• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

transgender love

Could you have sex with a transgender

  • Total voters
    26
specklebang said:
View attachment 67156448

This is my good friend Ashley and she did show me her (new) ***** and it looked like......a *****. I've known her (as a woman) for many years, before and after "the chop".

I doubt it would be an issue for me as long as the M2F were truly feminine. Once in a while, I've seen guys I thought were "hot". Not that I desired them but it was their femininity that made me recognize them.

I'll be with a smooth M2F before I'm with a hairy woman....Thank dog I'm too old to care anymore.
Click to expand...

I'm tyrying to picture the moment.:lol:
 
MrVicchio said:
I offered a compromise, that would lead to acceptance, you demand acceptance. /shrug
Click to expand...

I hear you and I don't mean to dismiss the effort but consider this at least. You are asking them to accept your intolerance and be okay with being denied. So, it kinds of makes sense based on that, that it would be considered unacceptable. What is it that you feel they are asking from you that so offends you?
 
opendebate said:
So I read a little more on this after your response. (I had honestly just talked to a friend before my original post) What I found said that male to female is more successful but that female to male are often left without sensation but not in all cases and the results are improving. That makes me happy for them actually. Glad I was wrong,.
Click to expand...

I'm learning in this thread too.
 
opendebate said:
I hear you and I don't mean to dismiss the effort but consider this at least. You are asking them to accept your intolerance and be okay with being denied. So, it kinds of makes sense based on that, that it would be considered unacceptable. What is it that you feel they are asking from you that so offends you?
Click to expand...

It's not that OD, it's there is a large majority of people that find Gay Marriage just, unacceptable. There are gay people that wish to have the legal, financial advantages of a marriage. Instead of forcing the majority to "YOU WILL ACCEPT THIS BECAUSE WE THINK YOU'RE WRONG!" why not start with the important CIVIL LEGAL protections that really, in the end matter instead of trying to shove gay marriage down the throats of the country?

That's the activist gay agenda I'm talking about.

Yes the majority position is causing hardship, I get that, I REALLY do. But you get more flies with honey then vinegar. Right now, I'm offering honey, you're all for pouring vinegar.
 
MrVicchio said:
Question for you, if you met the girl of your dreams, and found out after words she had been born Bob, but if she stood before you start nakid next to a hot gal and you couldn't tell she'd ever been bob... would you care?
Click to expand...

Of course I would........He would have male plumbing
 
Couldn't date one, but I could be friends with one.

Well...Facebook friends.
 
Navy Pride said:
Of course I would........He would have male plumbing
Click to expand...

Navy, with the right surgery, you wouldn't know. With hormones... if she's truly female in mind and takes the time and effort to get her body to match, you'd never know.
 

It's not that OD, it's there is a large majority of people that find Gay Marriage just, unacceptable.
Click to expand...
I hear that but how in the world is that a good enough reason. In what other instance do we allow people to be denied access to the any privilege because some people have a hard time accepting it? And why is your acceptance of it necessary? (I am being sincere with these questions, it is hard not to assign it an snotty tone but that is not where I'm coming from)

protections that really, in the end matter
Click to expand...
But that's you deciding what SHOULD matter. Isn't that their decision?

Yes the majority position is causing hardship, I get that, I REALLY do. But you get more flies with honey then vinegar. Right now, I'm offering honey, you're all for pouring vinegar.
Click to expand...

Here is the problem with this stance. I could easily say the same about the position of those who oppose gay marriage but really, is that fair? I am offended frankly by the selfishness of this position, but I am trying to understand what is happening internally for the people who hold it. When you don't do that, when you judge and demean their effort communication ends and understanding becomes impossible. Which puts solutions out of reach.
 
MrVicchio said:
Navy, with the right surgery, you wouldn't know. With hormones... if she's truly female in mind and takes the time and effort to get her body to match, you'd never know.
Click to expand...

Very true.
 
MrVicchio said:
It's not that OD, it's there is a large majority of people that find Gay Marriage just, unacceptable. There are gay people that wish to have the legal, financial advantages of a marriage. Instead of forcing the majority to "YOU WILL ACCEPT THIS BECAUSE WE THINK YOU'RE WRONG!" why not start with the important CIVIL LEGAL protections that really, in the end matter instead of trying to shove gay marriage down the throats of the country?

That's the activist gay agenda I'm talking about.

Yes the majority position is causing hardship, I get that, I REALLY do. But you get more flies with honey then vinegar. Right now, I'm offering honey, you're all for pouring vinegar.
Click to expand...

What you want boils down to separate but equal. Marriage lite because of intolerance. SSM does not tangibly harm straight marriage.
 
opendebate said:
I hear that but how in the world is that a good enough reason. In what other instance do we allow people to be denied access to the any privilege because some people have a hard time accepting it? And why is your acceptance of it necessary? (I am being sincere with these questions, it is hard not to assign it an snotty tone but that is not where I'm coming from)


But that's you deciding what SHOULD matter. Isn't that their decision?



Here is the problem with this stance. I could easily say the same about the position of those who oppose gay marriage but really, is that fair? I am offended frankly by the selfishness of this position, but I am trying to understand what is happening internally for the people who hold it. When you don't do that, when you judge and demean their effort communication ends and understanding becomes impossible. Which puts solutions out of reach.
Click to expand...
I'm not trying to be demeaning, I'm saying that even in California and Oregon, you couldn't get people to vote for Gay Marriage, forcing them to accept it by fiat just causes MORE hate and problems. I'm TRYING to get to gay marriage, without all the bull****.
 
