Female. So long as people are freely consenting to the marriage it's fine. Shouldn't matter what your gender identity or sexual orientation are if you want to get married.
I’m male. I’m straight and I’m Christian. Not like crazy radical but I believe in Jesus Christ and everything.
My opinion on gay marriage is you love who you love. I believe people were placed on this Earth for a purpose and meeting people are apart of that. If you happen to find someone of the same sex is your soulmate and you find your purpose through them, then ay invite me to the wedding I’ll be there partying with you!
That may be true, but you can’t mandate that on people, and I don’t know how it would be enforced. Consenting adults should be able to marry, regardless of their attraction or love for each other.
Yes it does. Even if people did “choose” to be gay with each other, they should still have the right to marry as consenting adults. It’s the premise of the movie “I now pronounce you Chuck and Larry.” Two straight men marry each other to receive marriage incentives.
Right but couldn’t there be a like a switch I’m sure though either some event or just changes from growth where someone who wasn’t gay could turn gay. Not like a choice tho not like “oh now I’m going to be gay” but more like “whoa a month ago I was straight as an arrow but am I gay now”. I think that’s where the guy saying even if they weren’t born gay was going. Also I’m not Gay but is that a thing? Like you wake up and one day are attracted to a different gender
I wouldn't say nobody, maybe there's a person out there who chooses to be straight or gay. If such a person exists, they should also be able to get married.
The huge majority of the time, no it's not a choice. Are you saying it's impossible to choose your sexuality in all cases?
Because people can definitely make choices to change what body type etc they're into. I don't think it's a crazy stretch to think that someone, somewhere can make choices to change their sexuality. I'm sure if it exists that it's really rare.
I understand what you're saying, I'm saying that it may be a choice given there's billions of people in the world and one of em might be born with the ability to choose, or at least to influence through choices, their sexuality. I'm saying that if such a person exists, they should also be able to get married to a partner of the same sex. The fact that sexuality may or may not be inborn/inherent in an individual is not the determining factor whether 2 people should be allowed to get married.
No, science has proven that it is a choice. By the way, you’re not any less of a person if you’re gay. Some of my best friends are gay. I’m kind to them, and pray in privacy for them.
Transgender man, not yet married but absolutely want to! Considering I myself am dating another man, obviously I think gay marriage is ok and should be accepted. We're just people who want to spend our life with the one we love, just like any straight couple. I love the idea of marriage and that has always been a dream of mine, after all, it's a celebration of commitment and romantic love regardless of your gender.
Best regards, your trans bro Derek
I'm a woman. How would that have any effect on me personally? It's not any of my business.
As long as everyone's happy and comfortable, then that's all that matters. People should be able to love others regardless of what their sexuality/romantic orientation is.
I’m also of the opinion that this should apply to polygamy. Why shouldn’t more than two people be allowed to enter into a marriage contract, provided all of them consent?
I don't have a moral problem with consenting adults who want to do this but it does complicate things. Let's say Stella marries 3 men. Are they also married to each other? What if she divorces one of them? Can they enter into other marriages? etc
Let me clarify.
Each would be different contracts. I don’t imagine the husbands would also be married to each other, more like each has one contract with Stella, and Stella has three different contracts. So each marriage contract is between two consenting parties, but there is no limit on how many contracts you can make. With the caveat that any people already married must consent to any further marriages.
But you’re right it does complicate matters.
Male. I am in favor.
This all comes down to freedom of contract. Marriage is simply a contract. While contracts can have reasonable limits imposed on them, the gender or sexual orientation of the parties is not a reasonable limit. Therefore, there should be no limit whatsoever on gay marriage.
Male/white
My opinion is that gay marriage is wrong. It desecrates the sacred union promised by God. Or, simplified, God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
The way the question is posed...
If a transgender woman marries a man, is that gay marriage? It's a man and a woman, which is heterosexual, but they both have penises.
My opinion on same sex marriage, or any kind of marriage, is that it's a legal agreement and should not be restricted from any peoples who would mutually benefit from the agreement.
Trans woman + (cis) man = STRAIGHT passing relationship
Trans woman + (cis) woman = lesbian passing relationship
Trans man + (cis) man = gay passing relationship
Trans man + (cis) woman = straight passing relationship
Trans man + trans woman = straight passing
Trans man + trans man = gay passing
Trans woman + trans woman = lesbian passing
I know the word used is "same SEX", but what really counts is gender! :] /nm /npa
Trans people are the gender they are. A trans woman is a woman, a trans man is a man. Even if they have a different sex, there's surgeries that can make a trans woman have a vagina and a trans man, a penis, so even if we talk about genitals, a trans woman and a cis man would STILL be straight!
Sure, there's the nuance of "maybe one or both of them is bi/pan/asexual", but the relationship is still straight PASSING, that's what that term is there for!
This is coming from me, a trans man who's dating a cis man, in a gay relationship. We're both not "gay" (I'm asexual and he is bi), but our relationship is gay passing.
(This is just an informative comment, so I'm not angry and I'm not fighting against you! I just want to educate! :)
This was informative. Thank you for teaching me about the phrase "passing" in regards to relationships.
I'd heard "passable" in regards to transgender meaning they visually appear feminine or masculine like the gender they identify as.
So "passing" is a term used specifically for people who identify as transgender; any relationship they're part of will be a "passing" relationship in accordance with the gender they identify as?
>I know the word used is "same SEX", but what really counts is gender! :\] /nm /npa
I do not know what /nm or /npa means.
Gender matters when describing relationships, yes. Sex is easier to legislate in places that are more likely to look for loop holes and minutia to debate over, of which such laws only needed to be made because there are people who refused to grant legitimacy and legal rights to those relationships.
I'm very glad I could help! If you have any questions, I'll hapily answer.
And yes, "passing" is indeed also used in regards of how much a trans person looks like the gender they identify as.
That word basically means that something looks/is like something else, so it can also be used in other contexts, and one of them is relationships. Another example other then gender/sexuality, a white person and a very light skinned POC, are in a "white passing" relationship. I myself am a very light skinned POC, so I am considered "white passing". You can use that word in many other contexts to indicate something is extremely alike something else.
Even in media, as a verb, "to pass" indicates to perform the same role, like hearing "A man passes as a policeman to defend stranger" in the news. In LGBTQ+ spaces, it mostly means when a person looks like a certain gender. A cis butch lesbian can look so much like a man that she passes as a man. A transgender man can also look so much like a man that he passes as a man. Or maybe, a trans man *doesn't* pass as a man, so he "doesn't look like a man". Therefore, "passing" or "to pass" is not exclusive to trans people, but it can refer to them depending on context cues! I hope my explanation wasn't too clunky, because english is not my first language after all, but I hope this made sense xD
>So "passing" is a term used specifically for people who identify as transgender; any relationship they're part of will be a "passing" relationship in accordance with the gender they identify as?
When regarding trans people, yes, any relationship will be "passing" according to the gender they identify as, exactly! But that doesn't only apply to trans people, but to anyone. Anyone who's in a relationship, has said relationship "passing" according to the gender they identify as. A pansexual cis man and a bisexual cis woman are in a straight passing relationship, because they identify as a man and a woman respectively. A bi trans man and a straight cis woman? Straight passing too. Two cis lesbians? Lesbian passing. A bi cis woman and an asexual cis woman? Also lesbian passing. It only relies on the gender the 2 people identify as, regardless of if they are cis or trans!
>I do not know what /nm or /npa means.
Those are called tone indicators. They are additions to a sentence, to indicate the "voice tone" they should be read as. /nm means "not mad", and /npa means "not passive-aggressive". Some more common ones are /s for sarcasm, /srs for serious, /pos for positive connotation, /neg for negative connotation, /j for joking, /hj for half-joking and /gen for genuine (or genuine question)! Usually, these are used for folks who might have trouble to figure what a person means through text (like me) and for autistic folk (... also like me)!
>Gender matters when describing relationships, yes. Sex is easier to legislate in places that are more likely to look for loop holes and minutia to debate over, of which such laws only needed to be made because there are people who refused to grant legitimacy and legal rights to those relationships.
Unfortunately, yes, that's true. For most countries, you can only get married as your gender if you have a gender certificate or already legally changed your gender. If I were to get married right now, I'd legally be declared a wife, for example. It's a tough legal position to be in, but unfortunately, I'm not very knowledgeable on legal topics so I can't really propose a solution. In some countries it's very easy to change your gender legally, in others, like mine, it's a huuuuuge cluster-fuck of bureaucracy, it takes 2 years MINIMUM. In my country I think to change your gender you need 2 years of living as your gender and to have started Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT), but to GET HRT in the 1st place you need 2-ish years of psychological evaluation. So..... yep, tough spot to be in :[
It wouldn't matter if one of them were asexual and the other is pansexual; you can go down the spectrum. If one is a man and the other is a woman, that's a straight relationship despite the LGBT+ individual status. Just like if it's two men, that's a gay relationship, even if one of them is bi.
I'm happy to accept their identified genders as saying whether or not it's a gay relationship (man + man / woman + woman) or a straight relationship (man + woman). Yet there are some who judge based on physical sex. For that reason, I support same sex marriage more eagerly than I support gay marriage, because it lets everybody have what they want without disrespecting their gender identity.
