruled as such, any legislation prohibiting is would be unlawful. This is one of those issues where it is a matter not of "If", but of "When".

[ila]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

But the issue of gay marriage is not a federal matter;.......

Your statement applies to the U.S. This site has members from many countries around the world and in some of those countries marriage is a federal matter. For example in Canada same sex marriage was made legal by the federal parliament and therefore applies right across the country. There are no exceptions and no province or territory can amend or change or impinge on that legislation.

I am happy that Canada now allows same sex marriage. It means that I may one day be able to marry the girl of my dreams.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by ila

Your statement applies to the U.S. This site has members from many countries around the world and in some of those countries marriage is a federal matter. For example in Canada same sex marriage was made legal by the federal parliament and therefore applies right across the country. There are no exceptions and no province or territory can amend or change or impinge on that legislation.

I am happy that Canada now allows same sex marriage. It means that I may one day be able to marry the girl of my dreams.

I was just pointing out some of the hurdles facing such an issue for people here in the states. I do know that alot of countries have legalized same sex marriage.

As for you ila, Lucky Bastard!

[racquel]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

But the issue of gay marriage is not a federal matter;

Right, so you agree that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

[megawatty101]

Originally Posted by racquel

They shouldn't, but apparently the majority of this country doesn't agree. Old white fundamentalists outnumber the LGBTs by a lot -- and they always vote.

But if everybody just had their own little ceremony, gave each other rings, and just said they were married without doing a bunch of paperwork things would be a lot simpler in life anyway.

How do you know it's just old white fundies...I've seen the results for other ethnic groups on their prop 8 votes. If anything, whites discriminate quite a bit less than others.

[g&c]

great stuff

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by racquel

Right, so you agree that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

Yes I do racquel. The Constitution was set up as a limit of what the Federal Government can do. This is obviously unconstitutional as it is a legislation passed by "The Man" to limit what it's people can do. It should be the other way around. This act no matter what it's intention, is Unconstitutional and Unamerican.

The same thing goes for the anti-flag desecration legislation. Even though I am a veteran and it hurts me to see weenies and hippies to burn our noble flag, it is still a right of the people to burn it. Norm Eadie says: "Patriotism gives symbols meaning. Enslaving people to symbols destroys patriotism." That is why I am against laws such as flag burning and Defense of marriage act.

I am deeply saddened that such things which are blatantly illegal such as these laws go unnoticed or unchecked by most everyone. People are too comfortable in their everyday lives to actually give a shit. Legislating people's lives is a losing proposition(just look at Prohibition!) Until people start caring about their roles as American citizens, we will continue to have our rights trampled on by Govt. goons. A gay marriage ban here, a anti-flag burning law there and a weapons ban somewhere and before you know it, the public is backed into a corner wondering how shit got like this with federal agents putting them in detention for being a gay, jewish black Klan member who supports abortion.

Sorry if I'm ranting but things like this really burn my ass.

[racquel]

Originally Posted by megawatty101

How do you know it's just old white fundies...

I suppose that was unfair. I just remember what it was like hanging around my grandparents in Florida with all those old time religion WWII vets when I was younger. Interesting demographic.

I don't think it's possible to have a rational conversation with a married man over 50 who doesn't drink.

[Bionca]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

But the issue of gay marriage is not a federal matter; it is strictly a state matter and dependent on which states would ratify such legislation and how accepting the people are.

And I quote 10th amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Unfortunately the Constitution does not mention anything about marriage so it will be entirely left up to the residents of whatever state gay marriage is proposed in.

However, I see it becoming more widely accepted sooner if it was brought before SCOTUS. In a legal view, marriage is nothing more than a binding contract between two consenting adults. If it is ruled as such, any legislation prohibiting is would be unlawful. This is one of those issues where it is a matter not of "If", but of "When".

The only problem with this as a "state's rights" issue is that, much like a driver's lisence, the benefits of a marriage lisence transfer from state to state. So, even with a patchwork of stipulations in marriage laws now a valid (hetero-) marriage retains it's legal weight. The 'Full failth and credit' of the state is recognized even in places where that union would not be legal (age of conscent being the one that comes to mind).

So it simply can't work as a state by state proposition with an extreemly mobile population.

[ila]

Originally Posted by Bionca

The only problem with this as a "state's rights" issue is that, much like a driver's lisence, the benefits of a marriage lisence transfer from state to state. So, even with a patchwork of stipulations in marriage laws now a valid (hetero-) marriage retains it's legal weight. The 'Full failth and credit' of the state is recognized even in places where that union would not be legal (age of conscent being the one that comes to mind).

So it simply can't work as a state by state proposition with an extreemly mobile population.

This answers what I've been wondering about since California first allowed and then rejected same sex marriage. As I understand it now there are some states in the U.S. that are proposing same sex marriage legislation or have allowed it.

I had been wondering what would happen if a same sex couple got married in a state that allowed it and then moved to a state that didn't allow it.

Also there are countries, Canada for example, that allows same sex marriage and I had been wondering whether or not a same sex marriage would still be recognized if a same sex couple moved to the U.S.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Bionca

The only problem with this as a "state's rights" issue is that, much like a driver's lisence, the benefits of a marriage lisence transfer from state to state. So, even with a patchwork of stipulations in marriage laws now a valid (hetero-) marriage retains it's legal weight. The 'Full failth and credit' of the state is recognized even in places where that union would not be legal (age of conscent being the one that comes to mind).

So it simply can't work as a state by state proposition with an extreemly mobile population.

That is true to an extent, but seeing how normally conservative states like Iowa and Maine have passed marriage, it would incline other states to do so. As a state-by-state basis I feel this would be more like a concealed carry permit than a drivers liscence. Even though Commiefornia and alot of other states won't issue a concealed carry permit to its residents, they do recognize CCW permits issued by Nevada, Arizona, Texas and other states and the residents of those states can have their weapon on them and walk through this state unmolested. I can bet you that even if Commiefornia didn't recognize the marriages of it's residents, they would make an exception for those who move here. Sounds backasswards but that is the Golden State for you.

If they do it for weapons, I'm sure they would do it for marriage. If it was a really big, looming issue, then it would come down to the individual states and what they decide on. But since it is not, and since more people are alot more openminded than they were, say 20 years aago, if anything, this marriage issue will be accepted by a large majority, if not all the states.

[fionahavelock]

hmmm i love to read this thread.. keep it more coming..

[megawatty101]

Originally Posted by racquel

I suppose that was unfair. I just remember what it was like hanging around my grandparents in Florida with all those old time religion WWII vets when I was younger. Interesting demographic.

I don't think it's possible to have a rational conversation with a married man over 50 who doesn't drink.

That's true. And many stereotypes have elements of truth to them. I guess I'm defensive, one day I'll be an old white...agnostic, cranky vet.

[hankhavelock]

I guess the problem is supply and demand - and in that regard it's bad news for trans*women. Yes, many want to have sex with trans*women, but when shit hits the fan they go back to their cis*mothers, their cis*wives, their cis*girlfriends and their cis*life.

I don't really interact much with guys like me who like girls like she, but I judge that the majority is primarily in this for quick sex (with hoodles of guilt), longer lasting sex (with less guilt) and a few gets the hang of it...

I do, how ever, occasionally chat with guys who cry that it is so hard to find a trans*woman.

I never GOT that point! Nothing is easier. Nothing is easier than connecting with people with whom you share a common way... I know, I'm surrounded by transsexual darlings as I live in Asia, BUT I've worked for it myself too, and I'm sure it'd be both amazing and challenging. However, I'm confident that I'd be able to do the same in the boring West if I really had to go back there - like Europe or America... I have very little intention of. Surely, the democrazy is claimed to be less ... crazy... the social services are better in Europe and the economic fascism is still considered Gospel in America... but why do you all feel so HAPPY there in the midst of such a violent part of the world? With your guns and your gangs and your hatred?

Ok, I'm again getting ahead of myself...