Gina said:
What you want boils down to separate but equal. Marriage lite because of intolerance. SSM does not tangibly harm straight marriage.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's it. It's intolerance that guides me, how ****ing stupid of me to not see this before. SCREW YOU AMERICA! GAY MARRIAGE FOR ALL, DON'T LIKE TOO ****ING BAD! That's YOU BEING INTOLERANT YOU BOGITS JERKS YOU WILL LIKE WHAT WE SAY!!! Screw trying to ease the issue and helping people see through small steps, screw that, you don't get a say in what we want, Gay Marriage all the way baby,m screw your religion, screw your beliefs, screw you! You are hateful angry bigoted people denying Gay's their rights! Marriage is whatever anyone says it is!
 
MrVicchio said:
Yes, that's it. It's intolerance that guides me, how ****ing stupid of me to not see this before. SCREW YOU AMERICA! GAY MARRIAGE FOR ALL, DON'T LIKE TOO ****ING BAD! That's YOU BEING INTOLERANT YOU BOGITS JERKS YOU WILL LIKE WHAT WE SAY!!! Screw trying to ease the issue and helping people see through small steps, screw that, you don't get a say in what we want, Gay Marriage all the way baby,m screw your religion, screw your beliefs, screw you! You are hateful angry bigoted people denying Gay's their rights! Marriage is whatever anyone says it is!
Click to expand...
Wow.

Um. That's not what I said. Nor would I make my argument in such uncivil terms. That gets us no where fast.

Appeasement of intolerance also gets us no where. Those doing the appeasing are made second class citizens. How is that right?
 
MrVicchio said:
I'm not trying to be demeaning, I'm saying that even in California and Oregon, you couldn't get people to vote for Gay Marriage, forcing them to accept it by fiat just causes MORE hate and problems. I'm TRYING to get to gay marriage, without all the bull****.
Click to expand...

Okay, I understand your point better. I guess though that I have a hard time with the idea because I see it as condoning hate and and judgement and frankly, I struggle with that. It seems inconsistent with things our history should have taught us about prejudice and exclusion.
 
MrVicchio said:
Yes, that's it. It's intolerance that guides me, how ****ing stupid of me to not see this before. SCREW YOU AMERICA! GAY MARRIAGE FOR ALL, DON'T LIKE TOO ****ING BAD! That's YOU BEING INTOLERANT YOU BOGITS JERKS YOU WILL LIKE WHAT WE SAY!!! Screw trying to ease the issue and helping people see through small steps, screw that, you don't get a say in what we want, Gay Marriage all the way baby,m screw your religion, screw your beliefs, screw you! You are hateful angry bigoted people denying Gay's their rights! Marriage is whatever anyone says it is!
Click to expand...

Gina did not say that it is *you* who is being intolerant.

However, there is no reasonable doubt that the opposition to SSM is motivated by intolerance.

When a compromise requires some people to be denied their constitutional right to equal treatment under the law, then it's not a compromise; it's a surrender of their constitutional right.

That goes double when the "compromise" requires one side to give up nothing.
 
This thread became hella entertaining.

I could be more against gay marriage if there was a reason based in logic or rationale, not "the Bible says no" or "ew it's icky".

Can we like gay marriage to cancer or something?
 
I very rarely change my mind but this thread has been educational and my initial position is softening. I suppose it's possible I could have sex with or fall in love with a transgender but fortunately I am semi happily married and fairly old so I'm sure I will never have to find out, not in this life anyway.
 
opendebate said:
Okay, I understand your point better. I guess though that I have a hard time with the idea because I see it as condoning hate and and judgement and frankly, I struggle with that. It seems inconsistent with things our history should have taught us about prejudice and exclusion.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with that. However, I think there is a real difference between bigotry, intolerance and NOT supporting gay marriage. One can have a stance against, say gay marriage and it have very little to nothing to do with hate or intolerance. If you make it harder for those folks to defend their position, say with a civil union process where a gay family is more ubiquitous in everyday life then the more intolerant jerks will lose an ally and the whole thing falls apart for them. Personally I think demanding gay marriage be called a marriage is silly. Embrace the difference! But that's just me.
 
sangha said:
Gina did not say that it is *you* who is being intolerant.

However, there is no reasonable doubt that the opposition to SSM is motivated by intolerance.

When a compromise requires some people to be denied their constitutional right to equal treatment under the law, then it's not a compromise; it's a surrender of their constitutional right.

That goes double when the "compromise" requires one side to give up nothing.
Click to expand...

See, that's the problem with people like, you assume that because people do not support gay marriage, they must be bad intolerant people thuis you attack and condemn them for not believing what you do, you're just as bad as Gina. TOLERANCE FOR ALL! As long as you AGREE WITH US!
 
MrVicchio said:
See, that's the problem with people like, you assume that because people do not support gay marriage, they must be bad intolerant people thuis you attack and condemn them for not believing what you do, you're just as bad as Gina. TOLERANCE FOR ALL! As long as you AGREE WITH US!
Click to expand...

You are misunderstanding what has been said, again

I did not say that someone who opposes SSM is a bad person for not believing as I do.

What I said is that it demonstrates a lack of toleration for SSM.
 
MrVicchio said:
I don't disagree with that. However, I think there is a real difference between bigotry, intolerance and NOT supporting gay marriage. One can have a stance against, say gay marriage and it have very little to nothing to do with hate or intolerance. If you make it harder for those folks to defend their position, say with a civil union process where a gay family is more ubiquitous in everyday life then the more intolerant jerks will lose an ally and the whole thing falls apart for them. Personally I think demanding gay marriage be called a marriage is silly. Embrace the difference! But that's just me.
Click to expand...

Well then, why be against SSM? Economic or fiscal reasons? Will peace be threatened with its legality?

It sounds like the only reason you can come up with is terminology.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom