If gender fluidity is the norm, then - please someone help me with this - the terms 'homosexual' and heterosexual' are redundant: after all, as the Unsafe Schools program teaches, there are no dichotomies, except perhaps neo-liberal and Utopian.

OR is there complete fluidity in-between what old-fashioned people used to mistakenly call homo- and hetero-sexual ? Not only in-between but, of course, beyond each.

But if the terms homo- and hetero-sexual are redundant, then so is the controversy over 'marriage'. [Apart from the fact that old lefties like me were supposed to consider marriage so bourgeois, back in the day. How times change.]

If anything, we should be talking about 'equal marriage' between people of infinite sexual variety, stemming from gender fluidity., not just one and/or the other.

Not to mention the vertical to the horizontal, so to speak - trans-everything off in one direction, no-anything in another.

Gosh, it's such fun to get neurotic over such piddly issues when there are no other substantial problems in the world, none that impinge on the inner-suburbs anyway.

Joe

Loudmouth:

If you are gender fluid then marriage has no meaning for you. Gender fluidity and marriage are contradictory. You can’t be tied down to marriage and also a practising gender fluid person. This makes a nonsense of marriage or gender fluidity. How can you identify as gender fluid and also be dedicated to one person of one gender at the same time?

It is all about identity. The same for homosexuals. They want to be married and also identify as homosexuals. They want to marry because they think that being married aids their identity as homosexuals. That is why they clamour for equality as if marriage makes them more homosexual than they are without marriage. Heterosexuals do not need to identify as heterosexuals. They do not get married in order to ‘identify’ as anything

Good question, phanto, and one I’ve answered many times.

<<But how do you know for certain that it is logical some of the time?>>

Because intimacy, companionship, sexual release, pleasure, etc. are logical reasons.

<<Is there such an example you can point to where a particular act of homosexual sex turned out to be reasonable?>>

Shifting the goalposts once again, eh? I cite 'pairing off' as an example earlier and you change it to sex specifically. Why have you confined it sex specifically now? Even you said earlier that the above can be achieved without sex.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7798#240354

<<That is just generalising.>>

No, it’s not. I am not assuming that those examples therefore apply to every instance.

<<I have given you an example of a particular couple with a particular outcome consistent with their stated reason. Why can't you do that?>>

I can, and I have: paring off.

This request of yours is a combination of the McNamara fallacy and the Argument from Silence fallacy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence

Or would you like to once again shift the goalposts and demand an example of two homosexual people conceiving a child? Requesting the impossible is usually where people end up when they shift the goalposts long enough.

Do you remember our old friend, one under god? He was a big fan of fallaciously shifting the goalposts, too. If you debated evolution with him long enough, he would eventually shift the goalposts so far that he would work himself to a point where he was asking you to, on a forum, hold a creature in front of his face so that he can see it evolve into another species.

That's where you’re at now, and it's a new low for you.

Dear Joe,

«please someone help me with this - the terms 'homosexual' and heterosexual' are redundant»

Not exactly redundant: yes they do not describe yourself in any way, but they do describe a condition of your body, perhaps of your mind, so they could be somewhat useful - it's like having a sore-throat and high-temperature one day, then being over it in the next.

«If anything, we should be talking about 'equal marriage' between people of infinite sexual variety, stemming from gender fluidity., not just one and/or the other.»

Marriage need not stem from gender, it need not have anything to do with gender.

---

Dear Phanto,

«How can you identify as gender fluid and also be dedicated to one person of one gender at the same time?»

One can happen to have a fluid gender - but one need not identify with it!

Is gender that important anyway?

I think it's just a nuisance - what a waste of a life to identify with the petty needs of one's body or even of one's mind!

People can love each other and marry without even thinking of gender.
That of course, is a private matter and you don't need anyone to tell you that it's OK.

Yuyutsu,

So ...... the very notion of identity is fluid, to the point of irrelevance ? We all can be anything we like at any time ? Does this mean there is not necessarily such a thing as identity ?

Fluidity seems to have become something of an Irish stew, depending what you put in it today, and something else tomorrow, according to your taste that day ?

Joe

Dear Joe,

We can only be what we are, this cannot change.

While there is evidence that the sexual inclination of our body can be fluid, even more so the sexual inclination of our mind, neither is our true identity.

If we identify with something that we are not, then we are in error and when we are in error, we suffer.