If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN) NewsFlash Percentage of things coming out of Texas that are steers drops sharply   (cnn.com) divider line 478
    More: NewsFlash, Texas, opponents of same-sex marriage, federal courts  
•       •       •

22972 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Feb 2014 at 3:38 PM (34 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

478 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-26 04:50:25 PM  
2014-02-26 04:14:18 PM
NkThrasher: Quelle surprise.  The 14th amendment exists.

In terms of marriage, homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals because it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, which is the main purpose of marriage.


Confused person is confused.  I don't see that in most state laws I am reading -  "Marital law is established for procreation"  - it seems to be all about rights of survivorship/visitation and division/combination of debts and assets.  Seems to be an agreement between two adults capable of entering legally into a contract, for the purpose of the above.  Why should it matter whether it's two men, two women, or a man and a woman?
 
2014-02-26 04:50:37 PM  

ariseatex: My partner and I keep trying, but it's just not working!

/if at first you don't succeed...


A FB acquaintance honestly thought that California's update of laws regarding fertility treatment coverage to get rid of certain language that was gender specific or might discriminate against gay people (Which is designed to cover only those that can't conceive naturally) would mean that women having lesbian sex could be construed as honest attempts to conceive naturally.
 
2014-02-26 04:50:49 PM  
goody, another state where gays can bully people who don't want anything to do with them into catering, photographing, etc, etc their weddings and provide and service other aspects of their lives
 
2014-02-26 04:51:07 PM  

Maul555: As a San Antonian who doesn't really care if gays marry, and is still gonna vote for Greg Abbot, I am getting a kick...


Why?
 
2014-02-26 04:51:19 PM  

riverwalk barfly: CountryClubRepublican: NkThrasher: Quelle surprise.  The 14th amendment exists.

In terms of marriage, homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals because it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, which is the main purpose of marriage.

Tell that to my gay friend that fathered a child with a  woman (on purpose) and proceeded to raise his daughter with his gay partner over the last eighteen  years.

/Expanding your views is important.


I think that's great your friend started a family.  Procreation, however, is the genetic material of both parties to the marriage, so this would not be procreation inside a marriage.

Some of the other posters misunderstand the meaning of procreation.  Every heterosexual married couple has the potential for procreation.  Yes, this ability is lost in some people due to age or pathology.  However, there is no reliable test for fertility, and it would be too invasive to make it a requirement for marriage.  There are also Constitutional protections for reproductive privacy, so we could not force people to procreate or proscribe contraception.

Procreation is the primary purpose of marriage, but it is not a testable requirement.  Since it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, there is no purpose for them marrying.  All the other reasons for marrying like inheritance, etc., can be handled legally outside of marriage.

And, since it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, or have the potential for procreation, they are not equal to heterosexuals in marriage.
 
2014-02-26 04:51:34 PM  

HaywoodJablonski: scamp-dun-emer: HaywoodJablonski: scamp-dun-emer: HaywoodJablonski: I eagerly await the flood of butthurt Facebook friends plotting their move to Australia, since they don't have gay marriage or national healthcare

You'd better warn them off then. We definitely have national healthcare.

That's the joke. I thought you'd have gay marriage by now too

No! We have a conservative government & our leader is a rampant & vocal homophobe.

Hmm. I'll modify the joke to say Canada or Germany next time. Thanks.


Yeah, well, at least the confusion's been sorted and your joke's been fixed to greater effect.

Glad to be of service.
 
2014-02-26 04:51:38 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-02-26 04:51:48 PM  

Trik: goody, another state where gays can bully people who don't want anything to do with them into catering, photographing, etc, etc their weddings and provide and service other aspects of their lives


Are you a troll or are you just stupid?
 
2014-02-26 04:51:51 PM  

eraser8: Will someone -- ANYONE -- explain to me why marriage equality is such a bad thing that it causes such apoplexy?


Because then Republicans get off on breaking the rules, and if marriage equality is a thing, sneaking out on the wife to get a handie at a rest stop loses its allure.

And before the "not all Republicans are closet cases" armada arrives: when David Vitter was caught pooping himself to get off, the Republicans were incredulous that he was schtupping a woman; I have to assume they are actually aware of their own sexual preferences, and they were pretty unanimous that the woman part of the equation was the unbelievable element.
 
