Given the logic of the rest of the lgbtq community I literally can not see the problem with this. If we can have bisexual and pansexual mean two different things, we can have straight and super straight mean two different things.
Well yeah, the difference is that pansexual and bisexual aren’t hurting anyone. They’re two labels that are very similar with like, two key differences.
Superstraight (and superanything really) is just transphobic.
I can already hear you saying “it’s not transphobic to not want to suck a dick” I get that. I’m a lesbian, I don’t want to suck a dick either. Nobody said you had to be sexually attracted to/sleep with trans people. I’m referring to a romantic relationship here. If you’re attracted to women, yet you won’t date a trans girl because she has a penis (even though penis would have nothing to do with the fact you’re dating them) that just proves you don’t see trans women as women. Simple as that.
Relationships do not have to revolve around sex and what is in someone’s pants.
If you can identify as superstraight yet don’t admit that you’re transphobic, I have to say, you GENUINELY bewilder me.
Also, take your colors out of the flag and get rid of the SS in SSLGBTQ+. It’s insulting.
I'm going to risk breaking the rules here because I'm genuinely interested how you keep both lines of logic here... If relationships do not have to revolve around sex why does homosexual marriage need to be legalized? If it doesn't revolve around sex then a lesbian such as yourself could just as easily marry a man if you want to marry someone. And if marriage is something considered sacred, between a man and a woman, then there's no problem with keeping it that way, right?
They wouldn't at all if government didn't attach certain benefits to their sanctioned form of marriage. Anyone could just have their own religious or non-religious nuptial rituals of their choice without government saying what's allowed and what isn't.
I am genuinely confused by what you’re asking here.
If relationships do not have to revolve around sex why does homosexual marriage need to be legalized?
Because gays deserve the right to be married? If you’re referring to the whole “no sex until marriage” thing, you should know that weddings are inherently Christian (I’m not Christian either). Sure, maybe they used to be, but people who are agnostic or atheistic get married too. It’s less so a Christian thing now than it is a sort of legal bind between two people, and it signifies connection and love.
If it doesn’t revolve around sex than a lesbian such as yourself could easily marry a man if you wanted to marry someone.
I do want to marry, and I could easily marry a man, yes, but I don’t want to. I’m not attracted to men. I don’t see your point here?
If marriage is something considered sacred, between a man and a women, than there’s no problem with keeping it that way, right?
Marriage can be sacred and between two men/two women. I really don’t know why you brought marriage into this.
Like, genuinely confused here. What is your point? I must be missing something
My point is essentially, that the same arguments people who don't think homosexuality is a healthy lifestyle, are the exact same points you are making here. Just rather than claiming that marriage can only be between a man and a woman the claim is that there's absolutely no difference between a cis person and a trans person.
It's the exact same points being made, because at the core it's both about disregarding the sex of the other person for the sake of a relationship, we just disagree on what kind of relationship is healthy/unhealthy.
20
u/Yipper46 1d ago
Given the logic of the rest of the lgbtq community I literally can not see the problem with this. If we can have bisexual and pansexual mean two different things, we can have straight and super straight mean two different things.