A single unified LGBTQ+ conversation

If you want. I would not look for that in a partner.

But even in the case of traditional relationships, I don't think everyone would want to think about the marriage and the sex being related. They may have sex before the wedding, and may marry for reasons other than the sex that will follow.

edited 28th Jun '16 4:27:34 PM by war877

Phantom, the issue then becomes 'Is it not a homosexual relationship even if one of the individuals in it is bisexual?'

Because we're getting kind of arbitrary here if so.

I am not aro/ace. I like romance lots, and I only don't like the idea of actually doing it with another person IRL.

I think that would constitute a "same-sex relationship" instead of a "homosexual relationship." Those terms are pretty easy for the general public to mix up though

@War Okay than gay doesn't necessarily imply sex stuff so I'm a little confused is all. Like when you have a straight marriage you aren't implying they have sex by saying they are straight you are implying that they are both attracted exclusively to the opposite gender both sexually and romantically which I imagine might not be the case.

edited 28th Jun '16 4:37:13 PM by phantom1

It's not always same sex though. A cis lesbian and a trans lesbian are gay, but not same sex.

And War, there are too many people who have fought for too long to get us the right to marry who we want, so when my wedding comes, I'm going to proudly declare it a gay wedding.

Yes thus the marriage equality thing that's being used. If you want to call yours a gay wedding I'm sure no-one will care. It was same-sex when first legislated here, which has the awkward trans issue and I doubt that in 2005 that was necessarily an accident.

edited 28th Jun '16 4:40:27 PM by phantom1

I don't really understand the idea that romantic attraction is linked to sex. Sexual attraction, sure.

Yeah that's true but gay can also mean the romantic attraction. If they are gay and not ace or aro they generally mean both, if they say they are gay.

edited 28th Jun '16 4:48:23 PM by phantom1

I am pansexual so It is entirely possible most people associate sex or gender with romantic love and there is something I am simply not seeing.

I am agender, so my wedding is going to be a non-binary wedding.

I mean it wouldn't be because your pan and non-binary but if they are gay and ace they generally identify as the gay part to and are using the gay to signify romance just as much.

edited 28th Jun '16 4:55:58 PM by phantom1

It comes from a very particular thing about reproducing with an individual who has traits you desire.

It's hard to explain and beyond my knowledge, but that is in part the gist of it.

The way I see it, it's pointless to try and figure out why one person doesn't care about gender, why one only falls for women, etc. You can't really figure out why, and I don't personally care to. People just need to respect it though.

I like 'marriage equality' because the other two terms are dismissive of bi and trans people.

I make a distinction between same-sex attraction as a unit, and 'gay' as an orientation. In other words, I happen to like males, but I'm not gay. This is because 'gay' is a solid value, not a unit that makes up that value. In even more words, same-sex attraction encompasses everything to the right of 0/1 (depending on whose outdated scale you're viewing), while 'gay' is 6/7.

edited 28th Jun '16 5:10:47 PM by SpaceWolf

I prefer "marriage equality" myself, but I don't necessarily dislike the other terms.

Huh, I honestly never knew "same-sex marriage" was considered to exclude trans people, though it makes sense when you describe why.

I still have a lot to learn, I suppose.

but opposite-sex marriage includes gay relationships with exactly one trans person. So those marriages were always legal.

I meant the term "same-sex marriage", not same-sex marriage in itself. Sorry I wasn't clear.

I've been told that in states that recognize gender identity, a (example) cis man marrying a transwoman is considered straight marriage, but in states that don't recognize gender identity, that same marriage would be counted as gay marriage.

Well, not really, War.

At least in the UK it's been possible to be trans for quite a while legally, except when it came to birth certificates which was much later.

It's only been possible to be married in a gay relationship as a trans person for a very limited amount of time.

Yep. Same sex marriage has been legal for quite some time in the USA, but only if it's a heterosexual couple where one person is trans.

Then by the technicality of how the law is applied in practice, same-sex marriage actually means same-gender marriage.

No, it does not. Sex refers to genitalia. Gender is what you identify as. Marriage between two women or two men was illegal for most of this country's history, based on gender. Same gender marriage was illegal. Same sex marriage was legal in specific cases (a trans woman and cis man, or trans man and cis woman).

But that's what I mean. The law was prejudiced against all same gendered couples but fine with all opposite gendered couples. But the law called it a ban on same sex marriage, despite technically allowing some same sex marriage, so the same sex law was by technicality of the way it was used actually a same gender law.

So the law recognized trans people as their actual gender before it allowed same gender couples to get married?