Susan's Place Logo

News:

Based on internal web log processing I show 3,417,511 Users made 5,324,115 Visits Accounting for 199,729,420 pageviews and 8.954.49 TB of data transfer for 2017, all on a little over $2,000 per month.

Help support this website by Donating or Subscribing! (Updated)

Main Menu

How do you see the term "marriage"?

Started by redhot1, April 30, 2017, 12:43:08 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

redhot1

How do the trans* community see the word "marriage"? I definitely won't have a problem with two men or two women living together, I am not a religious fundamentalist. But, I guess I am fundamentalist when it comes to the human language. Isn't "marriage" defined as one man and one woman? Even regardless of one or both partners being trans or not? Am I overthinking things?
  •  

Deborah

No, it's not defined as one man and one woman.  Plenty of cultures include one man and multiple women.  Mormonism included that until the US government forced them to stop.  One man and multiple women was the normal state for many in the Christian scriptures also. 


Conform and be dull. —James Frank Dobie, The Voice of the Coyote
Love is not obedience, conformity, or submission. It is a counterfeit love that is contingent upon authority, punishment, or reward. True love is respect and admiration, compassion and kindness, freely given by a healthy, unafraid human being....  - Dan Barker

U.S. Army Retired
  •  

staciM

In Canada, marriage is defined as "the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others."
- Staci -
  •  

Dayta

I don't have any personal association with the word "marriage" that excludes gender combinations.  Back before the fight had reached the Supreme Court, I was in favor of conceding "marriage" to whomever wanted to claim it, provided that the gov't get out of the marriage business altogether, leaving marriages as strictly religious affairs and civil unions only being the legal partnership.  In retrospect, I see this as a poor approach in that once conceded, marriage might never be given back and the whole civil union thing abandoned as well. 

Personally, I don't even have a problem with more than two participants in a marriage.  It seems that in most cases where this was legal, multiple partners has really only been an option for an oppressive gender (male usually, maybe always). 

Erin




  •  

Sydney_NYC

The term marriage did not come from religion. It originated when two families merged with the union of two people (usually a man and a woman) as a strategic alliance between families to keep wealth in the family. Marriage is more of a legal/civil union than a religious one. ( More on it here: http://www.livescience.com/37777-history-of-marriage.html )

For me marriage is a civil/legal union and not a religious one. For anyone that argues that it's strictly a religious union, I always point out to them that atheist get married all the time. If can be both if they chose it to be, but as far as the state is concerned it's not a religious union.
Sydney





Born - 1970
Came Out To Self/Wife - Sept-21-2013
Started therapy - Oct-15-2013
Laser and Electrolysis - Oct-24-2013
HRT - Dec-12-2013
Full time - Mar-15-2014
Name change  - June-23-2014
GCS - Nov-2-2017 (Dr Rachel Bluebond-Langner)


  •  

IdontEven

Mawage is what brings us togeva today. Mawage, that bwessed event, that dream wifin a dream.


...


Sorry, any time someone says the word marriage I hear that speech in my head. It's a real problem, especially at weddings.

For me, anybody can define it however they want - if two people want to go jump over a broom in the woods and call themselves married...well...rock on! I'll try to bring some honey mead or blackberry wine or something  ;D

The land I was born in is heavily Christian, and so Christian morality and interpretations have been codified. The laws haven't really kept up with the times, and even though there's technically two different types of union involved when someone of the majority gets married - the religious union under god and the civil one that let's you do all the taxes, next of kin, hospital decision making stuff etc - the concepts become conflated and intertwined.

So then if you try to define marriage under law in a different way, it's seen as an attack on Christianity, which...it sorta is. But only because it's a defacto pseudo-theocratic state, and secularizing the government by changing the laws the Christians have set up within the context of their belief system is a loss of power for Christianity.

Please don't mistake this as me bashing Christianity. It's simply what reality looks like here. If I had been born in a place where another religion was practically omnipresent it would be the same game, different name. I suppose I should count my blessings that there's a secular framework that the theocrats have to work within, so it's not an outright theocracy...yay! :)
'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
  •  

Raell

LOL! I agree with Sydney and Idon'tEven.

I see it as a legal contract, and gender and numbers don't matter.
In other cultures polyphonic marriages and polyamorous relationships are considered normal.

It's so you have the perceived right to live with someone, visit them in the hospital, be legal guardians of children together, be accepted into the partner's family and automatically allowed to sleep with them in hotels.
If you try to think "male" and "female" it becomes nonsensical when one considers intersex and transgendered people.
  •  

RobynD

Legal marriage in this country is not defined as a woman and man, so says the supreme court. Marriage definitely predated any of our modern religions and cultures.