2014-02-26 04:52:02 PM  
Let's assume in a few years, all 50 states sanction gay marriage.  I wonder where the next manufactured outrage du jour will emerge?  Back to the abortion debate? The Black-on-Black violence in Africa? Immigration amnesty? The White minority in California demands restitution?

The effort and resources put into getting (re)elected is astonishing.
 
2014-02-26 04:52:56 PM  

Trik: goody, another state where gays can bully people who don't want anything to do with them into catering, photographing, etc, etc their weddings and provide and service other aspects of their lives


Look if you don't want to provide services to people, WHY ARE YOU IN THAT SERVICE?

Do something else.
 
2014-02-26 04:53:13 PM  

CountryClubRepublican: Procreation is the primary purpose of marriage


False.  The primary purpose of marriage has been the protection of property.
 
2014-02-26 04:53:32 PM  

scamp-dun-emer: HaywoodJablonski: scamp-dun-emer: HaywoodJablonski: scamp-dun-emer: HaywoodJablonski: I eagerly await the flood of butthurt Facebook friends plotting their move to Australia, since they don't have gay marriage or national healthcare

You'd better warn them off then. We definitely have national healthcare.

That's the joke. I thought you'd have gay marriage by now too

No! We have a conservative government & our leader is a rampant & vocal homophobe.

Hmm. I'll modify the joke to say Canada or Germany next time. Thanks.

Yeah, well, at least the confusion's been sorted and your joke's been fixed to greater effect.

Glad to be of service.


Cheers!
 
2014-02-26 04:53:46 PM  

QueenMamaBee: Geoff Peterson: I'm happy about the ruling, but I feel the headline is in poor taste and not up to FARK standards. Although a headline celebrating outlawing discrimination that refers to a derogatory epithet for said oppressed minority is pretty snarky.

I'm gonna give this one a pass.

LGBTQ  Some of them like that label....although none of my gay friends can explain to me what's the difference between G and Q.


The "Q" can represent either "Queer" or "Questioning."

"Questioning" folks are people who think they might be gay (or some other variety of LBGT-what-have-you), but aren't sure.

"Queer" is a catch-all term that includes LBGT (so at first it seems redundant), but also includes a few more groups, such as the asexual folk (who don't want to have sex with anybody).

It really boils down to just trying to include anyone who wants to be included.
 
2014-02-26 04:53:48 PM  

rkiller1: Let's assume in a few years, all 50 states sanction gay marriage.  I wonder where the next manufactured outrage du jour will emerge?  Back to the abortion debate? The Black-on-Black violence in Africa? Immigration amnesty? The White minority in California demands restitution?

The effort and resources put into getting (re)elected is astonishing.


Yeah, it has nothing to do with equal rights. It's totally about elections.

/moron.
 
2014-02-26 04:54:00 PM  
Freepers are taking it well.

It's their way or the highway. Logic and common sense don't factor into the queers' equation.


Homosexuals must get what they want says the government and the judiciary.
What the heck does it matter what the people say?
What the heck does it matter what the Constitution says?
 
2014-02-26 04:54:12 PM  

Trik: goody, another state where gays can bully people who don't want anything to do with them into catering, photographing, etc, etc their weddings and provide and service other aspects of their lives


Yes, how terrible that business owners might make money.
 
2014-02-26 04:54:17 PM  

eraser8: Maul555: As a San Antonian who doesn't really care if gays marry, and is still gonna vote for Greg Abbot, I am getting a kick...

Why?


I want to know this as well
 
2014-02-26 04:54:22 PM  

CountryClubRepublican: riverwalk barfly: CountryClubRepublican: NkThrasher: Quelle surprise.  The 14th amendment exists.

In terms of marriage, homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals because it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, which is the main purpose of marriage.

Tell that to my gay friend that fathered a child with a  woman (on purpose) and proceeded to raise his daughter with his gay partner over the last eighteen  years.

/Expanding your views is important.

I think that's great your friend started a family.  Procreation, however, is the genetic material of both parties to the marriage, so this would not be procreation inside a marriage.

