More judges like this one, please. (insurance, companies, state, homosexual)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nonsense. First, it's entirely possible that you might want to disguise your sex for illegal purposes. That's why the petition requires that you state your purpose. Second, disguising your sex is not the same as positively misrepresenting your sex. That opens up a hornet's next of potential legal implications, from family law to criminal law to commerce and religion and education and beyond. Changing your name in a way that misrepresents who you really are is a problem.
Which leads me to the fundamental difference between our respective worldviews. You and your tribe believe that all of reality is subject to man: individuals, legislatures, courts, etc. can change reality by decree. Reality is your plaything. I believe that man is subject to reality: the job of individuals, legislatures, courts, etc. is to conform themselves to reality, not bend reality (as if that were possible) to suit their whims. Reality has an objective existence apart from what anyone wants or desires. Marriage is what it is, and is not what it is not, no matter what any court or law says it is or isn't. The same goes for one's identity as male or female.
It's entirely possible that someone would want to conceal their gender for legal purposes.
The judge has to have a better reason than he has provided for denying a name-change petition.
And I don't have a tribe. Your entire second paragraph is an attempt to apply a philosophy to me that is not applicable. I haven't any problem with reality. In fact, you are the one with the problem with reality. You are the one who doesn't like the reality that women are, in fact, your equals. You are the one who doesn't like the reality that people can legally define their sexuality the way they wish to, as long as it doesn't hurt other people. You are the one who doesn't like the reality that most people on this planet don't follow the same religion you do, and certainly not the particular tenets of that religion you would like to make law. You believe that it is your right to impose your beliefs on others, changing reality by decree. And you hate that there are those of us who challenge your belief, who defy you. So sad, but too bad.
It's entirely possible that someone would want to conceal their gender for legal purposes.
And that is for the judge to determine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
The judge has to have a better reason than he has provided for denying a name-change petition.
No, he doesn't. In fact he doesn't need any reason to deny this petition other than it's coming from a man who wants to be known as a woman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
And I don't have a tribe. Your entire second paragraph is an attempt to apply a philosophy to me that is not applicable. I haven't any problem with reality. In fact, you are the one with the problem with reality. You are the one who doesn't like the reality that women are, in fact, your equals. You are the one who doesn't like the reality that people can legally define their sexuality the way they wish to, as long as it doesn't hurt other people. You are the one who doesn't like the reality that most people on this planet don't follow the same religion you do, and certainly not the particular tenets of that religion you would like to make law. You believe that it is your right to impose your beliefs on others, changing reality by decree. And you hate that there are those of us who challenge your belief, who defy you. So sad, but too bad.
Well, you are using "reality" in the colloquial sense, and I was using it in the ontological sense, and so we are talking past each other. Again.
Look at it this way. I can control the "reality" of what I do with a fork. I can eat a salad, or an apple pie, or I can use it as a weapon - it's my choice, I control this "reality". And if you use your fork differently than I use mine, that's your choice, and you control that "reality" whether I like it or not.
But neither of us can turn a fork into a spoon merely by calling it a spoon. Even if you succeed in getting a judge to declare a fork to be a spoon, it is still a fork. Even if you get congress to pass a law declaring that all forks are spoons, all forks are still forks. That's the ontological reality of a fork.
You may not agree that things like male, female, and marriage are ontological realities, but if you want to argue with me, that's what you need to address.
Well, you are using "reality" in the colloquial sense, and I was using it in the ontological sense, and so we are talking past each other. Again.
Look at it this way. I can control the "reality" of what I do with a fork. I can eat a salad, or an apple pie, or I can use it as a weapon - it's my choice, I control this "reality". And if you use your fork differently than I use mine, that's your choice, and you control that "reality" whether I like it or not.
But neither of us can turn a fork into a spoon merely by calling it a spoon. Even if you succeed in getting a judge to declare a fork to be a spoon, it is still a fork. Even if you get congress to pass a law declaring that all forks are spoons, all forks are still forks. That's the ontological reality of a fork.
You may not agree that things like male, female, and marriage are ontological realities, but if you want to argue with me, that's what you need to address.
If men are forks and women are spoons, names are nothing more than sporks.
