Bob wrote:

Dennis Smeth wrote:

Graham Kennedy wrote:

Earl Camembert wrote:

"Graham Kennedy" <graham@ditl.org> wrote in message
news:1071265668.9910.0@nnrp-t71-01.news.clara.net...

Bob wrote:

Jefferson Brady wrote:

Gay marriage

That phrase contradicts itself.

Not for long, it would seem.

If the Supreme Court permits homosexuals to marry (I doubt the will) there
will be a constitution amendment proclaiming a marriage is between a man and
a woman. It is because of homosexuals, lesbians and Negroes that people like
George W. is the president and might be again. Go back into your closet and
***** ***** all you want, if you continue to cause trouble it will be much
worse for us all.

Wow, the desperation really came through in that one.
It's like being in the sixties listening to people
ranting about how blacks would be kept out of the white
schools.

Bigots don't change they only change the group they hate,
well in his case just add it to the list.

Yep. Straight hate is pretty obvious whenever rump riders hit their
keyboards.

I'll tell my wife I am a rump rider, she has always wanted a threesome.

But hey I was called a ***** lover when I fought for black's
rights as well.
Bigots don't change they only change the group they hate.

The small shred of credibility you had managed to hold on to just went
out the window.....

Dennis Smeth wrote:

The ones that have renounced the
concept of marriage,

Your deliberate attempt to destroy the age old meaning of "marriage"
does not change it.

Adam and Steve do not produce the next generation
of the society, and are never married.

which was always between any two or more
people that wanted to get married and the church performed
same sex marriages up until the 19th century, are the Pope,
Georgia Bush and the conservatives.

See the Code of Hamarabi for an old source about marriage. Destroying
the institution of marriage is possible but you are wrong for trying.

Your deliberate attempt to destroy the age old meaning of "marriage"
does not change it. Adam and Steve do not produce the next generation
of the society, and are never married.

Your deliberate attempt to destroy the age old meaning of "marriage"

Dennis Smeth wrote:

The ones that have renounced the
concept of marriage,

Your deliberate attempt to destroy the age old meaning of "marriage"
does not change it. Adam and Steve do not produce the next generation
of the society, and are never married.

Anne Marie Tobias wrote:

Clearly Bob, you are no doctor...

Clearly, Anne, you are no reader.....

XXY or Kleinfelter Syndrome intersexuals are usually but not always
infertile.

Clearly, Anne, your own post supports what Bob said, "Someone with mixed
up DNA probably can't produce children."

There are in fact many dozens, possibly hundreds of intersexing
possibilities, many of which are reproductively viable.

But they are usually infertile.

Bob

A recent survey suggested that as much a 2% of all children display
some form of intersexing.

A woman in England recently discovered that she was a chimera (a
genetic mosaic), literally she had the genetic traits of two
distinctly different people. One male, one female. In the womb two
separate eggs were fertilized, a male and a female, and somehow they
joined and became one embryo with cells from both original zygotes. So
tell me this person was labeled female, but she had both distinct male
and female cells, she had given birth to children, and been married
for over 30 years. Would you change the law to deny her the ablity to
marry because she had male cells? How about a woman who has a male
heart transplanted.

We all start off in the womb as female, and only after some time does
the gentic switch trigger a hormone wash to distinguish boys from
girls. Any circumstance the prevents or alters that hormonal wash can
have serious even drastic effects on the forming embryo. There are in
fact genetic males who never received the hormonal wash who were born
morphologically female, raised as such, were only discovered as such
at puberty, and the current standard medical practice is to provide
these children with female hormones so that they develop and normal
(though sterile) women.

A significant number of medical researchers think that male to female
transsexuals are male babies who for some reason didn't have a
complete or proper hormonal wash (many transexuals show significant
signs of physical intersexing), causing them to have highly feminized
brain structures. They literally have female brains and cannot
function as men, even when exposed to normal levels of testosterone.
Female to male transsexuals may be the result of a more complex process.

Can you even meaningfully define for me male and female? Because I can
give you several hundred pages justifying scientifically why you can't
use genetics, sociology, morphology, physical characteristics, or
reproductive fertility as a definition.

In the face of this uncertainty, this inability to even set a rational
baseline upon which to base your silly law, how do you expect to be
able to justify yourself, enforce this, or even make any kind of moral
or legal sense that is fair and just?

Maybe we should just slaughter 2% of the population so you don't have
to think about the implications and conscequence of small minded
ignorant legislation based on stupid fears and thoughtless decisions
made hundreds of years ago by unscrupulous leaders of the Catholic
Church. I mean I would hate to have to be the one to tell you that
homophobia is a lie, a sham, based on political and economical forces
within the church designed to consilidate wealth and garner power.

Why should I be the one to inform you that the phrases most often
quoted from the Bible are misquoted and taken out of context, and that
if you think about the intent of God in the old testament, it's clear
that he needed to raise himself up an army of fighting jews. Even
masturbation was made a sin. By the way, in the Old Testament, eating
shellfish was just as big a sin (uses exactly the same word to
describe the sin) as performing a homosexual act. It seems that eating
shellfish from the Red Sea was dangerous. And being gay would hurt the
war effort. Gods plan for the jews 4,000 years ago make perfect sense.
Trying to justify those ideas today are as foolish as forcing
everybody on the planet to go back to fishing and raising sheep like
the ancient Hebrew. Have you eaten crab or shrimp or clams or oysters?
Congratulations what you did was as much an abomination in th eeye of
the lord as any man who slept with another man. I won't even talk
about where you stand with God if you eat pork.

Young people today don't fear the queer the way their parents do, just
like they don't fear race. All of this will be gone in a generation.
Maybe you should get over it while it looks like you're forward
thinking. After a while it won't even be fashionable... it'll just be
the way of things. Get over it...

Bob wrote:

Dennis Smeth wrote:

Earl Camembert wrote:

"Graham Kennedy" <graham@ditl.org> wrote in message
news:1071265668.9910.0@nnrp-t71-01.news.clara.net...

Bob wrote:

Jefferson Brady wrote:

Gay marriage

That phrase contradicts itself.

Not for long, it would seem.

If the Supreme Court permits homosexuals to marry (I doubt the
will) there
will be a constitution amendment proclaiming a marriage is between
a man and
a woman.

And at such point and time who does a XXY hermaphrodite marry?

Someone with mixed up DNA probably can't produce children so a
marriage would not be consummated with anyone. There are probably a
lot of variations on biological mistakes.