Gay Straight Alliance

[Omega Entity]

Maybe same-gender marriage? It seems like most other terms have some kind of problem or other.

 

[...]

 

And just calling it "marriage" ignores the fact that it does have unique characteristics from other marriages-particularly that it is only recently legal in all states in the US and the specific ways that people discriminate against those marriages. Yes, it IS just marriage, but people in such marriages face unique oppression than those in opposite-gender marriages. Saying "marriage became legal in the entire US on the 26th" doesn't make sense; it needs a qualifier.

For the first - from what I've seen, gender is what you identify as, sex is what's between your legs. So same-gender wouldn't work either.

 

As for the latter, biracial marriages used to be illegal, and we no longer distinguish between biracial marriage and homogeneous marriage, for the most part.

 

To insist that there must be a qualifier can, in a way, continue to make marriage divisive. Love is love, so why can't marriage just be marriage, regardless of the participants?

Edited June 29, 2015 by Omega Entity

[Sundew]

I am genuinely confused on how "same-sex marriage" ignores trans people.

I mean it's pretty obvious there needed to be a law saying "two people with the same genitalia can get married" otherwise this whole thing wouldn't be an issue to begin with.

I'm confused as well.

 

I won't use the term if it's offensive, but I also don't understand how it is. (I'm okay with just dropping the issue, though.)

[kitsune93]

For the first - from what I've seen, gender is what you identify as, sex is what's between your legs. So same-gender wouldn't work either.

 

As for the latter, biracial marriages used to be illegal, and we no longer distinguish between biracial marriage and homogeneous marriage, for the most part.

 

To insist that there must be a qualifier can, in a way, continue to make marriage divisive. Love is love, so why can't marriage just be marriage, regardless of the participants?

For the moment I think a qualifier is necessary especially when talking about legal issues but in a few years it won't be.

[hydrargyrum]

For the first - from what I've seen, gender is what you identify as, sex is what's between your legs. So same-gender wouldn't work either.

I don't think that's the point being made. The reason trans people don't like the term same-sex marriage is because it's labeling their marriage based on their sex assigned at birth-it's preferring their genital arrangement to their feelings. A trans woman in a relationship with a cis woman would be a same-gender relationship, but many would not consider it a same-sex relationship. I think that's the point being made, right?

 

As for the latter, biracial marriages used to be illegal, and we no longer distinguish between biracial marriage and homogeneous marriage, for the most part.

 

To insist that there must be a qualifier can, in a way, continue to make marriage divisive. Love is love, so why can't marriage just be marriage, regardless of the participants?

I'm kind of confused by this. You literally, right there, just made a distinction between interracial marriage and same-race marriage. It was crucial to the point you made of how marriage has changed over time, and how we've become at least a little more accepting of people.

 

I'm not trying to say "these are two different kinds of marriage", I'm saying it's important to have labels so we can talk about these things. Even though same-gender marriage is technically legal, we still have people finding loopholes to avoid giving marriage licenses. This is a very real thing that is still happening. And being able to talk about it is important to solving the problems, and labels make it easier to talk about. Saying "it's all just marriage" ignores that these problems are still ongoing.

[AnanoKimi]

I am genuinely confused on how "same-sex marriage" ignores trans people.

I mean it's pretty obvious there needed to be a law saying "two people with the same genitalia can get married" otherwise this whole thing wouldn't be an issue to begin with.

These were my thoughts exactly.

 

Also seeing all these responses after mine makes me wonder if all of you were just kinda sitting back eatin popcorn wondering how it would end. I know I would have lol.

[Snowytoshi]

The reason why it's an issue is because 'same sex' and 'gay marriage' are not interchangeable and you should not use them as such. I don't see any reason why people have such a problem with not using a phrase that can be offensive. Yes legally it refers to same sex marriage, but there's no reason not to use gay marriage or same gender marriage or queer marriage instead. It refers to the same thing, but includes trans people. By changing the words we use we can make trans people feel more comfortable and that's important to me.

 

Also just a psa: people who are trans can still make transphobic comments. Just as I, a bi person, can make biphobic comments. It's not any less harmful.