And a spork can be used as a fork or spoon because it's both.
That's the ontological reality of a spork and a name.
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
No, he doesn't. In fact he doesn't need any reason to deny this petition other than it's coming from a man who wants to be known as a woman.
Well, you are using "reality" in the colloquial sense, and I was using it in the ontological sense, and so we are talking past each other. Again.
Look at it this way. I can control the "reality" of what I do with a fork. I can eat a salad, or an apple pie, or I can use it as a weapon - it's my choice, I control this "reality". And if you use your fork differently than I use mine, that's your choice, and you control that "reality" whether I like it or not.
But neither of us can turn a fork into a spoon merely by calling it a spoon. Even if you succeed in getting a judge to declare a fork to be a spoon, it is still a fork. Even if you get congress to pass a law declaring that all forks are spoons, all forks are still forks. That's the ontological reality of a fork.
You may not agree that things like male, female, and marriage are ontological realities, but if you want to argue with me, that's what you need to address.
The judge hasn't offered up any rationale for believing that these two individuals have any illicit purpose to change their names. The law is based on rationality. Judges apply THE LAW. This judge didn't follow the law. Shame on him.
As for your ontological realities, pshaw!
The argument isn't over ontological realities, my friend. The argument is over whether the judge can impose his religious beliefs on the people in his court. Since the law is an extension of the government, and the government is forbidden to impose one religion over others, the judge has ABUSED his power. The higher court, upon review, will find that this judge ABUSED his power, and will permit the individuals to change their names for the reasons they have provided. Reasons that are perfectly legal in Oklahoma. The judge should be ashamed of himself. That he isn't ashamed of allowing his homophobia color his legal rulings is unfortunate. But it will result in more of his rulings being overturned, and could result in legal sanctions against him personally.
Last edited by DC at the Ridge; 09-17-2012 at 03:22 PM..
The judge hasn't offered up any rationale for believing that these two individuals have any illicit purpose to change their names. The law is based on rationality. Judges apply THE LAW. This judge didn't follow the law. Shame on him.
As for your ontological realities, pshaw!
The argument isn't over ontological realities, my friend. The argument is over whether the judge can impose his religious beliefs on the people in his court. Since the law is an extension of the government, and the government is forbidden to impose one religion over others, the judge as ABUSED his power. The higher court, upon review, will find that this judge ABUSED his power, and will permit the individuals to change their names for the reasons they have provided. Reasons that are perfectly legal in Oklahoma. The judge should be ashamed of himself. That he isn't ashamed of allowing his homophobia color his legal rulings is unfortunate. But it will result in more of his rulings being overturned, and could result in legal sanctions against him personally.
At any rate, it certainly doesn't add to the conversation. Would you like to have a rational conversation? Or is it more comfortable for you to try to discredit the person you are arguing with?
I'd love to, and gave it a good try, but you gave up with the total inanity of your last post. No sense wasting time on it. And now I've got work to do ...
Gender Identity Disorder is a recognized psychiatric disorder involving a mismatch of brain and body during pre-natal development. The only currently possible medical treatment is to change the sex of the body to match the brain.
It's disgusting to me that you are cheering over denying people medical treatment for something with an extremely high suicide rate.
More solid evidence you are definitely not a Christian. Please leave and stop spreading your hate.
The argument isn't over ontological realities, my friend. The argument is over whether the judge can impose his religious beliefs on the people in his court.
OK, I think I've isolated the only real content in that last post of yours.
You may want to re-read the article. Here's the link again, for your convenience. The judge cited scientific evidence that so-called sex-reassignment surgery does not actually change the sex of the ... "assignee". The male or female DNA remains. The biblical reference was secondary.
While the law in Oklahoma sometimes refers to men and women, it probably doesn't define male and female, and it probably doesn't speculate as to whether male and female are elastic categories that can be changed at will, or whether they are fixed and permanent identities. It is therefore completely legitimate for a judge to look to extra-legal sources for answers, whether it be science or religion or both. In fact, that is why religion is necessary for any society, to provide a framework and context for positive law.
Also - it's worth noting that the petitioner had not even had the surgery yet at the time of the hearing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
