FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Numbering New Kinds of Marriages





theotex
While we consider the gender theory, the old and simple definition of marriage, as the union of a man with a woman, seems to turn obsolete and too simple. Indeed, we are now in presence, not of 2 kinds of individuals (male and female), but 4 :
a Man who considers himself as a Man (MM), a Man who considers as a Woman (WM), a Woman who considers herself as a Woman, etc.. shortening we have MM, MW, WW, WM

A marriage can then be define as an arbitrary pairing of 2 of among those 4 individual species.
For instance the traditional marriage was MMWW which must be consider their same as WWMM. But we have now many more possibilities, for instance MWWW, MMMM, etc.

For my part I have numbered 10. Can anybody confirms this number ? And out of this 10, how should we qualify this one : MWWM. From the outside it doesn't differ from an ordinary marriage, but can it happens for real ?
loveandormoney
Can You oplease explain Your theory a little bit more?
firmsactingunethically
theotex wrote:
For my part I have numbered 10. Can anybody confirms this number ? And out of this 10, how should we qualify this one : MWWM. From the outside it doesn't differ from an ordinary marriage, but can it happens for real ?


First,
Quote:
10
again defines binary sexuality. If it were that easy, there would be either 2 or 4, depending on whether one includes homosexual (gay/lesbian). As you implied by 10, that is not the case.

First, for the most part, tran* people (yes, the asterisk is commonly used because of varied statuses or something) generally reference their (romantic) sexual orientation to their transitioned gender. i.e., a F to M person in a romantic relationship to a female would consider perself straight. If the person was in a relationship prior to transition and remains in that relationship through transition, per's (romantic) sexual orientation would also transition (unless the partner were to also transition).

That's how the individuals regard this. Legally, marriage can be different, at least if the law considers sex or gender identification to be an element of marriage. Consider a M to F person born in Ohio, which does not change sex assignment on birth certificates. That person would retain "M" on per birth certificate regardless of transition status. Then the person moves to a state that retains the definition of "marriage is between a man and a woman". If that person wants to marry another woman (a lesbian marriage), that would be legally recognized, but if that person wants to marry a male, that would theoretically not be recognized by the "between a man and a woman" state.

Now all of this involves binary definitions. What happens if the person is not defined by binary definition? The person could be intersexed, which means that the "man and woman" rules do not fit. The person would probably be able to marry anyone in any US jurisdiction because to rule otherwise would discriminate based on a birth status that is universally accepted.

There are also perceptions of the other person. For example a person who self-defines as a gender opposite their birth sex assignment will define their (romantic) sexual orientation according to their self-defined gender. Their romantic partner may identify the person by birth sex even if they accept the person's expressed gender. That would mean that either the transitioned person could consider perself in a homosexual relationship, but their partner be heterosexual. If the partner fully accepts the person's transition gender, the partner may accept being (in this example) in a homosexual relationship but otherwise heterosexual. So the partner would be in a homosexual relationship, but straight and not bisexual.

This equations of whether one is in a heterosexual or homosexual relationship with a transitioned person if the person engages in medical transition. One person would regard the transitioned person according to their transitioned status, whereas another would not. This is different from acknowledging the person's sexuality, because one can acknowledge a person's transition but transfer that to sexual attraction.

This also doesn't address the possibilities of further sexual ambiguity. There are genderqueer people who identify both ways. All of this leaves what you describe as 10 possibilities as in reality an ambiguous number.
Peterssidan
You say there are 4 kinds of individuals so the number of possible individual-pairs must be 4*4=16 (not 10).
firmsactingunethically
Peterssidan wrote:
You say there are 4 kinds of individuals so the number of possible individual-pairs must be 4*4=16 (not 10).

4! (4 factorial) = 10.

If the 4 are cM, cF, tM, tF then:
a cM can have a relationship with any of the 4.
a cF can do the same, but you already counted cF-cM in the first set (as cM-cF), so that leaves 3 additional possibilities.
etc. 4! = 10.

There would be 16 possible individual perspectives of relationships, however.
loveandormoney
Peterssidan wrote:
You say there are 4 kinds of individuals so the number of possible individual-pairs must be 4*4=16 (not 10).


16

I think 16 is the right number.
Peterssidan
firmsactingunethically wrote:
Peterssidan wrote:
You say there are 4 kinds of individuals so the number of possible individual-pairs must be 4*4=16 (not 10).

4! (4 factorial) = 10.

If the 4 are cM, cF, tM, tF then:
a cM can have a relationship with any of the 4.
a cF can do the same, but you already counted cF-cM in the first set (as cM-cF), so that leaves 3 additional possibilities.
etc. 4! = 10.

There would be 16 possible individual perspectives of relationships, however.

Ah yes! 10 is correct. I made the mistake not to think about that the order doesn't matter.
loveandormoney
Yes. If the order is not important
then 10.
You are right.
muntja
i don't use facebook, my wife stays on it and so i use her's every now and then to look at pictures, but didn't they define like 50 different types of people and relationships now? anyone know what i'm talking about?
loveandormoney
muntja wrote:
i don't use facebook, my wife stays on it and so i use her's every now and then to look at pictures, but didn't they define like 50 different types of people and relationships now? anyone know what i'm talking about?


They are 12
not 50.

We can talk about this.

Regards
mshafiq
This discussion is so confusing. Marriage is a man made relationship. Why are we all comparing it with the nature anyways?
codersfriend
Well I guess it just depends on the culture because not all of those types of marriages would apply to other countries. and there are also other marriages not stated here
zimmer
mshafiq wrote:
This discussion is so confusing. Marriage is a man made relationship. Why are we all comparing it with the nature anyways?


Me too, i am confused on this topic. Number for what?

Sorry, i don't get it on this topic.
PITKES1
Marriage is only betwen man and woman... if some man consider himself as a woman than he is ill, he need a psychiater not marriage, also with woman who thinks of herself as a man its not a gender its an illness

this world is going crazy, lol did you know that in ausralia kangaroo is also one kind of gender? and that there is about 21 genders ?
loveandormoney
mshafiq wrote:
This discussion is so confusing. Marriage is a man made relationship. Why are we all comparing it with the nature anyways?


Because there is a difference between nature and culture.
Ask a smoker.
Related topics
new Nintendo Revolution
Bluetooth
Gay Marriage
Do good dancing skills make a person more attractive?
Is Inner Space anywhere in our near future?
Favourite era of music?
is it ok to break traditions
When you open the newspaper comics....
Nightmare Creatures!
www.0urnet.com is ready
What can you say about Obama being the next president?
Top 5 sci-fi series
FieldOfBattles- Wolfenstein Clan
Let's give away money
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Relationships

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.