Edited June 29, 2015 by Snowytoshi

[Sundew]

The reason why it's an issue is because 'same sex' and 'gay marriage' are not interchangeable and you should not use them as such. ... It refers to the same thing, but includes trans people.

I'm not using them interchangeably, but I am curious as to the reasoning behind the offense taken. I have no problem with changing the terms I use to make others comfortable, which is something I have and will do even without understanding.

 

I won't use the term "same-sex marriage" since it's been requested, but I am also requesting an explanation of how it is offensive--not because I doubt the validity of the opinions so far (I don't), but because I'd like to better understand that viewpoint.

[Queen Katherine]

I just scanned the first page of this thread and it was all cute introductions and had a warm feeling to it and then I skipped to the last page and it's all debating and back-and-forth's and it made me forget I wasn't on tumblr for a second.

[Pixxelation]

The term "same-sex marriage" is not transphobic. It refers to the union between two people of the same sex. AKA what genitalia they have. Previous restrictions have been based upon this, rather than one's gender identity, which is why the term is proper. Now, basing it on sex over identity is misguided (or even restricting it at all, really), but that doesn't make the term invalid or transphobic, as legislation refers to exactly that--the sex of those wishing to be married.

[AnanoKimi]

As pie master said, it is a legal and correct term. I personally see no reason why its offensive really...

 

Also the reason marriage is based on sex and not gender is specifically because of things like genderfluid, transgender, etc. There are so many labels and terms for how people identify themselves gender wise that its not productive nor easy. Also should someone discover a gender identity that better suits how they are then thats a change that would have to be noted in the marriage papers and such. Basinf marriage on gender is just not as easy as is with sex.

 

When it comes to sex assignation there is really only four outcomes; you have a vagina, you have a penis, you have both, or you have none. Working with only those four makes legal things like health care and other benefits and issues much easier and functional. Gender identity and Sexual Identification and definitely two separate things but they are also two sides of the same coin, meaning one is not exclusive of the other. Its because of that fact that I don't understand the offense. I really dont.

 

Also my comments may have seemed tranphobic but they are not meant as such. For my comments to be truly transphobic I must actually have ill intent or hatred/fear of transgenders and/or what they stand for. I do not, so my comments are not of ill will or intent but from a more logical stand point. I can be a bit emotionally detatched so forgive me if I do not sound empathetic or sympathetic, but I am thinking more with reason when it comes to issues like this than feeling.

Edited June 30, 2015 by AnanoKimi

[Shienvien]

Going to agree to AnakoKimi and the lot here... It is the accurate description of what it is.

 

Furthermore, I can't see how "gay marriage" would be any "better" since plenty of trans people I've talked to actually define their sexuality in relation to their gender. (So trans man who is attracted to only biological females would call themselves heterosexual*.) Back to square 1.

*Let's use androsexual and gynosexual instead, perhaps? At least people'd know what someone is attracted to...

 

And same-gender marriage wouldn't work since there is a vast array of genders, as opposed to male, female, and the occasional in-between that cannot be clearly determined (with the in-between generally being surgically corrected to one another very shortly after birth - which is also the only case where we can speak of "assigning sex" - in any other case, you don't assign sex, you assign gender).

 

And FYI - people can and do have panic attacks over incorrect term usage. You can't really claim that one thing will universally affect people more. I've also spoken with many trans people who say that denying that their sex isn't a thing is pure nonsense since if their bodies being the wrong sex weren't a thing, then they wouldn't be a trans person to begin with, dammit, and the people who say (or at least imply) things like "Oh, just learn to love your body and your dysphoria will just magically go away" aren't helping. No, it won't go away, since it is an actual physical thing.

 

OT: We had a sender identity etc. debate thread somewhere? Wouldn't it be a better place for this discussion?

[Omen]

Just a little reminder that the term "same-sex marriage" is trans ignorant. ^^

You're right, I'm sorry.

 

I didn't have a problem with the term same-sex marriage despite identifying as trans and gay (to condense my sexuality into one easily understood word), so I didn't think much on how using that term might affect other people. I'll use marriage equality from now on, removes the need for terms that might be offensive.

 

I am genuinely confused on how "same-sex marriage" ignores trans people.

