nemesis wrote:
> Replace man with penis and woman with vagina and there you have your full proof.

I will point out that there is such a thing as a hermaphrodite. They aren't 
common, but I know two.

> Hey, one can always start a new religion for their beliefs and hope it
> catches... seems to have worked with mormons, scientologists etc (one would
> also say so of all religions)...

Pastafarians, Jedi, ...

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> It's not that.  According to Christian/Jewish religion, to the tale of Adam and
> Eve, God made man and woman and made them so that they complement each other
> and turn into one flesh by the institution of marriage.

The same God that said "go forth and multiply"? So you shouldn't be able to 
get married if you can't have children?

We're not talking about religion here. We're talking about fundamental human 
rights. The Mormon god says Africans are decedents of Satan or some such. 
Does that mean we should reinstitute segregation?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

On 06-Jan-09 15:15, nemesis wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> 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

On 06-Jan-09 1:12, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:41:51 +0100, andrel wrote:
> 
>> On 06-Jan-09 0:33, Jim Henderson wrote:
[]
>>> If I wanted rights in those other states and/or countries, yes.  My
>>> marriage is in fact a civil marriage (we did not have a religious
>>> ceremony), so it already is.
>> does that mean you have one or the other? Here civil is required
>> religious is an extra option with no real consequences (although my
>> parents only celebrated the religious one and considered the civil one a
>> superfluous extra)
> 
> Here in the US, a civil marriage is required.  A religious marriage is 
> optional.  In most cases, you get get both at the same time by being 
> married by clergy.  A justice of the peace (JP - aka a "judge") cannot 
> generally perform a religious marriage.  So pretty much the same here as 
> there.

Clergy here can not do a civil marriage, so that is different. My 
parents married in the church more than 5 months after their civil 
marriage. I don't know how (un)common that was in those days.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 10:03:42 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> The Mormon god says Africans are decedents of Satan or some such.

Used to, "Blacks" can now be members of the Mormon clergy.  Oddly, that 
revelation coincided with the civil rights movement's success.

Funny, that.

Women still can not be members of the Mormon clergy, AIUI.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 10:03:42 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> 
>> The Mormon god says Africans are decedents of Satan or some such.
> 
> Used to, "Blacks" can now be members of the Mormon clergy. 

But are they still descendants of Satan? Or did they just retro-edit their 
holy works to change that?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > Replace man with penis and woman with vagina and there you have your full proof.
>
> I will point out that there is such a thing as a hermaphrodite. They aren't
> common, but I know two.

Whoa!  You must be living in a circus! :P

Ok, bad joke asides, hermaphrodites are special cases.  They are *given* choice,
I guess...

> > Hey, one can always start a new religion for their beliefs and hope it
> > catches... seems to have worked with mormons, scientologists etc (one would
> > also say so of all religions)...
>
> Pastafarians, Jedi, ...

tolkien myths...

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Ok, bad joke asides, hermaphrodites are special cases. 

And the answer to them is...?  :)

I mean, that's the point, isn't it? The Bible doesn't special-case them, so 
on what grounds do you make your decision, if you're denying gay marriage on 
the grounds that God only creates unambiguously men and women?

Nevermind. It's pointless to argue with illogic.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 21:14:54 +0100, andrel wrote:

>> Here in the US, a civil marriage is required.  A religious marriage is
>> optional.  In most cases, you get get both at the same time by being
>> married by clergy.  A justice of the peace (JP - aka a "judge") cannot
>> generally perform a religious marriage.  So pretty much the same here
>> as there.
> 
> Clergy here can not do a civil marriage, so that is different. My
> parents married in the church more than 5 months after their civil
> marriage. I don't know how (un)common that was in those days.

That is an interesting difference.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > It's not that.  According to Christian/Jewish religion, to the tale of Adam and
> > Eve, God made man and woman and made them so that they complement each other
> > and turn into one flesh by the institution of marriage.
>
> The same God that said "go forth and multiply"? So you shouldn't be able to
> get married if you can't have children?

That's a misunfortunate event for some couples, not like they don't try hard.

Oh, you're talking about 2 guys!  Well, science eventually will get around that.
 Science already permit many men to pretend they are women, by taking away the
penis, slashing away a vagina and drinking many hormonal beverages for the
breasts.  It doesn't change the fact that they were given a role in this world
as men and are not fulfilling it.

> We're not talking about religion here. We're talking about fundamental human
> rights.

Right.

> The Mormon god says Africans are decedents of Satan or some such.
> Does that mean we should reinstitute segregation?

No, Mormonism is a man-made myth.  OTOH, in the Old Testment YAWEH ordened many
tribes to be slaghtered by the Jews.  It seems they still listen to an enraged
YAWEH even to this day.

And yes, I realize this is where you want to get:  that homossexualism shouldn't
be condemned because all religions are just man-made myths, in your view.  From
a humanitarian perspective I agree, which is why I'm not against their civil
rights.

Post a reply to this message