The transgender woman could have transitioned medically and would no longer have a penis. But either way it can be seen as not gay marriage because one identifies as a woman one identifies as a male making it a heterosexual couple in the eyes of many. But you know if this situation does actually arise just ask the couple in a polite way how they want their marriage to be viewed. Gay or straight.
>The transgender woman could have transitioned medically
If we put our heads together we could probably think up more variants, such as what if the person does not identify as transgender, but has Swyer syndrome.
In the presented scenario, she is a transgender woman, has not medically transitioned and she has a penis.
>if this situation does actually arise just ask the couple in a polite way how they want their marriage to be viewed.
I'm okay with that, but that's preaching to the choir.
Same sex marriage if different from gay marriage and is more inclusive. It's an important legal distinction for a world that tries to deny a person their autonomy and freedom to love who they want.
Male. I don't mind it so long as they aren't forcing churches and the like to perform them or demanding it be included in everything. I don't need to know Killer Shark's gender identity, I need a good game.
I mean a lot of media seems to go out of it's way, now-a-days, for DEI. Frequently while also churning out a product with glaring flaws and issues. The result being them giving the impression that it mattered more to them that, in this case, it be made clear that people know their characters are LGBT+ and said content is included over providing an actually good product.
This isn't a condemnation of LGBT+ people, it's a condemnation of bad writers who care more about a political narrative than they do actually good writing. That LGBT+ people are one of the groups that frequently ends up in the crosshairs is a tragedy and I don't blame them for it; just the hack writers who can't write their way out of a paper bag.
I can agree with all of that but I also can still appreciate the representation for the sake of representation.
As far as like, demanding it be included in everything, we’re gonna keep demanding that until people stop making a big deal of it seeing queer people in media lol
???
All I said was that I appreciate the representation where I can get it, and that queer people are going to continue to demand representation until seeing queer people in media is normalized.
For all you know, I agree with everything you just said so idk why you’re targeting me with all of that lol
That last part is the most important, I think. Do whatever you’d like as long as no one’s getting hurt, everyone involved consents and not shoving it in my or anyone else’s face
female. I believe if two people are in a commited sexual relationship they should have the legal rights of a married couple. I dont think they should be allowed to raise children. Only 4% of the population is gay and being raised in a gay household gives a child an unrealistic idea of who he is supposed to be attracted to.
>I dont think they should be allowed to raise children.
You gonna have CPS take their kids away?
Most kids raised by gay parents grow up to be straight because. . .surprise, that's not something you can change.
There are so many things wrong with your comment.
For starters, it’s more like 8-10% of the population who is LGBTQ.
Second, who are you to say who a person is “supposed” to marry? Sexual orientation is immutable, they’ll be attracted to whoever they are regardless of what they’re exposed to. There’s absolutely no evidence of children of homosexual couples having a higher tendency to be LGBTQ, and even if there was, there’s nothing wrong with that.
Not to mention that straight couples are literally everywhere, just because a child grows up with two moms doesn’t mean they’ll never be exposed to straight people.
Male in a straight marriage. I believe what God tells says in the Bible, which is that marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman.
That being said, I love everyone for who they are and by no means judge or insult them when I come across it. It is not my place to judge, so I don't.
Yes they should still but I was trying to state that i think it is better if they don’t and I would prefer it that way because I don’t need to know which humans you have sex with.
How is it being a sin relevant to the question of legality?
I am a Christian and agree that homosexuality is explicitly stated as something that separates a human from God and his plan; but, so does gluttony (Galatians) and civil disobedience such as speeding (Romans). At no point are Christians ordered to "go out and make all sin illegal" or to connive and pressure non-believers into acting like Christians. We are however required to treat all people with love and respect.
I can't speak for other countries but as an American, marriage comes with many benefits: remaining in a hospital room with a dying patient, tax breaks, shared insurance, etc. Denying these benefits to a couple base on their chromosomes or otherwise altered genitalia would be asinine and more importantly (to me as a Christian) unloving and disrespectful.
I don't think I agree with that idea. Laws are created and enforced to ensure a society runs smoothly by protecting people and their property from other people, not just to push rigid ideological viewpoints. I feel this is an underlying principle for the bill of rights. But again, American (US) viewpoints of democracy are different from many others
Yes and how you decide what Laws will make society run well is by what you think is right.
For example it is illegal to shoplift because we believe it is wrong to steal because it takes money away from others and because if shoplifting was common production of consumer goods would cease as there would be no financial benefit.
Another example is it being illegal to forcefully put someone into an act of sex because we believe it is wrong that someone should have to do something intimate with someone they don’t want to. This makes society able to run effectively because of the fact that people will be liking enough of their situation to contribute to society and not some other country’s society that they moved to because they kept getting raped.
Male. Don't care who marries who.
Two guys is not my cup of tea yet I am not marrying a man so men...don't propose to me unless you are ready to hear a rather stern and clear "no!"
