friedmacguffins wrote:
Like with the people, who wanted to subvert marriage, by not really wanting a marriage, I think it's meant to be uncertain. They don't want you to have it your way. They want identity crises.
I am not offended, per se.
But, so far as I know, people on civil, working terms with sexual minorities, all know their assigned genders and what they like, in the common language. Genuine people do not insist on you "minding your pronouns," so long as you are generally-polite. Furries and transracial people don't really believe it and would probably be happy, just to be tolerated.
Jacoby wrote:
I think it's similar in regards the desire for validation and recognition from the state, I always thought that the government should get out of the business of 'licensing' marriages altogether given the history and just let it be a private contractual matter but apparently that's where it's a 'sacred institution'.
Totally agree. If I am too culturally-conservative, I have a problem with the state and general public recognizing me, too, and I just don't need that kind of acceptance, to go on living my life.
Libertarians, anarchists, and their lookalikes have a saying, in which licensure is the state revoking a natural, god-given right, and selling it back to you. You don't need fancy stationary and public acceptance, to deal with likeminded people, in your own safespace or co-op.
Why must I be an accessory to a sex act, or else.
I don't bother other people, when it is humanly-possible.
(

My apologies for the quirky formatting. Fixed, I think.)