Some of the other posters misunderstand the meaning of procreation.  Every heterosexual married couple has the potential for procreation.  Yes, this ability is lost in some people due to age or pathology.  However, there is no reliable test for fertility, and it would be too invasive to make it a requirement for marriage.  There are also Constitutional protections for reproductive privacy, so we could not force people to procreate or proscribe contraception.

Procreation is the primary purpose of marriage, but it is not a testable requirement.  Since it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, there is no purpose for them marrying.  All the other reasons for marrying like inheritance, etc., can be handled legally outside of marriage.

And, since it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, or have the potential for procreation, they are not equal to heterosexuals in marriage.


thesupacoowackiestblogintheuniverse.files.wordpress.com

All I can say is you're a goddamn moron. And now I have you farkied as such.

/Please tell me how two gays getting married will affect your life
 
2014-02-26 04:54:49 PM  

Maul555: As a San Antonian who doesn't really care if gays marry, and is still gonna vote for Greg Abbot, I am getting a kick...


As a Houstonian who wants to get gay-married, how bout ya don't...
 
2014-02-26 04:55:04 PM  

rkiller1: Let's assume in a few years, all 50 states sanction gay marriage.  I wonder where the next manufactured outrage du jour will emerge?  Back to the abortion debate? The Black-on-Black violence in Africa? Immigration amnesty? The White minority in California demands restitution?

The effort and resources put into getting (re)elected is astonishing.


Republicans are still actively fighting against desegregation and the voting rights act. No reason to think near unanimous oposition to their opinions would stop them on this issue either.
 
2014-02-26 04:55:36 PM  

CountryClubRepublican: However, there is no reliable test for fertility


I bet not having a uterus is dispositive of fertility. So let's ban marriage for women with hysterectomies, so they're not using up men with good, fissile sperms.
 
2014-02-26 04:55:43 PM  

rkiller1: The Black-on-Black violence in Africa?


Why is it that the same people who talk about the black-on-black violence in Africa never seem to notice the white-on-white violence in Europe?
 
2014-02-26 04:55:47 PM  
Welcome to the 21st Century, Texas.

I hope the bigots in your state don't drag you back to the 19th.
 
2014-02-26 04:56:07 PM  

Infernalist: Texas should secede if it intends to remain American. ~ Random Derper

Let that peculate for a while.


theelephantgun.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-02-26 04:56:15 PM  

CountryClubRepublican: I think that's great your friend started a family. Procreation, however, is the genetic material of both parties to the marriage


Life is easier if you can just make up bullshiat definitions in order to support your point, isn't it?
 
2014-02-26 04:56:26 PM  

CountryClubRepublican: I think that's great your friend started a family.  Procreation, however, is the genetic material of both parties to the marriage, so this would not be procreation inside a marriage.

Some of the other posters misunderstand the meaning of procreation.  Every heterosexual married couple has the potential for procreation.  Yes, this ability is lost in some people due to age or pathology.  However, there is no reliable test for fertility, and it would be too invasive to make it a requirement for marriage.  There are also Constitutional protections for reproductive privacy, so we could not force people to procreate or proscribe contraception.

Procreation is the primary purpose of marriage, but it is not a testable requirement.  Since it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, there is no purpose for them marrying.  All the other reasons for marrying like inheritance, etc., can be handled legally outside of marriage.

And, since it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, or have the potential for procreation, they are not equal to heterosexuals in marriage.


I'll give you credit for sticking to the troll, but your argument holds zero legitimacy.  If there can be no force to reproduce nor test to ensure that reproduction occurs within marriage then who gets married is entirely disconnected from reproduction.

Thus, no two consenting adult citizens can be restricted from filing paperwork with the state to seek a special legal status in regards to each other.  Any restriction on such paperwork filing is inevitably afoul of the 14th amendment, and won't last.
 
2014-02-26 04:57:43 PM  

CountryClubRepublican: riverwalk barfly: CountryClubRepublican: NkThrasher: Quelle surprise.  The 14th amendment exists.

In terms of marriage, homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals because it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, which is the main purpose of marriage.

Tell that to my gay friend that fathered a child with a  woman (on purpose) and proceeded to raise his daughter with his gay partner over the last eighteen  years.

/Expanding your views is important.

I think that's great your friend started a family.  Procreation, however, is the genetic material of both parties to the marriage, so this would not be procreation inside a marriage.

Some of the other posters misunderstand the meaning of procreation.  Every heterosexual married couple has the potential for procreation.  Yes, this ability is lost in some people due to age or pathology.  However, there is no reliable test for fertility, and it would be too invasive to make it a requirement for marriage.  There are also Constitutional protections for reproductive privacy, so we could not force people to procreate or proscribe contraception.

Procreation is the primary purpose of marriage, but it is not a testable requirement.  Since it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, there is no purpose for them marrying.  All the other reasons for marrying like inheritance, etc., can be handled legally outside of marriage.

And, since it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, or have the potential for procreation, they are not equal to heterosexuals in marriage.



So does that mean if my balls get torn off in a deli accident, I should not be allowed to marry?
Because getting your balls torn off and stuffed into a sausage casing would ensure 100% infertility, I would think.

Do the violently castrated have no rights in your world?
 
2014-02-26 04:57:54 PM  

Trik: goody, another state where gays can bully people who don't want anything to do with them into catering, photographing, etc, etc their weddings and provide and service other aspects of their lives


Everyone who made something for our commitment ceremony in Aggieland TX knew exactly what they were getting themselves into, and did their jobs anyway.  Were any of them anti-gay?  Statistically speaking (for the area), probably.  Did any of them complain or refuse?  Nope.  Did all of them get extra business after we recommended their services to all our friends after the ceremony?  I hope so.
 
2014-02-26 04:57:57 PM  

Ostman: Antimatter: mercator_psi: Hopefully Jan Brewer will look at this and think, "Well, okay, I guess I'll veto it."

Oh, who am I kidding? I used the words "Jan Brewer" and "think" in the same sentence.

If anything, I expect an Arizona type law introduced by the end of the week, and quickly passed in Texas.  the conservatives here cannot stand gays for some reason, and love to use them as a scapegoat.

...For what?

*sigh* I wish conservatives would explain this incredible power I apparently have to affect every aspect of everyones' life. I'd like to weild it.

/For the glory of my lord Satan, of course.


Farked if I know... I am a Texan Libertarian Conservative, and I have never heard anyone blaming "x" on the gays with a straight face...
 
2014-02-26 04:58:03 PM  

Tenga: It's pending appeal, so don't start sucking each others dicks yet.


My car's in the parking lot.  I'll be careful on the way.
 
2014-02-26 04:58:21 PM  
Wait, this is not a repeat from 2003? For a people who claim to hate law suits so much these jackasses sure like suing people on issues that were settled over a decade ago.

I moved away from Texas 15 years ago precisely because I can't stand the bigotry and corruption these assholes practice on a daily basis. Yet it is good to hear it was Judge Garcia who handed down this ruling. As far as I'm concerned the only reason to vote for any presidential candidate is to make sure they nominate judges who will at least follow precedent. This is no guarantee, but it's the best we can hope for.
 
2014-02-26 04:58:31 PM  
I read subby's headline, didn't RTFA, and came to the thread, thinking it was just a snarky reference to the continuing decline in the Texas beef industry. This is not the thread I thought I was walking into.

So, uh, congrats, I guess. I would identify myself as a hetero Christian, but I remain baffled as to why the government needs to be involved in marriage legality in the first place. Let consenting adults do whatever they want with whoever they want.
 
2014-02-26 04:58:37 PM  
How progressive of you, TX.

 Now the tops from the neighboring states are gonna want to come to Texas and turn your crack in to a butter-boat.
 
2014-02-26 04:59:17 PM  
That steers and queers line, did the person who came up with it know that steers are castrated male cattle?  I hope he/she did, because it's a lot funnier that way.
 
2014-02-26 04:59:59 PM  

EdNortonsTwin: How progressive of you, TX.

 Now the tops from the neighboring states are gonna want to come to Texas and turn your crack in to a butter-boat.


White zinfandel for everybody! Cheers!
 
2014-02-26 05:00:22 PM  
Let me get this (ahem) straight.  Texas is ahead of Oregon in terms of LGBT equality?

/My wife and I may not be legally married at the moment; I legally changed my sex last month, and the under the Oregon constitution the State cannot recognize a same-sex marriage.  The state I live in, WA, will not recognize a marriage unless it is held valid in the state it was solemnized in.  Oregon's AG dept refuses to say "it's legal" or "it's not", saying I need to contact a lawyer.  I have no interest to push the matter, so as it stands right now it's entirely possible that if my wife dies I don't get a thing from her (or, more importantly, the reverse).
 
2014-02-26 05:00:30 PM  

Maul555: Ostman: Antimatter: mercator_psi: Hopefully Jan Brewer will look at this and think, "Well, okay, I guess I'll veto it."

Oh, who am I kidding? I used the words "Jan Brewer" and "think" in the same sentence.

If anything, I expect an Arizona type law introduced by the end of the week, and quickly passed in Texas.  the conservatives here cannot stand gays for some reason, and love to use them as a scapegoat.

...For what?

*sigh* I wish conservatives would explain this incredible power I apparently have to affect every aspect of everyones' life. I'd like to weild it.

/For the glory of my lord Satan, of course.

Farked if I know... I am a Texan Libertarian Conservative, and I have never heard anyone blaming "x" on the gays with a straight face...


Pat Robertson.
 
2014-02-26 05:01:07 PM  

CountryClubRepublican: All the other reasons for marrying like inheritance, etc., can be handled legally outside of marriage.


I hate this argument because all the rights that I got from a $30 marriage license, my gay friends have to spend thousand of dollars in legal fees.

/married for twenty years and no children by choice.  So.
 
2014-02-26 05:01:23 PM  

CountryClubRepublican: There are also Constitutional protections for reproductive privacy, so we could not force people to procreate or proscribe contraception.

Procreation is the primary purpose of marriage but it is not a testable requirement.  Since it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, there is no purpose for them marrying.


Please cite the specific reference in our Constitution that affords people reproductive privacy.  I'd be interested in seeing that.  If such a clause exists then wouldn't we be breaching that constitutionally afforded right by assuming or claiming that it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate?

Do you smite unwed mothers if they procreated outside of wedlock?  What about the sperm donor for that same child?

Welcome to this century.  Please try to adjust.
 
2014-02-26 05:02:22 PM  

eraser8: Maul555: As a San Antonian who doesn't really care if gays marry, and is still gonna vote for Greg Abbot, I am getting a kick...

Why?


Because I am not a single issue voter, and Wendy Davis is a vapid and shallow...   Greg Abbot has been suing the shiat out of the federal government for Texas for years, and that is what I like.  He is pro Gun rights, Pro State Rights, and loves to push back against the Feds.  That is the most important thing, because you know that the feds wont ever stop pushing for more regulation over Texas, and as soon as a weak governor gets into power, we will have a hell of a time rolling back the shiat waiting to fall on us.
 
2014-02-26 05:02:45 PM  

Ostman: Antimatter: mercator_psi: Hopefully Jan Brewer will look at this and think, "Well, okay, I guess I'll veto it."

Oh, who am I kidding? I used the words "Jan Brewer" and "think" in the same sentence.

If anything, I expect an Arizona type law introduced by the end of the week, and quickly passed in Texas.  the conservatives here cannot stand gays for some reason, and love to use them as a scapegoat.

...For what?

*sigh* I wish conservatives would explain this incredible power I apparently have to affect every aspect of everyones' life. I'd like to weild it.


Don't lie.  We already know all about the Gay Bandidos.  (NSFW language)
 
2014-02-26 05:03:23 PM  

Maul555: Because I am not a single issue voter, and Wendy Davis is a vapid and shallow...


LOL

Yeah, pull the other one.
 
2014-02-26 05:04:03 PM  

drumhellar: ariseatex: My partner and I keep trying, but it's just not working!

/if at first you don't succeed...

A FB acquaintance honestly thought that California's update of laws regarding fertility treatment coverage to get rid of certain language that was gender specific or might discriminate against gay people (Which is designed to cover only those that can't conceive naturally) would mean that women having lesbian sex could be construed as honest attempts to conceive naturally.


Hey, this is America, land of innovation.  If two women can work out a way to get one of them pregnant from lesbian sex, more power to them.
 
2014-02-26 05:04:24 PM  

ariseatex: nakago: QueenMamaBee: Geoff Peterson: I'm happy about the ruling, but I feel the headline is in poor taste and not up to FARK standards. Although a headline celebrating outlawing discrimination that refers to a derogatory epithet for said oppressed minority is pretty snarky.