I mean it's pretty obvious there needed to be a law saying "two people with the same genitalia can get married" otherwise this whole thing wouldn't be an issue to begin with.

I think this might be why the term same-sex could potentially cause discomfort with some people identifying as trans:

 

There are people on another forum I visit that cannot get their sex markers changed on their birth certificates because changing them would make their existing marriage illegal. To change their sex marker they need to annul their marriage/divorce their partner. Which I think is a load of crock, and also why I think Australia needs to get with the times. I think this was the same problem some US people had prior to the recent SCOTUS marriage equality ruling. I won't doubt the same issue is experienced in other countries too.

 

Married trans people are putting off potentially life saving reassignment/affirmation or putting off changing their birth certificates to match their sex post affirmation because of this legality issue.

 

With unmarried trans people, it might call attention to their assigned sex at birth that they do not identify with.

 

-snip-

 

*Let's use androsexual and gynosexual instead, perhaps? At least people'd know what someone is attracted to...

 

-snip-

Precisely why I use (grey)-androsexual. Removes any confusion beyond having to explain that andro is in reference to men and/or masculinity.

[Pixxelation]

I think this might be why the term same-sex could potentially cause discomfort with some people identifying as trans:

 

There are people on another forum I visit that cannot get their sex markers changed on their birth certificates because changing them would make their existing marriage illegal. To change their sex marker they need to annul their marriage/divorce their partner. Which I think is a load of crock, and also why I think Australia needs to get with the times. I think this was the same problem some US people had prior to the recent SCOTUS marriage equality ruling. I won't doubt the same issue is experienced in other countries too.

 

Married trans people are putting off potentially life saving reassignment/affirmation or putting off changing their birth certificates to match their sex post affirmation because of this legality issue.

 

With unmarried trans people, it might call attention to their assigned sex at birth that they do not identify with.

But that's still an issue of marriage between people of the same *sex* being able to be married. The fact that they are trans does not change that, and does not make it a transphobic term to use.

 

Marriage equality is what we are fighting for overall, but same-sex marriage is the section that was, up until Friday, not legalized on a Federal level in the US. Terms like "queer marriage" are very confusing, IMHO. As someone who identifies as bisexual, any marriage I potentially may enter would be considered a "queer marriage", regardless of whether it is with a woman or a man. Pansexuality and trans people who choose not to undergo reassignment surgeries are in the same boat. As such, I think the term "same-sex marriage" is the most clear and concise term available.

[Fizzix]

I mean, being ace renders the point moot, but... also NB/agender. So even if someone gynesexual was interested in my actual physical body (I would be v. uncomfortable with that), they wouldn't be getting a gyneromantic relationship out of it. No chick here.

 

ETA: Disclaimer: I know I'm a vast minority here. idk. bleh. words are hard.

Edited June 30, 2015 by Fizzix

[Pixxelation]

https://forums.dragcave.net/index.php?showtopic=100676&hl=

 

Just found this thread. We should probably continue this discussion there and bring this back to being a way to talk about our own orientations ;3

Edited June 30, 2015 by PieMaster

[Obscure_Trash]

Bump because I know I certainly need this in light of recent debates.

[Choco--Cheshire]

Well, hello everyone! This seems like a good place to start talking on here, so let me introduce myself. I'm Choco! I'm 15, demigirl (she/her is fine), and polyromantic/ace. I've had a girlfriend for over a year now and I sure do love dragons.

Edited January 3, 2016 by Choco--Cheshire

[colakit]

Aye! Nice thread!

I am Cola. he/them, anything else needed can be found by taking a look at my avatar. c:

 

 

[AnnoyingTiger888]

I just can't understand why people make such a big deal out of it :/ If someone is gay, bi, whatever - it's THEIR life and THEIR choice. They aren't hurting anyone. The problem is that people need to learn to mind their own business and worry about themselves instead of everyone else *shrug* As long as you're happy with yourself, I support ya.

[wonderwanders2]

I think I might have commented on this thread w/ my original name but not sure and Imtoolazytocheck so....

 

Hi thread. I'm a lesbian. ("Gold star" apparently... never dated/been with a guy.)

