After having perused the board (and after bemoaning its current lack of intellectual content), I propose the following topic for debate:

IF it were legal to do so, would you take a TS wife?

And:

SHOULD it be legal to do so?

Just so you know where I stand, I believe the answer to BOTH questions should be YES.

Over to you, folks........


TA

Hi,
  Of course this leads to the question, should marriage be legal. But since that is a moot point I figure what is good for one is good for all. And there is always the problem of what one does when the marriage goes bad. Would that all girls, TS or otherwise be as good as Venus then I have no complaints. Count me as agreeing with you.

Pre-op I would think. What is the point of a post-op? The reason we like TS is that she looks like a woman and has a dick, that is what makes her special. Post-op is like any GG.

Agree on both counts.  And my comments are based on a pre-op TS.  There are amazing ladies out there....who love to be with their men.....and are much more feminine than gg's....who take themselves for granted.  Strong vote for TS marriage.

Don't quite agree with the argument that attraction to Transgendered women begins and ends with Preops--for me anyway, the attraction is more complex than that. It's true that the visual evidence of arousal that you have with (some) preops is a strong enticement. But the greater factor, I think, is the notion of an attractive woman with a libido that's closer to that of a man. These are broad generalities, I know, since within both the admirer camps as well as within the transgendered camps there's a broad spectrum and long continuum of preferences and tendencies.

I will eventually marry a TS. There is a TS that i plan to marry someday!

Ok, at the risk of upsetting some on this site, let me play devils advocate here (no pun intended for the subsequent statements).  As we know, the word "marriage" can take on a religious connotation and for the most part religion defines that as ‘a union between a man and a woman’.  So if you take the religious view and you are counting chromosomes then you cannot accept the union of a man and a transsexual as marriage.  While I don’t have exact statistics to back this up I believe most of America takes this view.  Most TS's that I know identify themselves as women and the men that they date do as well.  So do we need to have an expanded definition of what a woman is?  If we are counting chromosomes then is this gay marriage?  I know that many of us, including myself despite comments to the contrary don’t consider ourselves gay.  SO...what is the answer?  Are civil unions OK if they convey the same rights as marriage without the religious issue or is this demeaning to the Men and TS Women they love?  Lots of questions I admit, but ones that must be considered.  OK back to the topic.  Me personally I am a spiritual guy a Christian who doesn’t always follow the way  (obvious statement, I know).  My understanding of GOD is that he is love.  So if he loves everyone as a follower and believer I try to love everyone as well.  That love could take the form of a legal pledge under GODs name to someone else in marriage.  I think that the word marriage is tied too closely to religion and therefore will never be legal in this country between a man and a TS, better off not fighting that battle but concentrating on a civil union.  Again playing devils advocate and not trying to be offensive.

I hope to post reasons that seem reasonable, and still challenge your current way of thinking.

Should it be legal?  I feel the government should be required to provide marriage services for any couple that wants it, regardless of gender.  Why?  If every church is opposed to it (and I think they are) and if we truly have separation of Church and State, then it would seem that the State has an obligation to either provide that which is not available through religion or to remain neutral.  In the case of the latter, if some religion (or lack thereof) were to approve of non-tradional marriage, the State should recognize same.

This argument can also be used for abortion.

I would have no problem marrying a ts, regardless of her status of transition.  I don't really care what a partner has between her legs, it's what is in her heart and head that counts for me.  I have three dear ladies that I would marry in a heartbeat.

who desires the official sanction of a long-term, committed, loving relationship should have that option, regardless of gender. I've been happily married to a terrific woman for almost 30 years, but had I discovered the pleasures & passions of TS's earlier in life, who knows what might have transpired!?!

Am I missing something here? Many men are married to TS women. I'm technically pre-op but legally changed my gender 2 years ago after my orchiectomy.

While marriage has significant religious conotations it also confers enormous legal rights and privileges that everyone should have. I doubt I will ever get married, I'm not the monogamous type, but I 100% support all LGBT people who do.

And if you look at marriage as a civil contract your relationship is a glorified business transaction masked by ceremony and simply a means of assigning property rights.

 TS wife?  Only if she's filthy rich and the law entitles me to 50% of her estate.

Why should one group of couples enjoy more financial and legal benefits than another simply because the couples are made up of 1 man and 1 woman?

I asked why would 'anyone' need government sanctioning.  It applies to everyone in any sexual/gender combination.  In an even broader application why should wed people receive financial reward for their lifestyle while unwed people do not?

Doesn't marrying a person indicate a spiritual if not physical commitment, exclusive of a swinging/open marriage? Is it possible to have multiple commitments and still be true to the concept of marriage?

This is what I was looking for.

Personally, I think that "civil" marriage (as distinct from the religious variety) should be available from the government to all who seek it.

Whether you are a straight couple without religious convictions, a gay couple, or a Man/TS
couple, you should be able to register at a government office as "married" and by so doing
gain access to all of the "legal" (i.e. governmentally created and sanctioned) benefits and preferences of marriage, including taxation, inheritance, property division, estates, etc.

Requirements should be simple...not a minor,
not a mental defective or adjudicated incompetent,
and perhaps some qualification of togetherness as a couple (perhaps a pre-marital cohabitation requirement) and ability to maintain a common household (require pre-marital counseling, as many religious bodies do).

The religious communities will never in this or any other lifetime sanction marriage OTHER than that of man to woman, preferably of the same race, ethnicity, and religious affiliation. They would, in fact, prefer if not REQUIRE that those who do not fit this mold remain both unmarried AND
celibate.

But, I believe society is strengthened, not weakened, when consenting adults, of whatever sexual persuasion, enter into officially sanctioned relationships of mutual love, support,
and togetherness. The evidence is overwhelming
that people in long-term, permanent relationships
are happier, healthier, more stable, and more responsible and productive than those who are not.  

The benefit to society, then, is obvious.

Good effort everyone. Great insights. More "topics" will follow.

TA

To some extent it depends on where and how you obtain a marriage license and get married. I am aware of several somewhat recent instances where several marriages of this nature got overturned as null and void in a court of law, all were where an estate was involved and the relatives contested that a legal marriage had never taken place. In such litigation that has always ultimately been the court's decision.

I am under the impression, that regardless of whether one is pre-op or post-op, actually I don't believe you can get your birth certificate gender changed and or updated unless you have that signed and stamped letter from the doctor stating that a change has taken place. but in any case, it all goes back to language in the federal or state charter about a marriage is a union between a man and a woman blah blah. I mentioned the updated thing because in some or all states now, they will update one's birth certificate but show that a change has taken place and what that change was. This might not be true everywhere but in lots of places it is. At this point a county clerk will most likely not provide a marriage license.


When I was in the state of washington, I was considering adopting, I was informed that people of my species were considered unstable and of unsavory moral terpitude. Well I guess that's right look at what I've turned into a common classless whore.

I could 'get away' with marrying someone of the male gender, but I am fully aware that if it were contested for any significant reason it would all go away. But this isn't new news, this legal viewpoint has been around for decades, so don't get upset about it, it's a fact of this chosen life.