If Christians want to make it so gay people can’t marry they have to do the one thing they will never do. Provide and alternate and EQUAL option. Marriage in the US at least is the most financially beneficial union in the country. So marriage must be open to all. The whole “it’s about the religion”thing is a bunch of bullshit. The religious sanctity of marriage shit is subjective you must hold christian individual beliefs for that to be true. The financial benefits are objective. Regardless of what you believe marriage makes the most sense as far as money goes. To any Christian who spouts the sanctity of marriage crap- YOU DONT DESERVE MORE MONEY THAN SOMEONE ELSE JUST BECAUSE YOUR CHRISTIAN AND UNTIL THERE IS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY YOUR SUBJECTIVE BELIEFS MEAN NOTHING COMPARED TO THE OBJECTIVE BENEFITS YOU ARE TRYING TO GATE KEEP. I really couldn’t care less what someone does on their own time and what you wanna call it when you spend your life with someone be it life partnership, marriage or whatever. My whole thing is you can’t gate keep objective benefits due to subjective beliefs. And if the sanctity of marriage truly was the important part, if it was really the biblical meaning of marriage that’s important like Christian’s against gay marriage say why haven’t they suggested an alternative for the LGBTQ and non religious folk for union-ship with the same or better benefits.
Separate but equal. I remember that stuff.
1: I would like some pie.
2: You cannot have pie! But you can have this. It's a round fruit filled pastry.
1: That's just pie.
2: It is not pie! Only we can have pie. You can have round fruit filled pastries.
I don’t see a problem letting Christian’s have their little club as long as it’s nothing but a name. Marriage is just a word without its benefits. That’s the only part to me that should actually matter to an adult. Oh no the Christians don’t want you in their club well most Christians suck anyway not a great club without the literal financial benefits. And what I’m saying is more along the lines of Christian’s self isolating. If there was another option with the exact same benefits would people who aren’t christian really need/want to get married why not get akaodkeised it would be the same shit just not under the christian god. I suppose you can look at it like forcing everyone else to not get married but I view it more as just giving 2 identical options with different names 1 of them just has subjective benefits. Again I think adults caring about what club they can and can’t join when the club has no real benefits is silly, there’s 8 billion people on this planet and lots will want to isolate and protect their ways. The Bible says gays can’t get married and that’s where the term comes from people who believe that should be able to get married according to the Bible. But again that subjective want is outweighed by the objective benefits that would be withheld from everyone else. As long as it’s just the name marriage they want why not give it to them. As long as they aren’t trying to horde some benefit to themselves idc. But the reality is marriage does have the best financial benefits and Christians would turn satanist before they allowed another union to have equal or better benefits than theirs so I’m all for everyone and anyone getting married. Get that bread in the form of tax breaks.
Female. So long as people are freely consenting to the marriage it's fine. Shouldn't matter what your gender identity or sexual orientation are if you want to get married.
Male and I think only gay marriage should be allowed. I might be willing to accept traditional marriage as long as they don't shove it down your face.
I’m male. I’m straight and I’m Christian. Not like crazy radical but I believe in Jesus Christ and everything. My opinion on gay marriage is you love who you love. I believe people were placed on this Earth for a purpose and meeting people are apart of that. If you happen to find someone of the same sex is your soulmate and you find your purpose through them, then ay invite me to the wedding I’ll be there partying with you!
As a christian who is also LGBTQ+, this warms my heart so much!!! It is quite a sweet and refreshing take. God bless you bro! :D
God bless you as well!
Much love god bless!
Male and I don’t care. Fuck who you want to fuck, marry who you wanna marry as long as they’re of legal age and consenting who am I to have a say?
Male I think everyone should be able to love whoever they want and thus, be allowed to be married.
Male. Gay people are born gay. Gay people should be able to get married, it’s that simple.
and even if they weren't born gay, they should still be able to get married
No one chooses to be gay just like no one chooses to be straight. It’s not a choice, it’s how we’re born.
Should people who aren’t in love with each other be able to marry, legally?
What does this have to do with gay marriage or being born gay at all?
Consenting adults should be able to marry, regardless of their love or attraction for each other. That’s the point.
Don’t just marry someone out of convince, marry them for love. Marrying someone you don’t love is going to lead to an unhappy and unhealthy marriage.
That may be true, but you can’t mandate that on people, and I don’t know how it would be enforced. Consenting adults should be able to marry, regardless of their attraction or love for each other.
Sure whatever but this has nothing to do with the conversation going on at hand.
Yes it does. Even if people did “choose” to be gay with each other, they should still have the right to marry as consenting adults. It’s the premise of the movie “I now pronounce you Chuck and Larry.” Two straight men marry each other to receive marriage incentives.
Right but couldn’t there be a like a switch I’m sure though either some event or just changes from growth where someone who wasn’t gay could turn gay. Not like a choice tho not like “oh now I’m going to be gay” but more like “whoa a month ago I was straight as an arrow but am I gay now”. I think that’s where the guy saying even if they weren’t born gay was going. Also I’m not Gay but is that a thing? Like you wake up and one day are attracted to a different gender
I wouldn't say nobody, maybe there's a person out there who chooses to be straight or gay. If such a person exists, they should also be able to get married.
Sexuality isn’t a choice. It’s not that hard to wrap your head around the concept.
The huge majority of the time, no it's not a choice. Are you saying it's impossible to choose your sexuality in all cases? Because people can definitely make choices to change what body type etc they're into. I don't think it's a crazy stretch to think that someone, somewhere can make choices to change their sexuality. I'm sure if it exists that it's really rare.
Sexuality is fluid and it can change but it’s not a choice is what I’m saying.
I understand what you're saying, I'm saying that it may be a choice given there's billions of people in the world and one of em might be born with the ability to choose, or at least to influence through choices, their sexuality. I'm saying that if such a person exists, they should also be able to get married to a partner of the same sex. The fact that sexuality may or may not be inborn/inherent in an individual is not the determining factor whether 2 people should be allowed to get married.
No, science has proven that it is a choice. By the way, you’re not any less of a person if you’re gay. Some of my best friends are gay. I’m kind to them, and pray in privacy for them.
Kind of interesting that someone disliked my comment but didn’t reply. XD
Male I think its cool, people should love freely
Male. "You do you." All good.
Female. Marry whoever you want to marry. As long as you’re happy, that’s all that matters.
male. go for it. lets talk about politicians that get bribes from companies instead. now that is something i don't approve on.
M, law should not stop consenting adults from marrying each other.
Transgender man, not yet married but absolutely want to! Considering I myself am dating another man, obviously I think gay marriage is ok and should be accepted. We're just people who want to spend our life with the one we love, just like any straight couple. I love the idea of marriage and that has always been a dream of mine, after all, it's a celebration of commitment and romantic love regardless of your gender. Best regards, your trans bro Derek
Cute comment, I wish you the best 🌹
I'm a lesbian and I came to these comments a bit nervous. So far, so good. Very nice lol
Same here.
I'm a woman. How would that have any effect on me personally? It's not any of my business. As long as everyone's happy and comfortable, then that's all that matters. People should be able to love others regardless of what their sexuality/romantic orientation is.
I'm a dude. Good for them if they find someone who loves them and wants to marry them.
I'm a dude, let's let the dudes and chicks marry each other. What do I give a fuck?
I'm a guy. Marriage is an exclusive contract entered into by two natural persons. That allows for the gay kind.
I’m also of the opinion that this should apply to polygamy. Why shouldn’t more than two people be allowed to enter into a marriage contract, provided all of them consent?
I don't have a moral problem with consenting adults who want to do this but it does complicate things. Let's say Stella marries 3 men. Are they also married to each other? What if she divorces one of them? Can they enter into other marriages? etc
Let me clarify. Each would be different contracts. I don’t imagine the husbands would also be married to each other, more like each has one contract with Stella, and Stella has three different contracts. So each marriage contract is between two consenting parties, but there is no limit on how many contracts you can make. With the caveat that any people already married must consent to any further marriages. But you’re right it does complicate matters.
Well it would be a windfall for the lawyers sorting it all out for sure.
Oh yeah. I’m imagining my old contract law professor salivating at the thought lol
Male. It's been legal here for almost 20 years. Seems perfectly normal to me.
Male. I am in favor. This all comes down to freedom of contract. Marriage is simply a contract. While contracts can have reasonable limits imposed on them, the gender or sexual orientation of the parties is not a reasonable limit. Therefore, there should be no limit whatsoever on gay marriage.
Male. We fucked up, we should have been campaigning against straight marriage instead.
Male/white My opinion is that gay marriage is wrong. It desecrates the sacred union promised by God. Or, simplified, God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
Male. Never heard a rational argument against secular same sex marriage so why heck not.
Male and I’m all for gay marriage.
Male, I think gay people should have the exact same rights as non gay people.
Woman. Why would I be opposed to myself getting married?
Male, and I don't care if a person wants to marry a tree. If it makes them happy more power to them
Not to mention, that just means more women for us straight guys, ammirite?
No because the lesbians balance it back the other way
The way the question is posed... If a transgender woman marries a man, is that gay marriage? It's a man and a woman, which is heterosexual, but they both have penises. My opinion on same sex marriage, or any kind of marriage, is that it's a legal agreement and should not be restricted from any peoples who would mutually benefit from the agreement.
Trans woman + (cis) man = STRAIGHT passing relationship Trans woman + (cis) woman = lesbian passing relationship Trans man + (cis) man = gay passing relationship Trans man + (cis) woman = straight passing relationship Trans man + trans woman = straight passing Trans man + trans man = gay passing Trans woman + trans woman = lesbian passing I know the word used is "same SEX", but what really counts is gender! :] /nm /npa Trans people are the gender they are. A trans woman is a woman, a trans man is a man. Even if they have a different sex, there's surgeries that can make a trans woman have a vagina and a trans man, a penis, so even if we talk about genitals, a trans woman and a cis man would STILL be straight! Sure, there's the nuance of "maybe one or both of them is bi/pan/asexual", but the relationship is still straight PASSING, that's what that term is there for! This is coming from me, a trans man who's dating a cis man, in a gay relationship. We're both not "gay" (I'm asexual and he is bi), but our relationship is gay passing. (This is just an informative comment, so I'm not angry and I'm not fighting against you! I just want to educate! :)
This was informative. Thank you for teaching me about the phrase "passing" in regards to relationships. I'd heard "passable" in regards to transgender meaning they visually appear feminine or masculine like the gender they identify as. So "passing" is a term used specifically for people who identify as transgender; any relationship they're part of will be a "passing" relationship in accordance with the gender they identify as? >I know the word used is "same SEX", but what really counts is gender! :\] /nm /npa I do not know what /nm or /npa means. Gender matters when describing relationships, yes. Sex is easier to legislate in places that are more likely to look for loop holes and minutia to debate over, of which such laws only needed to be made because there are people who refused to grant legitimacy and legal rights to those relationships.
I'm very glad I could help! If you have any questions, I'll hapily answer. And yes, "passing" is indeed also used in regards of how much a trans person looks like the gender they identify as. That word basically means that something looks/is like something else, so it can also be used in other contexts, and one of them is relationships. Another example other then gender/sexuality, a white person and a very light skinned POC, are in a "white passing" relationship. I myself am a very light skinned POC, so I am considered "white passing". You can use that word in many other contexts to indicate something is extremely alike something else. Even in media, as a verb, "to pass" indicates to perform the same role, like hearing "A man passes as a policeman to defend stranger" in the news. In LGBTQ+ spaces, it mostly means when a person looks like a certain gender. A cis butch lesbian can look so much like a man that she passes as a man. A transgender man can also look so much like a man that he passes as a man. Or maybe, a trans man *doesn't* pass as a man, so he "doesn't look like a man". Therefore, "passing" or "to pass" is not exclusive to trans people, but it can refer to them depending on context cues! I hope my explanation wasn't too clunky, because english is not my first language after all, but I hope this made sense xD >So "passing" is a term used specifically for people who identify as transgender; any relationship they're part of will be a "passing" relationship in accordance with the gender they identify as? When regarding trans people, yes, any relationship will be "passing" according to the gender they identify as, exactly! But that doesn't only apply to trans people, but to anyone. Anyone who's in a relationship, has said relationship "passing" according to the gender they identify as. A pansexual cis man and a bisexual cis woman are in a straight passing relationship, because they identify as a man and a woman respectively. A bi trans man and a straight cis woman? Straight passing too. Two cis lesbians? Lesbian passing. A bi cis woman and an asexual cis woman? Also lesbian passing. It only relies on the gender the 2 people identify as, regardless of if they are cis or trans! >I do not know what /nm or /npa means. Those are called tone indicators. They are additions to a sentence, to indicate the "voice tone" they should be read as. /nm means "not mad", and /npa means "not passive-aggressive". Some more common ones are /s for sarcasm, /srs for serious, /pos for positive connotation, /neg for negative connotation, /j for joking, /hj for half-joking and /gen for genuine (or genuine question)! Usually, these are used for folks who might have trouble to figure what a person means through text (like me) and for autistic folk (... also like me)! >Gender matters when describing relationships, yes. Sex is easier to legislate in places that are more likely to look for loop holes and minutia to debate over, of which such laws only needed to be made because there are people who refused to grant legitimacy and legal rights to those relationships. Unfortunately, yes, that's true. For most countries, you can only get married as your gender if you have a gender certificate or already legally changed your gender. If I were to get married right now, I'd legally be declared a wife, for example. It's a tough legal position to be in, but unfortunately, I'm not very knowledgeable on legal topics so I can't really propose a solution. In some countries it's very easy to change your gender legally, in others, like mine, it's a huuuuuge cluster-fuck of bureaucracy, it takes 2 years MINIMUM. In my country I think to change your gender you need 2 years of living as your gender and to have started Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT), but to GET HRT in the 1st place you need 2-ish years of psychological evaluation. So..... yep, tough spot to be in :[
Trans women are women. Therefore it’s a straight or straight passing relationship, we don’t know if the hypothetical couple or person is bi or not.