I'm gonna give this one a pass.

LGBTQ  Some of them like that label....although none of my gay friends can explain to me what's the difference between G and Q.

Q = Questioning, not Queer.

Sometimes it's both.  But then too many people gloss their eyes over when you say LGBTQQ, LGBTQQIA, or (heaven forbid) LGBTQQIA2SAPH.


Or FABGLITTER.

/one of my favorites, but friends tell me no one uses that one.
 
2014-02-26 05:04:31 PM  
Where you  Farkers been all your lives?  An orgy?  Been out listenin' to that Mick Jagger music and bad mouthin' your counrty, I'll bet.
/Stop eyeballin' me, boy
 
2014-02-26 05:04:35 PM  
I live in Texas and this gets about a  -1 on my give-a-shiat meter.  I think gays should have the same equal rights as the rest of us to be miserable if that is what they want. Your bedroom is your business.

/but please, do keep the stereotypes up, Drew loves the clicks.
 
2014-02-26 05:04:35 PM  

UNC_Samurai: Soon, you phony "libertarian" wankstains! Soon, Amendment One will be in the dustbin of history.

/it pissed me off to NO GODDAMN END how many so-called libertarians, independents, moderates, and "fiscally conservative but socially liberal" people bought into that bullshiat
//NC was supposed to be making real progress, too


Wait... I'm sorry- which side are you on?
*Looks up Amendment One*

Oh- so NOT the  Federal Constitutional Amendment- gotcha.
 
2014-02-26 05:04:49 PM  

Maul555: That is the most important thing, because you know that the feds wont ever stop pushing for more regulation over Texas,


I know, right? The federal government exercising control over its constituent members is just insane.
 
2014-02-26 05:04:58 PM  

Magorn: it's about putting words in the English language that do not exist, especially when they serve no point but to delineate how special a person perceives themselves to be . The ironic thing is that in an attempt to defy fender steroeotyprs people that indulge in this sort of twaddle are actually REINFORCING them


We add words all the time for things that have no point - blog, selfie, phablet, rocker (to mean "rock star"). Some of those piss me off as well (especially since I just got a Note 3 - I use it to make "phone calls", not "phablet calls"), but not enough to make a stink. Won't use one of those myself, but if xe wants to, why should I care?

Magorn: You are a girl that likes to fix cars? That doesn't make you a HIR that makes you a woman who fits nicely into the real spectrum of what woman are, despite cultural attempts to limit roles.

I;m 6'3 fat, balding hairy and straight, but I still admire Freddie Mercury and Dr. Frakenfurter as quasi role models- not because I am "strangely gendered" but just cause I like their swagger


We have a word for the former: "tomboy" (which, if you ask me, is gendered and rather unsuitable for the description). What makes a 'hir' is someone wanting to use that pronoun - could just as easily be a straight cismale as a presurgical queer trans* - that's it. I am also large, balding (more like "thinning", though I can hide it well for now), hairy, and straight, with a similar affection for Tim Curry and Mr Fahrenheit because I enjoy their works - who the fark cares?

You're (a person is) "strangely gendered" because they feel that way, not because some long-dead rocker wore eyeliner. Does some of it come from "traditional" or "societal" gender roles? Probably, but who's really to say what is "nature" and what is "nurture"?

Magorn: We are ALL as Jung said, some mix of Animus and Anima, male and female essence, and the idea that if we are are anything put stereotypically male or female then we are a new "gender" needing its own pronoun is not merely ridiculous, but actually damaging

.

How? Because it hews to "traditional gender roles" if only to explicitly violate them? I hear this argument from people all the time, actually.

The problem is that while "sex" is usually neat and clean (USUALLY; something like 90-95% of cases that don't involve previous surgery, your outsides match your insides), gender is not. We have a long history (and HERstory, amirite?) of treating the two as equivalent, and far be it from me to piss on someone else's subversion of that norm.

Someone else preferring "hir" or "they" or "xe" or even something else entirely, while it's not what I would do, really doesn't matter a fart in a windstorm to my happiness or our friendship.

// and "cis" is just the opposite of "trans", so doing away with that presents other problems
 
Displayed 50 of 478 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report