My point just was, that finding and connecting to a trans*woman is not difficult! No matter where! She's there, if YOU are, my man, whomever you are. But DO treasure her! Always!

H

[fionahavelock]

Originally Posted by hankhavelock

I guess the problem is supply and demand - and in that regard it's bad news for trans*women. Yes, many want to have sex with trans*women, but when shit hits the fan they go back to their cis*mothers, their cis*wives, their cis*girlfriends and their cis*life.

I don't really interact much with guys like me who like girls like she, but I judge that the majority is primarily in this for quick sex (with hoodles of guilt), longer lasting sex (with less guilt) and a few gets the hang of it...

I do, how ever, occasionally chat with guys who cry that it is so hard to find a trans*woman.

I never GOT that point! Nothing is easier. Nothing is easier than connecting with people with whom you share a common way... I know, I'm surrounded by transsexual darlings as I live in Asia, BUT I've worked for it myself too, and I'm sure it'd be both amazing and challenging. However, I'm confident that I'd be able to do the same in the boring West if I really had to go back there - like Europe or America... I have very little intention of. Surely, the democrazy is claimed to be less ... crazy... the social services are better in Europe and the economic fascism is still considered Gospel in America... but why do you all feel so HAPPY there in the midst of such a violent part of the world? With your guns and your gangs and your hatred?

Ok, I'm again getting ahead of myself...

My point just was, that finding and connecting to a trans*woman is not difficult! No matter where! She's there, if YOU are, my man, whomever you are. But DO treasure her! Always!

H

sorry but your post really lost me..
is still about transexual happily marriage?
or is it changed to be men worshipping transexual girls?
am i deluded???

fi

[The Conquistador]

Fiona! Are you married to Hank? Is that why your last name is also Havelock?

[fionahavelock]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

Fiona! Are you married to Hank? Is that why your last name is also Havelock?

what?!??? no no no...
well we have a little memories in the past.. not anymore now..
people make mistake right?

[hankhavelock]

Originally Posted by transjen

I'm not married yet but will be soon, As far as paperwork goes after SRS you are given a letter from your surgeon stating your new gender then you can get all the proper paperwork declaring your new gender, Here in the US it's a hassle but once it's all done i can legaly marry a man Jennifer

Yes Jen, but here you're actually bringing a whole new aspect into the debately - namely, what does it take for a transsexual woman to be considered a LEGAL women in respective countries.

These laws also differ from country to country. But I would guess, that if a transsexual woman undergoes what ever her country demands of physical harm to be considered a LEGAL woman and then is issued a new female identity including docs and pass port, then even countries that might have different rules for administering genders will have to oblige.

We really should study this and post a listing here on this forum about the laws in different states and countries... it's complicated.

[hankhavelock]

Originally Posted by racquel

We all hear the cries of religious folks saying that gay marriage destroys the religious sanctity of marriage. There's one major, major problem with that argument. If you're going to truly follow your religion then for the most part you need to say that everybody who doesn't is going to hell. If you're a fundamentalist Christian you must think that atheists, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists and probably Catholics are all going to hell. They're all heathens, not just the gays and trannys. Therefore all their marriages are an abomination -- an affront to God, Jesus and Scripture. So if you oppose gay marriage you should also oppose all marriage outside your faith because it all destroys the religious sanctity of marriage.

But all these fundamentalists are just hateful. They don't even care about what they're supposed to believe. If you actually read the Bible you will find that gays and transsexuals are not in any way condemned by Jesus. Moses said in Leviticus that you shouldn't have gay sex, but he also said you shouldn't eat pork or do any work on Saturday or you'll burn in hell. Jesus said over and over that people shouldn't try to follow the law of Moses, though. And remember that whole part where Sodom was destroyed because they were gay? Try actually reading it. The entire city wanted to gang rape two angels that God sent, and that is why they were destroyed. Of course, the Bible is all made up, but if you're going to say you follow it you should actually read it.

And the other argument that any marriage infringes on anybody else's rights is absurd.

