I'd say that there are three levels of a country not recognizing gay
marriage, from loosest to strictest:

1) The law simply doesn't recognize gay marriage as legal. (In other words
   gay marriage simply doesn't exist as a legal institution.)

2) Gay marriage is actually banned and explicitly illegal.

3) Gay marriage is banned at the consitutional level. In other words,
   not just the law, but the constitution itself declares it as illegal.

  The last one is the strongest form of ban, as it makes it the most
protected ban that there can be. It's also a travesty. It's one thing
that a country's law just doesn't recognize gay marriage, and a completely
different thing for it to be illegal at the constitutional level. Using
the constitution to explicitly limit people's freedom like this is an
affront to what constitutionalism is all about. This is not what a
constitution is for. It doesn't matter what your opinion on gay marriage
may be, that doesn't change anything.

  So guess how many state constitutions in the United States explicitly
ban gay marriage? Just take a guess.

  Answer here:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/north-carolina-voters-banned-gay-marriage-civil-unions-011158194.html

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 11-5-2012 19:32, Warp wrote:
>    I'd say that there are three levels of a country not recognizing gay
> marriage, from loosest to strictest:
>
> 1) The law simply doesn't recognize gay marriage as legal. (In other words
>     gay marriage simply doesn't exist as a legal institution.)
>
> 2) Gay marriage is actually banned and explicitly illegal.
>
> 3) Gay marriage is banned at the consitutional level. In other words,
>     not just the law, but the constitution itself declares it as illegal.
>
>    The last one is the strongest form of ban, as it makes it the most
> protected ban that there can be. It's also a travesty. It's one thing
> that a country's law just doesn't recognize gay marriage, and a completely
> different thing for it to be illegal at the constitutional level. Using
> the constitution to explicitly limit people's freedom like this is an
> affront to what constitutionalism is all about. This is not what a
> constitution is for. It doesn't matter what your opinion on gay marriage
> may be, that doesn't change anything.
>
>    So guess how many state constitutions in the United States explicitly
> ban gay marriage? Just take a guess.
>
>    Answer here:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/north-carolina-voters-banned-gay-marriage-civil-unions-011158194.html
>

I've said it here before, there is no watertight definition of a 'man' 
and a 'woman', hence the whole debate is void. You might as well write 
in a constitution that pi is equal to 3.

(and then I realized that this is the conventional interpretation of 1 
Kings 7:23. I spend a few entertaining minutes reading all sort of 
attempts to explain it away. But I also was reminded that there has been 
a failed attempt to put exactly this the constitution of Ohio.)


-- 
tip: do not run in an unknown place when it is too dark to see the 
floor, unless you prefer to not use uppercase.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I've said it here before, there is no watertight definition of a 'man'
> and a 'woman'

It's called a penis.  If you got one of these, you're a man and is supposed to
put it to good use with someone who lacks it, hereon called a woman.  If you
don't, you begin to whine and complain and try to legislate in favor of 2+2
being 5 or just getting rid of the damned thing...

Post a reply to this message

On 5/11/2012 10:32 AM, Warp wrote:
>    I'd say that there are three levels of a country not recognizing gay
> marriage, from loosest to strictest:
>
> 1) The law simply doesn't recognize gay marriage as legal. (In other words
>     gay marriage simply doesn't exist as a legal institution.)
>
> 2) Gay marriage is actually banned and explicitly illegal.
>
> 3) Gay marriage is banned at the consitutional level. In other words,
>     not just the law, but the constitution itself declares it as illegal.
>
>    The last one is the strongest form of ban, as it makes it the most
> protected ban that there can be. It's also a travesty. It's one thing
> that a country's law just doesn't recognize gay marriage, and a completely
> different thing for it to be illegal at the constitutional level. Using
> the constitution to explicitly limit people's freedom like this is an
> affront to what constitutionalism is all about. This is not what a
> constitution is for. It doesn't matter what your opinion on gay marriage
> may be, that doesn't change anything.
>
>    So guess how many state constitutions in the United States explicitly
> ban gay marriage? Just take a guess.
>
>    Answer here:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/north-carolina-voters-banned-gay-marriage-civil-unions-011158194.html
>

Some of this is depressing. However, one needs to realize that its right 
wing legislators getting most of this passed, that if it does get voted 
on, they lie to make it happen, and that the majority of people don't 
believe in what the actual law ends up saying, when they finally realize 
they have been lied to. The result of this whole bloody mess is that the 
morons doing it are digging their own graves, its only a matter of time 
until this happens, not to mention that they not only don't *get* the 
idea that they should drop the shovel, they have decided to double down 
and buy bigger shovels.

They are also finding out the terrifying fact, which they still hope 
isn't actually true, that when people can find out the truth, it doesn't 
matter how many lies you can buy. If anything, the more you buy, the 
less you are believed by the non-gullible that you already duped. Which 
is strange, its almost the exact thing they "claim" everyone from AGW 
proponents, to evolutionist are doing to conspire against the "truth". 
You know.. spending vast amounts of money, including tax money, to 
promote pure bullshit. You would think using the very tactic you have 
spent your entire career whining that everyone else is doing wouldn't... 
I don't know, make people wonder about your own honesty, when you start 
doing the exact same thing you accused them of?

