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.

And no, a dildo is not a penis, nor a slash just below the scrotum is a vagina.

I don't have a problem with homossexualism becoming a civil institution.  I
don't believe though that milenar religious dogmas will change much to accept
it when it goes against their core concepts of man, woman and single flesh.

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)...

Post a reply to this message