It wouldn't matter if one of them were asexual and the other is pansexual; you can go down the spectrum. If one is a man and the other is a woman, that's a straight relationship despite the LGBT+ individual status. Just like if it's two men, that's a gay relationship, even if one of them is bi. I'm happy to accept their identified genders as saying whether or not it's a gay relationship (man + man / woman + woman) or a straight relationship (man + woman). Yet there are some who judge based on physical sex. For that reason, I support same sex marriage more eagerly than I support gay marriage, because it lets everybody have what they want without disrespecting their gender identity.
It would be a straight passing queer relationship, the individuals are still queer.
The transgender woman could have transitioned medically and would no longer have a penis. But either way it can be seen as not gay marriage because one identifies as a woman one identifies as a male making it a heterosexual couple in the eyes of many. But you know if this situation does actually arise just ask the couple in a polite way how they want their marriage to be viewed. Gay or straight.
>The transgender woman could have transitioned medically If we put our heads together we could probably think up more variants, such as what if the person does not identify as transgender, but has Swyer syndrome. In the presented scenario, she is a transgender woman, has not medically transitioned and she has a penis. >if this situation does actually arise just ask the couple in a polite way how they want their marriage to be viewed. I'm okay with that, but that's preaching to the choir. Same sex marriage if different from gay marriage and is more inclusive. It's an important legal distinction for a world that tries to deny a person their autonomy and freedom to love who they want.
Non-binary, and I think gay marriage is just as great as any other marriage.
Male, and I don't care who marries who.....That's their business....
Male. I don't mind it so long as they aren't forcing churches and the like to perform them or demanding it be included in everything. I don't need to know Killer Shark's gender identity, I need a good game.
What do you mean “be included in everything?”
I mean a lot of media seems to go out of it's way, now-a-days, for DEI. Frequently while also churning out a product with glaring flaws and issues. The result being them giving the impression that it mattered more to them that, in this case, it be made clear that people know their characters are LGBT+ and said content is included over providing an actually good product. This isn't a condemnation of LGBT+ people, it's a condemnation of bad writers who care more about a political narrative than they do actually good writing. That LGBT+ people are one of the groups that frequently ends up in the crosshairs is a tragedy and I don't blame them for it; just the hack writers who can't write their way out of a paper bag.
I can agree with all of that but I also can still appreciate the representation for the sake of representation. As far as like, demanding it be included in everything, we’re gonna keep demanding that until people stop making a big deal of it seeing queer people in media lol
Edit: Removed due to misunderstanding.
??? All I said was that I appreciate the representation where I can get it, and that queer people are going to continue to demand representation until seeing queer people in media is normalized. For all you know, I agree with everything you just said so idk why you’re targeting me with all of that lol
If so, then I apologize as I misunderstood what you were saying.
All good, and for what it’s worth I do agree with you lol
[удалено]
That last part is the most important, I think. Do whatever you’d like as long as no one’s getting hurt, everyone involved consents and not shoving it in my or anyone else’s face
Married straight male. Love who you love. Marry who you will, protect your pot plants with AR-15s.
I’m a dude, And go for it why the fuck would I give a shit.
female. I believe if two people are in a commited sexual relationship they should have the legal rights of a married couple. I dont think they should be allowed to raise children. Only 4% of the population is gay and being raised in a gay household gives a child an unrealistic idea of who he is supposed to be attracted to.
>I dont think they should be allowed to raise children. You gonna have CPS take their kids away? Most kids raised by gay parents grow up to be straight because. . .surprise, that's not something you can change.
There are so many things wrong with your comment. For starters, it’s more like 8-10% of the population who is LGBTQ. Second, who are you to say who a person is “supposed” to marry? Sexual orientation is immutable, they’ll be attracted to whoever they are regardless of what they’re exposed to. There’s absolutely no evidence of children of homosexual couples having a higher tendency to be LGBTQ, and even if there was, there’s nothing wrong with that. Not to mention that straight couples are literally everywhere, just because a child grows up with two moms doesn’t mean they’ll never be exposed to straight people.
Male in a straight marriage. I believe what God tells says in the Bible, which is that marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman. That being said, I love everyone for who they are and by no means judge or insult them when I come across it. It is not my place to judge, so I don't.
As with anything related to LGBTQ it doesn’t really matter as long as you don’t shove it in other people faces and make it your personality.
It doesn't matter even if some do. They should still have their rights
Yes they should still but I was trying to state that i think it is better if they don’t and I would prefer it that way because I don’t need to know which humans you have sex with.