Then again, logic to these people is a bit like air is to someone on the 
bottom of the ocean... lol

Post a reply to this message

Le 11/05/2012 23:46, nemesis nous fit lire :
> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> I've said it here before, there is no watertight definition of a 'man'
>> and a 'woman'
> 
> It's called a penis.  If you got one of these, you're a man and is supposed to
> put it to good use with someone who lacks it, hereon called a woman.  If you
> don't, you begin to whine and complain and try to legislate in favor of 2+2
> being 5 or just getting rid of the damned thing...
> 
> 
I'm afraid you have been misleaded by obvious criteria, which are plain
wrong.

Look at the old olympic ski medal of Erika Schinegger (1966, female,
1968 discovered internal male sex organs... )

No penis.

Even genetic classification (23th pair of chromosom for human: XX vs XY)
is unreliable. There is also a few XXY, XXYY and XYY , how are you to
call them ?

(XXY frequency is about 1/800 along "male")

Post a reply to this message

On 12-5-2012 9:47, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 11/05/2012 23:46, nemesis nous fit lire :
>> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>>> I've said it here before, there is no watertight definition of a 'man'
>>> and a 'woman'
>>
>> It's called a penis.  If you got one of these, you're a man and is supposed to
>> put it to good use with someone who lacks it, hereon called a woman.  If you
>> don't, you begin to whine and complain and try to legislate in favor of 2+2
>> being 5 or just getting rid of the damned thing...
>>
>>
> I'm afraid you have been misleaded by obvious criteria, which are plain
> wrong.
>
> Look at the old olympic ski medal of Erika Schinegger (1966, female,
> 1968 discovered internal male sex organs... )

and the thing in south africa last year

> No penis.
>
> Even genetic classification (23th pair of chromosom for human: XX vs XY)
> is unreliable. There is also a few XXY, XXYY and XYY , how are you to
> call them ?
>
> (XXY frequency is about 1/800 along "male")
>

and there are XX that are morphological males, XY females, and 
hermaphrodites, and transgenders, and ...

Virtually the only way to make sure that only a provable male marries a 
provable female is to restrict marriage to couples with children *after* 
a paternity test (and a maternity test too, for some weird cases). 
Though this might interfere with ideas about premarital sex that are 
held in the same circles. Testing it in a testtube similar to IVF might 
work too, but will interfere with the idea that an egg after 
fertilization is a human with full civil rights.

I know that whichever way you want to do it there will be large groups 
of people that will not be able to marry anyone. It wouldn't surprise me 
if that will be considered an advantage rather than a violation of human 
rights.


-- 
tip: do not run in an unknown place when it is too dark to see the 
floor, unless you prefer to not use uppercase.

Post a reply to this message

On 12-5-2012 11:35, andrel wrote:
> On 12-5-2012 9:47, Le_Forgeron wrote:

>> I'm afraid you have been misleaded by obvious criteria, which are plain
>> wrong.
>>
>> Look at the old olympic ski medal of Erika Schinegger (1966, female,
>> 1968 discovered internal male sex organs... )
>
> and the thing in south africa last year

'thing' referring to the discussion and not the athlete of course.

Post a reply to this message

Em 12/05/2012 04:47, Le_Forgeron escreveu:
> Le 11/05/2012 23:46, nemesis nous fit lire :
>> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>>> I've said it here before, there is no watertight definition of a 'man'
>>> and a 'woman'
>>
>> It's called a penis.  If you got one of these, you're a man and is supposed to
>> put it to good use with someone who lacks it, hereon called a woman.  If you
>> don't, you begin to whine and complain and try to legislate in favor of 2+2
>> being 5 or just getting rid of the damned thing...
>>
>>
> I'm afraid you have been misleaded by obvious criteria, which are plain
> wrong.
>
> Look at the old olympic ski medal of Erika Schinegger (1966, female,
> 1968 discovered internal male sex organs... )
>
> No penis.
>
> Even genetic classification (23th pair of chromosom for human: XX vs XY)
> is unreliable. There is also a few XXY, XXYY and XYY , how are you to
> call them ?

freaks.  Should freaks be allowed to marry and be as miserable as 
everyone else*?  Sure, be my guest.

* adapted from a routine by comedian Chris Rock...

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 12 May 2012 12:18:32 -0300, nemesis wrote:

>> Even genetic classification (23th pair of chromosom for human: XX vs
>> XY)
>> is unreliable. There is also a few XXY, XXYY and XYY , how are you to
>> call them ?
> 
> freaks.

Ah, there's some of that famous Christian compassion.

<sigh>

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 5/11/2012 10:32, Warp wrote:
>    So guess how many state constitutions in the United States explicitly
> ban gay marriage? Just take a guess.

Interestingly, they banned more than gay marriage there.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message