Gender is binary. Sex is a verb.

You don't have free speech to violate other's rights and people have the absolute right to be addressed in whatever way they please. If you don't want to address someone as they want to be addressed then DON'T GO AROUND THEM. You sound as if you think it's alright to kill someone if they should persist in demanding that you address them as Ma'am instead of Sir.

 

Marriage has held multiple forms and definitions across history and culture. If you want to claim that SSM has redefined marriage, then you also have to claimed that interracial marriage and the elimination of arranged marriages has as well.

 

Sex is also an indicator of the physical body and what genitals one has. Words have multiple meanings. You have yet to show where the activity is the only meaning of "sex". All you have is a claim, much like another person on here. Where is your evidence to back that up. Quote it. Link to it, or provide a reference to a publication.

 

Indeed they do, and those meanings are determined by society over time and even evolve over time and culture. If words did not evolve then gay, queer and f*ggot would never have come to mean homosexual, slur or otherwise. In the US boot is a footwear, whereas in the UK boot is the storage area of a vehicle. Don't even get me started of chips, biscuits, and pudding. One does not get to change meaning over night and against the overall of society and history. The change takes place over time. Gay didn't just suddenly appear in the language as meaning homosexual. It happened over time. Marriage as an institution has never had any one definition. What people claim as a redefining is a shift in which definition is used, and sometimes a confusion in types (legal vs religious). Yes the change can happen within one's lifetime. The use of the word bug to mean an error in computer programming for example.

Sex indeed holds the definition of the activity of sexual intercourse (which is used as an noun when labeling the activity and an adjective when associating that specific activity with the term intercourse). It also holds other meanings. Words not only have meanings, they have multiple meanings. Which is why context is important; to know which meaning the speaker/writer intended.

You are conflating things. While indeed there is much about the human body that does not change within an individual, the labels used can, have, and will do so in the future. This is basic linguistics. Sex has long been used as the indicators of what was once thought to be known about genetics and the reproductive organs and such. Gender held a different meaning, related but different. Eventually it evolved to be synonymous with sex referring to the body/genetics. Factual history. Now it is evolving again. Sex has never meant what you are claiming. Again, that doesn't mean that it won't in the future, but it's not there at the moment. You would have to show a common use among culture before such use would qualify first as slang, and then language.

The two different things you wish to describe are indeed different. That doesn't affect the labels. After all, we park on driveways, and drive on parkways. Although the origin of parkway, may have been a way through a park. Oh look! Park, another word with multiple meanings. By your arguments though, park is an activity you do with a vehicle, and not a place.

The concepts are indeed two separate things. How labels go are another matter. Bugs (insects) and bugs (programming errors) are two different things and yet share the same word.

 

Actually they don't. Their right is to request others to do so. Manner/polite conduct is different from rights. Now people do have the right no to be harassed over such, but that's different than another simply not using their preferred name or pronoun.

 

It is and has been for thousands of years between a man and a woman.

 

No one has a right to control my speech. No one has the right to compel me to say anything. I have every right to address anyone in any way I choose. No one has a "right to be addressed in whatever way they please".

 

Just to make this really clear if you are a human male and you identify as a cocker spaniel, a Siamese cat, a B52 or a human female you need psychological help not surgery. What you don't need is government laws compelling others to jolly you along in your delusion. No matter how much you desire it if you identify as a B52 I am not going to shove a 500lb bomb up your ass strap a jato pack to your back and launch you in the general direction of Afghanistan to conduct a bombing mission.

 

You tell a lie; I prove it's a lie, and your answer is simply, "So?"

That's why there's no credibility in any of the arguments of the left.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/10/14/black-hair-laws-passed-stop-natural-hair-discrimination-across-us/3850402002/

 

Your chosen political "gender" may be libertarian, but your posts are quite liberal and belie your self-identification as a libertarian.

 

I am going to have to say that this supports my point more than counters it. These laws are reenforcements upon the ban on racial discrimination. You have yet to show me where I can't discriminate against, say green haired people.

 

At the moment yes. I am a small government, more power at the local than state or federal level, fiscal conservatism, conservative type. I am also very socially liberal, giving people their maximum freedoms, as long as it does not interfere with the freedoms of others.

