Dear Mary...

In article .net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Douglas Berry" wrote in message
...

Your refusla to see reality.


My refusal to see reality? I've been explaining the reality to you!



Has it ever occurred to you that "explaining" just might be more than
repeating the same flat statements over and over again, with minor
variations?

Your basic point, from every post I've seen, is it's impossible because
it's impossible--or that some unnamed source says it can't exist.

In article .net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Douglas Berry" wrote in message
...

Can the sheep give informed consenst, either by signing its name or by
making a mark witnessed by a court officicial attesting that it
understands the obligations of marriage. Go look up the word
"consent." To be married one must be a consensting adult.


Not if I choose to define it otherwise.



You can not be forced to marry.

You have to have either the legal status to sign a contract, or have
permission from a guardian and convince a court official that this is
what you really want.

Sheep fail on both counts.

Now, I know this is difficult dfor you, but we are discussing
relations because *adult humans*. No sheep. No 4 year olds. No
corpses. Living people who can give informed consenst in a legally
recognized manner.


Is it only homosexuals that have the right to redefine marriage to their
liking?

How about orthodox Muslims? What about their polygamy? Right there in
their holy book, with as much evidence supporting it as the bible.

"Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message
...

Has it ever occurred to you that "explaining" just might be more than
repeating the same flat statements over and over again, with minor
variations?


It isn't.



Your basic point, from every post I've seen, is it's impossible because
it's impossible--or that some unnamed source says it can't exist.


I've posted nothing like that.

Lo, many moons past, on Tue, 09 Mar 2004 04:00:03 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Steven P. McNicoll"
came forth and told this tale in us.military.army

"Douglas Berry" wrote in message
.. .

Your refusal to see reality.

My refusal to see reality? I've been explaining the reality to you!

Not really. You've been repeatl\ing the same bloody statement over
and over.

You snipped this:

Want to present an argument? Fine. *Why* does marriage require the
opposite genders? Give me concrete reasons.

Well?

--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

In article ,
Douglas Berry wrote:

Your refusal to see reality.

My refusal to see reality? I've been explaining the reality to you!

Not really. You've been repeatl\ing the same bloody statement over
and over.

You snipped this:

Want to present an argument? Fine. *Why* does marriage require the
opposite genders? Give me concrete reasons.

Well?


If you're going to demand others answer your questions; why not you
answer questions asked of you??


--Mike

On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:50:17 -0500, Howard Berkowitz wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 19:39:28 -0500, Howard Berkowitz
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:



No. it does not. Homosexuals are not recognized in the Constitution,
and no "same sex" "marriages exit.


With the exception of voting rights for men, where did the original
Constitution say anything about sex or gender? Following your logic,
since I am quite confident the Constitution is silent on
heterosexuality, there's no Constitutional basis for marriage.

My point is that there is no recognition of homosexuality at all.

Al Minyard

Nice change of subject. It doesn't recognize sexuality of any type. By
your logic, there's no recognition of heterosexual marriage -- or any
other type of marriage.

Following your interesting logic, there's no recognition of
Klinefelter's syndrome, 5-alpha reductase deficiency with failure of
Mullerian development, prostatic cancer, ectopic pregnancy,
heterosexuality, asexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality, hyperemesis
gravidarum, gamete in-vitro transfer, the missionary position or any
other position, masturbation, androgens, mineralocorticoids, estrogens,
progestins, etc. All of these, I take it, are prohibited.

Homosexuality is a choice, like becoming a murderer. There is nothing
in the Constitution about murderers, either (except for the bit about "cruel
and unusual punishment).

Al Minyard

On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 18:26:09 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:


"Larry Kessler" wrote in message
.. .

*AS*WE*DEFINE*IT* yes, it does.


Now you're catching on!



The point of this is that marriage is a concept defined by humans and
subject to redefinition from time to time.


Really? Okay, I want to marry a sheep. There. It's done. Marriage now
includes unions of humans and animals.