I was the first out gay student at my highschool back in the 90s. Now apparently it's a much more progressive school there's even a Gay-Straight Alliance there. O_o

 

...given the amount of crap I had to deal with... including being kept out of the Honor society despite graduating 2nd in the class... (grumbles...).... I'm happily surprised at that!

 

I'm a bit confused at some of the new labels here. Most people here are younger than me so I guess I don't know the current lingo.

 

So pardon the question but what is an "ace"? (Not a playing card, I presume.)

Edited April 19, 2016 by wonderwanders2

[Guillotine]

Ace is short for asexual. Means you don't feel sexual attraction.

 

Hi, I'm a gay ace demiwoman. :V

[wonderwanders2]

Ace is short for asexual. Means you don't feel sexual attraction.

 

Hi, I'm a gay ace demiwoman. :V

Thanks for the answer... (And yes, I had to look up "demiwoman" too, but I did that already. Okay, I can follow that....) But that only leads to another question: How can a person be both asexual and gay? Gay is attracted to same-sex vs asexual is not attracted to anyone/anything. Both are categories of sexual orientation so they are rather separating, by definition. (And this is coming from someone who's taken college courses in sociology and gay/lesbian studies.)

 

Eh, whatever... lets just have a drink (tea, juice, soda, whatever...), chill, collect little dragon egg icons, and leave the labels behind.

[DragonNighthowler]

My parents are all about "if I'm really a Christian, I should condemn their actions."

That's something that I always thought was odd. I mean, one of Christ's teachings in the one about throwing the first rock that who is free of all sin. Also, to love other men and so on. By this same teachings, those who consider themselves devout in the teachings of Christ, should be the most accepting to people of different sexual orientation, religion, ideas, etc. Yet... they're not.

 

Anyways, I'm not well versed in religion at all. I don't even know if the book states anything about homosexuality, and honestly, I don't care. Even if it did, it would still be a book written by men almost 2000 years ago. It wouldn't be any different as if I happened to find preachings against the people of color in A Midsummer Night's Dream. People are way more important than a book, than words written by people who lived 2000 years ago.

[Obscure_Trash]

How can a person be both asexual and gay? Gay is attracted to same-sex vs asexual is not attracted to anyone/anything.

Romantic and sexual orientation are not the same for everybody. Gay ace means they are romantically attracted to the same(/similar) gender romantically while not sexually attracted to anyone.

[igloo9201]

That's something that I always thought was odd. I mean, one of Christ's teachings in the one about throwing the first rock that who is free of all sin. Also, to love other men and so on. By this same teachings, those who consider themselves devout in the teachings of Christ, should be the most accepting to people of different sexual orientation, religion, ideas, etc. Yet... they're not.

 

Anyways, I'm not well versed in religion at all. I don't even know if the book states anything about homosexuality, and honestly, I don't care. Even if it did, it would still be a book written by men almost 2000 years ago. It wouldn't be any different as if I happened to find preachings against the people of color in A Midsummer Night's Dream. People are way more important than a book, than words written by people who lived 2000 years ago.

Exactly.

 

The particular denomination of Christianity I'm in (Lutheranism) is all about forgiveness and all sins being equal. Funnily enough, going through Confirmation class and hearing all of the forgiveness stuff helped me realize that the anti-gay attitudes of some Christians doesn't really make sense. On one hand, my church teaches that all sin is equal and that God forgives everyone as long as they believe. They teach that it's impossible for people to be anything but sinful. But then they say that homosexuality is terrible, you should never do it, and it should be illegal. Bit of a mixed message.

 

And the fact that people think they should be able to tell other people what to do, based on their religion, is quite bad.

 

And I can totally relate with what EmmaD said.

I was actually pretty much brainwashed by my parents for most of my life to think that all of their beliefs were 100% right, but then I finally grew up a bit and started disagreeing with some stuff they think. Which continued to happen, and I am where I am now, a much better and more open-minded person. But my parents have had no change, of course. I'm too scared to even challenge their views at all, because I'm sure that they (particularly my EXTREMELY religious mother) would be very, very upset if I did. My mom goes off on homophobic rants all the time, and I just pretend I agree with her.

One time she even said that having gay friends can turn someone into a bad person. Unbeknownst to her, I have several gay/bi/trans friends. I must be slowly turning evil!