We are in a discussion that is about a social issues, so yes, my comments here will be more liberal. Context. I see liberals as wanting to tell me what I have to do with my money, and conservatives as wanting to tell me what to do with my sex life and body, and I'm having none of either. I've been neither Democrat or Republican for well over a quarter of a century. And no, I don't necessarily like the LP either.

 

This is incorrect. People have the absolute right to call themselves whatever they way. They do not have any right what so ever to force me to call them what they wish to be called.

 

Only if you focus on Christian bias history in a limited region and culture. Throughout human history same sex marriage, consanguinous marriage, ghost marriage, and polygamous marriage have all been legitimate forms of social, religious and even legal marriage. There is no one true definition.

 

except it hasn't and isn't. There are numerous examples of same sex marriage in ancient rome, and Mesopotamia. Same sex marriage occur on a daily basis now.

 

As you continue to ignore virtually everyone in the world who knows better than you on this topic, here's yet another example. This is text from the Equal Rights Amendment that was passed in Congress and, thankfully in my opinion, not ratified. But, still, it proves that the legal definition is that sex defines the parts a person is born with - and actually regardless of the underlying genetics that leads to it, though choose the genetics or parts, it is still that sex is the biology and gender is the choice.

Unless, of course, you're going to argue that the authors of that amendment were trying to permit denying women equal rights while defending equal rights for the sexually active..

 

That Moses wrote of homosexuality 1500 years before the time of Jesus definitely proves that homosexuality is probably as old as the ages... Though it is certainly not for me, those relationships have been happening for a long time. Not because of my political views or my religious views, I have always felt it was wrong that married couples got tax breaks, shared finances, health insurance, etc., and homosexual couples did not. I have always believed that unmarried couples should get the same protections as married couples.

What modern jurisprudence and law has proven is that government should not be in the marriage business. Different people have different beliefs on what marriage is or should be and the government should not be attacking the beliefs of anyone, for or against traditional marriage, for or against homosexual marriage. It's time for government to get out of the marriage business altogether and let it be a private, individual, agreement, celebrated in ways, and by whom, the individuals involved choose, as long as it is voluntary for all involved.

 

What are you going to do if they just get up and walk away from you?

 

nothing. Why would I do anything?

 

Weight classes have nothing to do with it. Testosterone and other male traits give males more muscle. The claim that a man can ever be a woman is flat out wrong. If it were not, then why aren't there women winning in male sports, even weight for weight?

 

In all fairness, the existence of homosexuality that far back is not necessarily an argument over what has been the definition, or more accurately the definitions of marriage over history.

I agree with your intended sentiment, however practicality shows otherwise. Even if the benefits were limited to the legal recognition of a non blood related person having legal standing over a blood relative, government need to be in the record keeping business of that. As to what benefits should or should not be given to those of the legal status, is a whole other topic altogether. Households of two or more adults working together are socially and financially more stable than single person households. This is as a rule of thumb, for certainly there are those who are not stable in any way. It is for that reason, coupled with the fact the legal institution has no requirement for sex (activity) or children, that I advocate for allowing even consanguinous marriage. Naturally for polygamy as well, but there is more that needs changed before that could happen. I refer back to a Boston Legal episode where two of the lawyers who were only good friends, wanted to get a SSM because the one was sick and would be degenerating, and they both wanted the legal right of marriage so the other could take care of the one.

 

I think weight class is a wrong term for it although class is good. Basically set it up so that men and women are competing at an equal level. So certain classes will be dominated by males (men or transwomen) and others by females, and the rest will have a varying degree of mixing. Reality is that there are some women who can out do some men in any given competition. I've seen plenty of women who could out do me even at my prime, and I used to lift sofas above my head with regularity. Putting me with certain levels of men would be unfair competition for me, and for them at other levels.

 

Well that was rather non sequitur.

 

Once again, you demonstrate your ignorance. Homosexual is not just about with whom they have sexual relations or sex; it's more fundamentally about who they are attracted to - homo (one) sexual (sex) they are attracted to the same sex. You can be homosexual and never act on it.

And, once again, let history prove you wrong. The term homosexual referred to what was called a mental psychopathy.