|
 |
On 06-Jan-09 15:15, nemesis wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
>> On 05-Jan-09 23:48, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 08:56:12 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>>>> It was
>>>> passed because "the sanctity of marriage is attacked".
>>> Which I personally think is absolutely ridiculous.
>>>
>>> Whether two men (or two women) can get married doesn't affect my
>>> relationship with my wife. Pretending that it does would be my choice.
>> you know my position in this: this law is void as there does not exist a
>> full proof definition of what a man or a woman is. Perhaps one of those
>> more difficult cases could challenge the law.
>
> Replace man with penis and woman with vagina and there you have your full proof.
There are people who seem to have both or neither or have one but all
other characteristics of the opposite sex. There are boys that in
puberty transform into females. You have XY females, XX males, persons
with three sex chromosomes, XXY and XXX (I think both sort of females
(sorry, don't feel like googling today)) and IIRC also the persons with
only a single sex chromosome survive, etc etc. And we are not even
talking about transgender surgery. So whatever you choose there will
always be persons that you cannot define or that others will consider to
be of the opposite sex with just as much reason. Hence, even if for the
large majority you can with reasonable certainty say what gender they
have, the concepts are fundamentally undefined.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