It is no way an attack on Christianity, only Christians who want it to be, make it so. ( hey some people need conflict for whatever reasons)

In my opinion the world needs to live under secular democracy so that diversity is both protect and free to be celebrated.




  •  

Arch

Quote from: IdontEven on May 01, 2017, 05:28:34 AM
Mawage is what brings us togeva today. Mawage, that bwessed event, that dream wifin a dream.

Good thing I swallowed that mouthful of orange soda BEFORE I read your post.
"The hammer is my penis." --Captain Hammer

"When all you have is a hammer . . ." --Anonymous carpenter
  •  

Dee Marshall

April 22, 2015, the day of my first face to face pass in gender neutral clothes and no makeup. It may be months to the next one, but I'm good with that!

Being transgender is just a phase. It hardly ever starts before conception and always ends promptly at death.

They say the light at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming train. I say, climb aboard!
  •  

Maybebaby56

In the rear view mirror. I'm getting divorced.

~Terri
"How we spend our days is, of course, how we spend our lives" - Annie Dillard
  •  

Devlyn

How do you see the term "marriage"?

As something to be avoided like a tiger pit!  :laugh:
  •  

Ella2Marques

I thought it was a great institution and I was so pleased to have an accepting wife. Well two years after my transition things are changing, it is becoming a struggle. She even asked me to come back.
I am a transgender woman, I have been this way all my life. I was filled with guilt at a very young age, a victim of a society that did not understand what it means to be free and yourself. I tried to adapt and flee from my real self by being a workaholic, eating, drinking and doing all in extremes.
Do we have to do the same now to transgender kids? Do they have to suffer all their lives? What about giving them a chance to live like normal people and be happy?
Help to protect transgender kids from bullies, transphobia and hate. Give them a chance.
Ella Marques
  •  

Thessa

I never wanted to get married in the first place but I had one weak moment.

I will not be weak again.
  •  

Arch

I don't really believe in marriage, but I like to think of it as something defined, within certain limits of reason, by the participants--and the law has to accommodate them. Why can't someone marry two or more people if all parties are adults of sound mind?
"The hammer is my penis." --Captain Hammer

"When all you have is a hammer . . ." --Anonymous carpenter
  •  

jentay1367

Quote from: Maybebaby56 on May 02, 2017, 07:18:07 AM
In the rear view mirror. I'm getting divorced.

~Terri

L.O.L. @ Terri You're so funny!!
  •  

SeptagonScars

A bit of a different perspective. For me, as I see the word "marriage" has more to do with what happens legally when two people have gotten married (rights to visit one's partner at hospital, shared custody of children if there are any involved, potentially economical advantages, etc). I'm actally not for marriage for anyone and I think those specific laws that go together with marriage should be upheld in some other, more efficient way that can't get abused as easily, as I see more problems with marriage than good things, especially if the couple (regardless of their genders, gay or straight) would want to separate. So, a bit radically, I'd say abolish marriage altogether or change it up a whole lot. Too many legal traps in it. But in terms of equality? Sure, I'm not against gay people getting married.
Mar. 2009 - came out as ftm
Nov. 2009 - changed my name to John
Mar. 2010 - diagnosed with GID
Aug. 2010 - started T, then stopped after 1 year
Aug. 2013 - started T again, kept taking it since
Mar. 2014 - top surgery
Dec. 2014 - legal gender marker changed to male
*
Jul. 2018 - came out as cis woman and began detransition
Sep. 2018 - stopped taking T and changed my name to Laura
Oct. 2018 - got new ID-card

Medical Detransition plans: breast reconstruction surgery, change legal gender back to female.
  •  

Medium-sized Bird

I only see marriage as a legal agreement between two people. Yeah, usually it has romantic implications, but not necessarily. I don't consider it a necessary part of a romantic relationship or a goal. The biggest advantage I can see to it is that it would make custody easier in case of a breakup.
  •  

elkie-t

I'd define a marriage as a voluntary cohabitation contact between any number of humans formed to share duties of raising children and implying consent of all partners to having sexual relations inside this unit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  •  

Medium-sized Bird

Quote from: elkie-t on October 06, 2017, 08:49:42 PMformed to share duties of raising children

I'm confused by this phrasing. Do you think the primary reason of marriage is to raise children? Do you have any thoughts on married couples without children?
  •