Good Lord, that means that the Aussies "waltzing matildas" are....no, I refuse
to go there :-)

Al Minyard

On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 11:23:11 -0500, Howard Berkowitz wrote:

In article .net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Douglas Berry" wrote in message
...

Your refusla to see reality.


My refusal to see reality? I've been explaining the reality to you!



Has it ever occurred to you that "explaining" just might be more than
repeating the same flat statements over and over again, with minor
variations?

Your basic point, from every post I've seen, is it's impossible because
it's impossible--or that some unnamed source says it can't exist.

California law (for one) says that it does not exist.

Al Minyard

In article ,
wrote:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:50:17 -0500, Howard Berkowitz
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 19:39:28 -0500, Howard Berkowitz

wrote:

In article ,
wrote:



No. it does not. Homosexuals are not recognized in the
Constitution,
and no "same sex" "marriages exit.


With the exception of voting rights for men, where did the original
Constitution say anything about sex or gender? Following your logic,
since I am quite confident the Constitution is silent on
heterosexuality, there's no Constitutional basis for marriage.

My point is that there is no recognition of homosexuality at all.

Al Minyard

Nice change of subject. It doesn't recognize sexuality of any type. By
your logic, there's no recognition of heterosexual marriage -- or any
other type of marriage.

Following your interesting logic, there's no recognition of
Klinefelter's syndrome, 5-alpha reductase deficiency with failure of
Mullerian development, prostatic cancer, ectopic pregnancy,
heterosexuality, asexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality, hyperemesis
gravidarum, gamete in-vitro transfer, the missionary position or any
other position, masturbation, androgens, mineralocorticoids, estrogens,
progestins, etc. All of these, I take it, are prohibited.

Homosexuality is a choice, like becoming a murderer. There is nothing
in the Constitution about murderers, either (except for the bit about
"cruel
and unusual punishment).

And, until very recently and only with respect to Federal officers,
there's been no Federal law about murder, has there? So suddenly does
there need to be a constitutional amendment about it?

Let's not even touch the general "homosexuality is a choice" issue, and
deal with something much more clearly biologically determined.

During fetal development, there is a phase called Mullerian
differentiation where the enzyme 5-alpha reductase needs to be expressed
for a fetus with XY chromosomes to develop male sex organs. There is a
genetic disorder of 5-alpha reductase insensitivity (sometimes
deficiency) in which a genotypic male fetus does not respond to the
Mullerian process, and is born as a phenotypic female.

Such people may, indeed, quite naturally develop as very beautiful
women, with visually normal female external organs. They are, of course,
sterile, but the reason for the sterility won't be determined until
someone does a chromosomal analysis.

So now you have the situation where two people, one considered a man and
one considered a woman by themselves and everyone around them, fall in
love and marry. They want children, go to a fertility clinic, and
discover there's a little problem -- Marilyn is, at the chromosomal
level, a man. There was no sexual reassignment surgery, hormone
treatment, or indeed any reason to suspect a problem.

What do you do now? Force them to annul a marriage licensed and
performed in good faith by everyone concerned?

What if they get engaged and happen to discover Marilyn's genetic
makeup? Is that a marriage of two men?

This is not an imaginary condition; check any standard medical text on
physiology or embryology.

In article ,
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 11:23:11 -0500, Howard Berkowitz
wrote:

In article .net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Douglas Berry" wrote in message
...

Your refusla to see reality.


My refusal to see reality? I've been explaining the reality to you!



Has it ever occurred to you that "explaining" just might be more than
repeating the same flat statements over and over again, with minor
variations?

Your basic point, from every post I've seen, is it's impossible because
it's impossible--or that some unnamed source says it can't exist.

California law (for one) says that it does not exist.

Then if the California legislature changed the law, would you agree it
existed, at least in California (pause for obligatory California joke)?
It's certainly within the power of that legislature to do so.