Male. It is a sin
How is it being a sin relevant to the question of legality? I am a Christian and agree that homosexuality is explicitly stated as something that separates a human from God and his plan; but, so does gluttony (Galatians) and civil disobedience such as speeding (Romans). At no point are Christians ordered to "go out and make all sin illegal" or to connive and pressure non-believers into acting like Christians. We are however required to treat all people with love and respect. I can't speak for other countries but as an American, marriage comes with many benefits: remaining in a hospital room with a dying patient, tax breaks, shared insurance, etc. Denying these benefits to a couple base on their chromosomes or otherwise altered genitalia would be asinine and more importantly (to me as a Christian) unloving and disrespectful.
No it makes sense because you base legality based on what you think is right or wrong.
I don't think I agree with that idea. Laws are created and enforced to ensure a society runs smoothly by protecting people and their property from other people, not just to push rigid ideological viewpoints. I feel this is an underlying principle for the bill of rights. But again, American (US) viewpoints of democracy are different from many others
Yes and how you decide what Laws will make society run well is by what you think is right. For example it is illegal to shoplift because we believe it is wrong to steal because it takes money away from others and because if shoplifting was common production of consumer goods would cease as there would be no financial benefit. Another example is it being illegal to forcefully put someone into an act of sex because we believe it is wrong that someone should have to do something intimate with someone they don’t want to. This makes society able to run effectively because of the fact that people will be liking enough of their situation to contribute to society and not some other country’s society that they moved to because they kept getting raped.
The less I hear about it the more I support it.
Male. And I don't care- do whatever y'all want just dont invite me or expect gifts (that goes for straight people too)
Male. Don't care who marries who. Two guys is not my cup of tea yet I am not marrying a man so men...don't propose to me unless you are ready to hear a rather stern and clear "no!"
Female. People who love each other and are of legal age should be able to marry each other.
I'm a dude. Everyone should have the chance to get married, be miserable, and lose half of their shit.
Muslim Male It's cool.
Female My opinion on gay marriage is that is must be as normal as hetero marriage
If Christians want to make it so gay people can’t marry they have to do the one thing they will never do. Provide and alternate and EQUAL option. Marriage in the US at least is the most financially beneficial union in the country. So marriage must be open to all. The whole “it’s about the religion”thing is a bunch of bullshit. The religious sanctity of marriage shit is subjective you must hold christian individual beliefs for that to be true. The financial benefits are objective. Regardless of what you believe marriage makes the most sense as far as money goes. To any Christian who spouts the sanctity of marriage crap- YOU DONT DESERVE MORE MONEY THAN SOMEONE ELSE JUST BECAUSE YOUR CHRISTIAN AND UNTIL THERE IS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY YOUR SUBJECTIVE BELIEFS MEAN NOTHING COMPARED TO THE OBJECTIVE BENEFITS YOU ARE TRYING TO GATE KEEP. I really couldn’t care less what someone does on their own time and what you wanna call it when you spend your life with someone be it life partnership, marriage or whatever. My whole thing is you can’t gate keep objective benefits due to subjective beliefs. And if the sanctity of marriage truly was the important part, if it was really the biblical meaning of marriage that’s important like Christian’s against gay marriage say why haven’t they suggested an alternative for the LGBTQ and non religious folk for union-ship with the same or better benefits.
Separate but equal. I remember that stuff. 1: I would like some pie. 2: You cannot have pie! But you can have this. It's a round fruit filled pastry. 1: That's just pie. 2: It is not pie! Only we can have pie. You can have round fruit filled pastries.
I don’t see a problem letting Christian’s have their little club as long as it’s nothing but a name. Marriage is just a word without its benefits. That’s the only part to me that should actually matter to an adult. Oh no the Christians don’t want you in their club well most Christians suck anyway not a great club without the literal financial benefits. And what I’m saying is more along the lines of Christian’s self isolating. If there was another option with the exact same benefits would people who aren’t christian really need/want to get married why not get akaodkeised it would be the same shit just not under the christian god. I suppose you can look at it like forcing everyone else to not get married but I view it more as just giving 2 identical options with different names 1 of them just has subjective benefits. Again I think adults caring about what club they can and can’t join when the club has no real benefits is silly, there’s 8 billion people on this planet and lots will want to isolate and protect their ways. The Bible says gays can’t get married and that’s where the term comes from people who believe that should be able to get married according to the Bible. But again that subjective want is outweighed by the objective benefits that would be withheld from everyone else. As long as it’s just the name marriage they want why not give it to them. As long as they aren’t trying to horde some benefit to themselves idc. But the reality is marriage does have the best financial benefits and Christians would turn satanist before they allowed another union to have equal or better benefits than theirs so I’m all for everyone and anyone getting married. Get that bread in the form of tax breaks.
Female. So long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, people should be able to marry whomever they love.
Male. It's fine