One advantage I have in making a statement on this topic now is that I have read all one hundred of the posts that have been made this far, in just two sittings. Before I go any further, I would like to address you folk’s attention to two post by other authors. The first is by Alex Blaze over at Bilerico. I am no fan of Mr. Blaze, but his essay entitled “We can’t deny the fact that you hate us right now, you hate us!” is worth reading, this may be the best article he has ever written…pay particular attention to the chart that is listed within the context. The second article I would like for you all to read was written by Cathryn Platine on her Riding the Second Wave blog. The name of this piece is “Bringing Out the Worst in Me”. I insulted Ms. Platine a while back, something I deeply regret and apologized for, though perhaps not sincerely nor adequately enough for I feel she would just as soon I drop off the face of the earth…perhaps as a few other might as well.

The gist of Mr. Blaze’s piece is that society is just not accepting of same-sex marriage. In Maine, the GLBT out spent their opposition considerably; they out campaigned the opposition considerably; Maine is over 97% white…the “black vote” could not be blamed as was in Prop 8; the GLBT couldn’t, and didn’t, blame either President Obama nor the Human Rights Campaign for the loss; the GLBT couldn’t blame the state political machine who had already voted in the affirmative; even the religious rights was not a “…dominating feature of the campaign scene.” No, the GLBT threw everything but the kitchen sink at Maine’s electorate, one of the more liberal states in the Northeast…and still lost by six percentage points. Thirty one states have constitutional amendments preventing same-sex marriage. Every single time same-sex marriage has been put to a vote in a state wide election same-sex marriage has lost. I offer no opinion on this; it is simply the fact of the matter.

The overwhelming theme of Ms. Platine’s essay, as I understand the excellently written piece, is that blogs in general and the GLBT political debates that take place on the internet absolutely bring out the very worst in people. With just a few exceptions, this blog thread is a perfect example of that. I’m no newbie when it comes to any of this and I can attest with absolute certainty that people will make statements on blogs while addressing a comment (or the person making it) in a manner and with language they would never ever use if they were conversing with their adversary in a head up conversational debate.

The articles I reference above are not related per se, nonetheless, I think both should be read and considered with an open mind by those who might want to continue to comment on this thread. The reason I left the gender debate is because my conscience could no longer justify what I was writing from my keyboard. Don’t misunderstand, I meant what I was saying and wrote; the convictions and positions I presented here I still feel just as strongly about. But, quite honestly, I was often ashamed at the way I presented them in writing here at Enough Non-Sense. I am a Christian, and quite proud of being so. Cathryn says in her article that she is “…a very compassionate woman…” and then goes on to say “I am a very gentle woman by nature.” I don’t doubt that in the least. So am I. Blogging brought out the very worst in me…the very, very worst.

Again, having read all the comments posted here, in this particular thread, there is much discussion of one or the other participants having to justify their position with regard to same-sex marriage. There is the tone of one or the other having to present “logical arguments.” Why? If one feels a certain way about an issue, whether it be a social issue or right, or a civil issue or right…no one is required to argue why they are for or against it. Society throughout all of written history has granted or retracted social and civil rights for no other reason than that is just how they felt about it. No one is required, and absolutely there is no societal or cultural mandate for individuals to defend a position they may hold. One may choose to defend their position, but they are not obligated to do so. When a person walks into a voting booth to cast their ballot they have free will to vote as they please, yea or nay…no one is going to be there to make them defend their vote based on what another might view as the logical and reasoned choice. And, that rationale, the electorate voting based on how they feel, has decided the same-sex marriage issue so far. No one who has commented on this thread is under any obligation whatsoever to explain, defend, give a reason, or justify how they feel about the issue of same-sex marriage unless they choose to. And, not choosing to defend one’s personal decision or position on an issue such whether they approve or don’t approve of same-sex marriage implies nothing.

Personally, I think Cassandraspeaks most represents my position on the issue and her analogy of the United Kingdon and the issues that lead up to the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and Civil Partnerships Act 2005. Cassandraspeaks says: “I feel that is justice in action.” I agree. And, further, if the recent post Maine election analysis on the blogs is any indication, I think the GLBT who advocate for same-sex marriage are also beginning to realize that marriage (the term) is simply not going to pass the electorate here in the United States anytime soon…like decades and decades. The GLBT, as of very recently on the blogs, are more and more shifting their political strategy to civil partnerships with the same rights as marriage but not being referred to as marriage as such. I, for one, would vote this very day for homosexual couples to have the right, in every state in the Union, to enter into civil partnerships with the same rights as marriage effectively immediately. I don’t support same-sex marriage, and the use of that word…I don’t need to give a reason or justify why I feel that way and I won’t.