One of the most precisely written posts here ever!

[tslust]

Originally Posted by hankhavelock

Yes Jen, but here you're actually bringing a whole new aspect into the debately - namely, what does it take for a transsexual woman to be considered a LEGAL women in respective countries.

These laws also differ from country to country. But I would guess, that if a transsexual woman undergoes what ever her country demands of physical harm to be considered a LEGAL woman and then is issued a new female identity including docs and pass port, then even countries that might have different rules for administering genders will have to oblige.

We really should study this and post a listing here on this forum about the laws in different states and countries... it's complicated.

In a few States, even if you get the SRS, they still won't legally recognize you as a woman.

[hankhavelock]

Originally Posted by tslust

In a few States, even if you get the SRS, they still won't legally recognize you as a woman.

That, I'm sure, is quite right. It's a jungle, really.

My next point, then, would be to challenge the inhumane laws that actually demand of a transsexual woman to undergo SRS (to be both castrated and having her penis mutilated) to be recognized as a legal woman.

Transsexuality happens between the ears, not between the legs.

Demanding SRS is a BARBARIC torture implied on trans*woman by a basicly hetero fashistic society to whom gender is defined by genitalia.

Now, if they would AT LEAST be biologically consistent and demand a full change of the cromosomes they would at least have a point.

But again, this is not the right thread for this :-)

[tslust]

Originally Posted by hankhavelock

My next point, then, would be to challenge the inhumane laws that actually demand of a transsexual woman to undergo SRS (to be both castrated and having her penis mutilated) to be recognized as a legal woman.

Transsexuality happens between the ears, not between the legs.

I couldn't agree with you more. Personally, I want to keep my penis. I know that some girls don't like their penis and can't wait to have theirs removed.

[hankhavelock]

Originally Posted by tslust

I couldn't agree with you more. Personally, I want to keep my penis. I know that some girls don't like their penis and can't wait to have theirs removed.

Yes, and if she wants it removed, then it is HER choice! That "choice" should not be "made easier" by external forces... I will start a new thread on this in a little while... it's a very important matter...

[mr. macaque]

requiring srs does seem to be an arbitrary way of defining gender for the purposes of marriage. but let's not forget that america is a democracy, and if more than half of the electorate defines marriage as only between a (genetic) woman and a man, then that's that.

i take a zen-like approach to these kinds of questions...progress comes very slowly in our world...

[hankhavelock]

Originally Posted by mr. macaque

requiring srs does seem to be an arbitrary way of defining gender for the purposes of marriage. but let's not forget that america is a democracy, and if more than half of the electorate defines marriage as only between a (genetic) woman and a man, then that's that.

i take a zen-like approach to these kinds of questions...progress comes very slowly in our world...

I disagree - if we had to leave everything to the agreement of half of the population we'd still be having sex with goats...

[ila]

Originally Posted by mr. macaque

requiring srs does seem to be an arbitrary way of defining gender for the purposes of marriage. but let's not forget that america is a democracy, and if more than half of the electorate defines marriage as only between a (genetic) woman and a man, then that's that.

i take a zen-like approach to these kinds of questions...progress comes very slowly in our world...

Fortunately I live in a country where any person is allowed to marry the person of his or her choice. Naturally there are limits on this such as not being able to marry someone under a certain age and not being able to marry a close blood relative; i.e. brother, sister, mother, father etc.

[Bionca]

Originally Posted by mr. macaque

requiring srs does seem to be an arbitrary way of defining gender for the purposes of marriage. but let's not forget that america is a democracy, and if more than half of the electorate defines marriage as only between a (genetic) woman and a man, then that's that.

i take a zen-like approach to these kinds of questions...progress comes very slowly in our world...

It has been well established that one cannot allow issues of social justice up to the whims of popular opinion. This is one of the reasons for the establishment of the rule of law over mob justice.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by hankhavelock

I disagree - if we had to leave everything to the agreement of half of the population we'd still be having sex with goats...

Ain't nothing wrong with that! Goats are very loving...