↓ Twitter is updated more often, so read it! ↓

A simple thought on declining relevancy of social categorization, relating to gender and sexuality

I found myself engaged in a Facebook discussion on a local politician’s personal profile wall. He’d expressed his sentiment that marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman, a common view for conservatives from western Pennsylvania. A fairly even number of people posted that they agreed or disagreed, expressing their support for the state representative or vowing never to vote for him again.

A battle ensued and eventually most people left the discussion. I tend to 386 pretty hard sometimes. I did this time, so I kept it going for a few days between myself and one or two other posters.

The original discussion on Facebook was friends-only, and I’ll respect that choice by not posting names or what people said, other than myself. One thing I said that felt profound was this statement, something I’ve kept open on a text file in the nearly a month since this occurred as a way of thinking about its sentiment daily:

It turns out that, when you open your *mind*, your *doors*, and your *heart* as wide as possible, you meet a lot of people who can change your views. Gender isn’t binary: masculine or feminine. Sex isn’t binary: male or female. Nature complicates things from time to time, and whatever created them made them this way. We shouldn’t judge them by placing them into our bins, but rather endeavor to make our bins irrelevant.


  1. pro mercy:

    I’m open minded. I, however, don’t accept everything as true.

    Marriage is to create a lasting loving environment in which to beget children by union of the spouses, a relationship of three: husband, wife, and God. Read “Three to get married,” by by Fulton Sheen [ISBN-13: 978-0933932876]

    Homosexual activity has

    ZERO percent potential for procreation

    It is only marriage where there is love and a non-zero potential for procreation.

    Now I don’t care how someone lives their respective life for the most part when it does not harm others. Two people want to be queer in their bedroom whatever. (I do not imply lack of harm there).

    It’s the Public Sphere queer palavering, however, that sparks the moral outrage in the “minority” or the 9 out of 10 Americans who self identify as Christians of various denominations plus plus the self identifying Jews (western civilization).

    Marriage is essential to the fabric of society especially in western civilization. The freedom to marry much as freedom itself is properly expressed in terms of God else it is likely license.

    I open my heart to the suffering often acting to ameliorate. I tolerate people. I never tolerate evil. Too many conflate seemingly two modes of tolerance. Tolerance of evil is itself evil. Such rends the fabric of society, too. Matrimony is a sacrament ergo instituted by God; when it is treated less than such this too generates righteous outrage. An unfortunately common treatment of marriage is as committed habitual fornication — willfully ignorant of the rights to be loosed of duties.

    I invite civil exchange on the topic optionally on neutral ground of XMPP MUC (XMPP texting can be had 1:1 or 1:many. As an Open Standard each is free to choose the xmpp client of his preference, and the federated xmpp server of his own choice. One’s software platform might refer to the client as Jabber client. XMPP is the protocol whereas the username is one’s Jabber ID) as I don’t F*book; I value dignity above purported convenience. It is never appropriate to treat one’s privacy as a commodity. F*book facilitates that and other morally degenerate behaviors of exhibitionism, voyeurism, and gossip.


  2. Colin Dean:

    Do you assert that my friend who can’t have kids because of whatever can never have a marriage? Or that people who get married past their reproductive primes cannot marry? I wholeheartedly reject that assertion.

    Your concept of marriage fails to account for the variables outside of the realm or narrow control of Judeo-Christian ideals, so thus it incomplete and insufficient.

    You may do what you want in your marriage, but as soon as you try to define what that promise means in a way that assaults others’ rights to associate freely, you violate their rights and your rights are no longer respectable.

  3. restore2health.com:


    The Flow of Consciousness » Blog Archive » A simple thought on declining relevancy of social categorization, relating to gender and sexuality…

Leave a comment