Just a few other comments and I’m done.

The GLBT is shooting themselves in the foot with a shotgun by continuing to call those who don’t agree with them bigots and haters, along with a host of other slurs. Many learned that big time after the Mormon Church/Proposition 8 fiasco. Doing so is only alienating those who, though they don’t support same-sex marriage, would otherwise support civil partnerships.

As well, as the chart I brought to you folk’s attention in Mr. Blaze’s essay above clearly shows, the vast majority of the US doesn’t support same-sex marriage, though quite a few do clearly support civil partnerships. Just as society instantly relegates to something other than woman the transwomen/transmen that prefix their womanhood/manhood with the term trans, whether they are polite enough or not to actually say it…just as certainly, whether same-sex marriage ever passes society will never see a same-sex union as a marriage…again, whether they are polite enough or not to actually say it.

If the GLBT want to ever do anything constructive they would put all of their effort behind the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). At least at that point, other states that don’t sanction same-sex marriage could be forced to recognize same-sex marriages that occur in the few states in which same-sex marriage is legal. That goal is attainable.

If the transgender want to ever do anything construction, they would put all of their resources behind federal legislation that would recognize post operative transsexuals as legal females/males just as any other natal born female/male is. As I believe most of those who identify as transgender are also homosexual, as well as the transgender continuing to define a man with a penis as a female and a female with a vagina as a male…that goal is very much not attainable.

As far as those from other countries jumping in, please remove the log from your eye before you try to remove the splinter from the eyes of those here in the United States.

The thread stays.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/faqEditorial-29086.html#container

It has gone the way of the dodo bird along with common law name changes.

The US use to be a common law nation, not anymore the common law is being phased out in favor of other forms of law.

You like most in the GLBT need to understand marriage is a privilege not a right in this country.

Truthfully I think you would be better off minding the store in your own country.

All of that are things you and other’s here knew about me already and was thrown against from the first time I posted here. Those go back to early in transition…

If I was staring today knowing what I know now, I would not have posted as I had, because i am no longer that naive and trusting.

But In point of fact it was others who brought it up first… reread the thread.

For example the first person who mentioned my marriage in this thread was Leigh. Not me.

Her comment out of the blue was: “Hows the wife ?”

[quote]
I know I am not the first one to tell you this; your personal life can only serve as a weapon against you.
[/quote]

Not a legitimate one and not one I consider valid. I have nothing to be ashamed of… I survived as best as I knew how… Those that have a problem with it IMO are the ones with the problem.

I’m not unique and what I see is tarring of any and all who’s lives have gone as mine have, regardless of the details and reasons. I don’t buy into it’s validity.

[quote]
It’s suicide to try and continue to debate when the other side is intractable.
[/quote]

As I said the point then becomes not to convince them but to get others who are reading but not posting to see the issues are more complex and nuanced.

[quote]
People who hang together and discuss issues usually don’t keep picking on the differences between each other, they work from what they have in common.
[/quote]

The areas of differences can be as important as the commonalities. Differences of opinion don’t have to mean being enemies.

[quote]
There is a big difference between you and the rest of us, that being we want nothing to do with the alphabet soup of self ghettoized, marginalized miss-fits who make up the GLBT,
[/quote]

I too have no wish to be identified as GBLT as that is not how I feel about myself… Never have… Years ago that is exactly why I posted so much about my worries about passing.

But that does not mean those who are, do not deserve human rights. It’s really not a zero sum game as far as I can see.

[quote]
One thing that does irritate some is the line by line disassembly and arguing the components of an idea instead of taking the idea as a whole and arguing your side of the issue.
[/quote]

That has been standard neticate for decades and the style I have used for decades. I use the quotes to address specific points… and to cut down on typing.

After all these years I am still a horrible typist.

Form my side It bothers me when people don’t address the points I bring up specifically… To me it seems like they want to duck that point because they have no good answer to it.

[quote]
Everyone deserves happiness, but not at the expense of someone else.
[/quote]

Yet to me it seems that is what others here are basically arguing for… Think about that…

Anyway there really is not much more for me to say. I’ve said all I can.

Now if I not attacked in this thread again I’ll leave it

URL please? I gave the wiki URL which has lots of links to court cases and legislation saying the exact opposite. You appear to have ignored it.

re “Zoe Brain show” –
as you can imagine, there were plenty of eyewitnesses. Some are now chiming in in the comments section of my blog.

re SSM -
One thing I think we can all agree on is that the majority of US voters are against it.

Where we differ is whether they should be or not, and if there’s a reason for that other than prejudice.

So – are there any good reasons, other than “just because” or “God says so” etc. ?

re Human Rights -
See previous remarks about Aleut Eskimos. If anyone anywhere is being treated unequally and unfairly for any reason, then I’m against their persecution. Even if by doing so it damages my cause.

re Personal Attacks:
Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.

We didn’t make it about you, you chose to defend yourself regarding some aspects of your life you made public here. A little bit of discretion may have been in order. You could have defended SSM without making it personal by bringing details of your life into the discussion. This would have saved a lot of bandwidth.
I know I am not the first one to tell you this; your personal life can only serve as a weapon against you.

Another item;
It’s suicide to try and continue to debate when the other side is intractable. People who hang together and discuss issues usually don’t keep picking on the differences between each other, they work from what they have in common.

There is a big difference between you and the rest of us, that being we want nothing to do with the alphabet soup of self ghettoized, marginalized miss-fits who make up the GLBT, some of us even work actively against them whenever possible.

Your not a bad person (at least in my eyes) and your life is none of my business, just as my life is none of yours.

I learned an important lesson back in the days before DSL that a person is far better off if they keep their personal life off the computer.

One thing that does irritate some is the line by line disassembly and arguing the components of an idea instead of taking the idea as a whole and arguing your side of the issue.

If this were Bilerico and you were one of us, ideologically speaking you would have been banned thirty comments ago. But this is not bilerico, PHB, or any of the other GLBT Kool-Aid bars.

One last item;
Everyone deserves happiness, but not at the expense of someone else.

Any post you may have found someplace would say that I get read once in awhile not CONSTANTLY…
So if you want to go ahead and post a link to whatever post you are referring to for full context. It won’t say anything else.

It’s really NOT something I NORMALLY think about these days when living my life… But I am aware that a small number can read me. And I know there is nothing I can do to change that as I had done all that possibly could be done long ago.

FTR when it happens it’s been from behind because of build but it really is far in between…

But how some is built does not define if they are TS or not. Thought is does have a tendency to affect age at transition.

For something that is none of your business you sure do have strong OPINIONS about my marriage… The relationship is complex but close, mutually nurturing and loving with a deep trust. I am not about to toss it away to gain anyone’s approval or to try and ‘prove’ I’m a woman to myself or anyone else.

[quote]
How dare you accuse me of fear as to the understanding of my husband or not.
[\quote]

The same way you and others here dare to define who I am.

Hiding one’s past is hardly a strong basis for mutual trust. BTW I was (and am) speaking in general. That said , as i have said before, it is your (generic) right and I do defend it.

BTW if you have been polite to me before this you have been hiding it very well!

BTW there was a reason I had SRS first when I did not know if I could manage to have FFS and SRS.

So at what age does someone have to have SRS by for them to be an honest to goodness TS with your seal of approval?

Do ALL the regular posters here meet it?

You want things to be simple , straightforward and cut and dry.

That is just NOT how people or life is, as most everyone here would admit if they were being honest instead of behaving insecurely and defensively.

So pontificate all you want… It just shows your lack of understanding of human nature and the complexity of real lives.

As long as this thread is here people can read the whole thing and decide who has been behaving how and who’s arguments are valid or not.

As I said as you are trying to make this about me instead of the topic (and then no doubt accuse ME of making it about me)

Our opinions on SSM are still in the vast majority. Your side have lost all 50 states in public opinion polls.

I hope that trend will continue for a very very long time.

I have documented proof that as recently as earlier this you confessed to being “read” often. Shall I embarrass you by producing it? You have been through full facial reconstruction with Ousterhout and still you get “read” I have not and have never needed cosmetic surgery.
Your continued marriage to a woman speaks not of the strength of the relationship but of the basis of the relationship both in the past and the present and since you claim not to have cross dressed the only possible answer is that you remain the male in the relationship. But as you say, none of my business.

How dare you accuse me of fear as to the understanding of my husband or not. I chose not to tell because the fact is not relevant and the accident of my birth condition is my burden to carry and not his. It is a burden because people just like you have made it so. He will be viewed as Gay because of asscociation with and that is because of you and those like you. That is why same sex marriage must never happen. Besides all that, the strength of my relationship with my husband is none of your business and stay out of it.
You acuse me of insecurity in my relationship and then refer to a time bomb as if there is some dreadful event in iminent danger of happenning. Tell me how? Pieces of paper prove nothing not even what is written on them. It is what you say and how you say it that speaks of your charector Karen A and it is that to which I refer when I say “male” is written all over it.
I am tired of being polite to people like you. Tired of allowing your type of half truth and accusation go unchallenged. You are not a woman either Karen A you are a man married to a woman by your own admission and by your willingness to cling to the marriage. One of the key indicators of transsexual is the urgent imperitive to surgery. You left that far too late for you to qualify.
Now go play with the other “men in frocks” I’m tired of dealing with you.