There are individuals born as
intersexual, who are one-hundred percent healthy both physically and mentally, and in many cases whose sexual organs are
not sterile in any capacity.
In fact, according to one study,
the total number of people whose bodies differ from standard male or female is 1 in 100 births.This point alone should completely devalidate any imaginable argument asserted by those opposed to the legalization of same-sex marriage. Specifically, with this knowledge in mind, the idea that marriage should be reserved as a union between one man and one woman only now seems 100% bat-shit nuts, crazy-time wtf absurd.
If you enjoyed this unique argument, please recommend and vote for this entry by clicking on the heart and stars below!
.jpg)
Comments (32)
That is a pretty unique argument :)
Very unique argument.
I'm not sure I even understand the argument... ???
@radicalramblings - Intersexuals are born without an assignable male or female sex. Thus, they are not candidates for marriage, which was formerly defined as a union between one man and one woman only.
Thus, there is a civil rights violation occurring which may not be treated by any amount of sexual reassignment surgery or hormone therapy.
Good argument!
@Alex_Horschack - Are you familiar with Logical Fallacies? I think there are some issues with your argument. Not that it's invalid, per se, but that the way you are presenting it is, rather... illogical. Check out that link. I think it will help you present this in a form that is more defensible.
Hm. Interesting.
That would be sad to be born that way. Could you imagine how bad identity confusion would be? Wow.
And your argument makes sense.
INteresting point.
LOL i like your arguement
While not a supporte of gay marriage, I understand what you're saying. Male &Female are handy designations for the norm.
meh. Your argument isn't the most convincing i've read. You should expand it.
It makes sense to me. I would just expand the argument a bit. Explain that biologically these people did not have a choice, so denying them one of the most valued tenets in our society is tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment.
@lonelywanderer2 - @JadedJanissary - @lizheartshakespeare -
The triteness was actually a lighthearted joke referencing my outrageously extended period of inactivity on Xanga, and my former pension for outrageously over-sized opinion articles. ; P
@Alex_Horschack - SURRREE it was.
but seriously welcome back
@Alex_Horschack - ah, okay. Glad your back!
Can you please link these people to the Intersex Society of North America? I'm not sure that any of these people -- outside of the gay and trans community and those studying in the field of psychology -- have even heard of the term.
I fucking love the argument, PS.
Let me ask you a personal question, in your personal opinion, transgenderism: a sub-set of intersexuality or not? (Your response will not offend me if you say no, and I say this as a trans person.)
@xthread - I think that for the safety of the solidity of this argument, it's not ok to categorize transgendered individuals as intersexual.
Sex is a physical biological assignment, whereas gender is a matter of self-identification.
Although I accept that there are probably genetic (read: concretely biological and thus physical in some sense = D ) causes contributing towards why a transgendered person might have one male or female sex assignment and an opposite gender identity, it's less tangible and thus harder to lay out on a table in front of the opposition as a means by which to make some of the claims I just made.
Transgendered people start of with one defined biological sex, and sometimes go through sexual reassignment surgeries and hormone therapies so that their physical characteristics match their mentality. I don't see a huge problem with it other than the costliness of it (thousands of dollars that could all go towards cancer or AIDS research...).
And I say all of that as a heterosexual male-male. ; )
This is definitely a statement that I have never considered in relation to gay marriage. I think that if you are going to look at once constitutes a man or a woman, you should consider the difference between sex and gender. If the person (people) saying a "marriage should be between a man and a woman" is referring to a person's gender (which is is, by your own definition, the sex they identify with), doesn't that negate your point entirely? Just a thought...I ask purely for the sake of argument.
My cousin's child was born intersexual, and it raised some very interesting ethical questions within the family.
This is a very interesting argument. You make an excellent point!
It shows that defining marriage as being between one man and one woman is not only unfair towards a homosexual couple but also towards those who don't neatly fit into the usual categories of "man" and "woman."
-- J. M. 713
it is a unique argument, and gay marriage should have never been an argument teh constitution  grants equal rights to everyone, and the country is supposed ti have separation of church and state so why are people using religion to back up their argument
you make the world a better place
Does it make two marriages if two intersexual people get married? As in, the male part of one marrying the female part of the other, and vice versa.