If Same Sex Marriage Becomes the Law of the Land

[roguenuke]

That's some interesting spin there. Once again, a group of people who feel they are extraordinary enough to seek a new definition to describe themselves because they are not comfortable with who they are. It is absolutely clear for all but a fraction of a percent of the population who are genetic anomolies who is male and female. It is preposterous to pretend any different no matter how many studies you can dig up. To continue to argue it to try and establish a definition you are happy with does not make you smartest person in the room, it makes you look like a well spoken fool. Seems to be pretty popular these days.

This is nothing but your opinion. And we are talking about the law. It doesn't matter how you personally feel about what makes a person's sex or gender, it only matters how the law views it.

But also, male chromosomes in women is not merely a genetic anomaly. Something like 60% or more of women have male DNA in their brains.

 

[CLAX1911]

This is nothing but your opinion. And we are talking about the law. It doesn't matter how you personally feel about what makes a person's sex or gender, it only matters how the law views it.

He is only arguing from his personal feelings. This is all you will get. Best just leave him to it.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

 

[tech30528]

This is nothing but your opinion. And we are talking about the law. It doesn't matter how you personally feel about what makes a person's sex or gender, it only matters how the law views it.

But also, male chromosomes in women is not merely a genetic anomaly. Something like 60% or more of women have male DNA in their brains.

Of course it's my opinion. Yours seems to be that you can redefine obvious concepts to fit your needs. I'll leave to to that sir... ma'am ... uh.... humanoid of undetermined gender or whatever the ****.

 

[roguenuke]

Of course it's my opinion. Yours seems to be that you can redefine obvious concepts to fit your needs. I'll leave to to that sir... ma'am ... uh.... humanoid of undetermined gender or whatever the ****.

My is based on science and the law. It is based in facts, not personal feelings.

 

[tech30528]

My is based on science and the law. It is based in facts, not personal feelings.

You throw that term "science" around pretty loosely. My wife is a medical lab tech, and she got a good chuckle out of your comments, particularly the one about genetic testing not being accurate. As for law, lawyers as a group have bastardized anything that has stood in the way of their agenda using language as their weapon for a long time. The "laws" of nature were not written for the benefit of nature. They were written by man based on observation of nature. Loose interpretation of them does not change nature, once again it looks like you have spent a lot of thought and energy being wrong.

 

[roguenuke]

You throw that term "science" around pretty loosely. My wife is a medical lab tech, and she got a good chuckle out of your comments, particularly the one about genetic testing not being accurate. As for law, lawyers as a group have bastardized anything that has stood in the way of their agenda using language as their weapon for a long time. The "laws" of nature were not written for the benefit of nature. They were written by man based on observation of nature. Loose interpretation of them does not change nature, once again it looks like you have spent a lot of thought and energy being wrong.

Nature has no laws about sex/gender. In fact, in nature, some species can change their sex without any outside problems.

Natural law is a philosophical argument (again something posted either in this thread or another thread). It is invalid in a debate because it is based on the beliefs of the person who brings it up. "I believe this is unnatural, so it is therefore wrong." It has nothing to do with science. And in fact, nature itself is separate from morals, what is right or wrong to begin with.

Perhaps your wife should do some research into chimerism. It has caused at least two women to potentially face losing their children just because their children's DNA did not match their initial samples. And I have provided the studies concerning male DNA found in women's brains earlier in this thread. Along with that, on average, fetuses go through 150-250 genetic changes within the womb (which is not significant, but still pretty interesting).

 

[tech30528]

Nature has no laws about sex/gender. In fact, in nature, some species can change their sex without any outside problems.

Natural law is a philosophical argument (again something posted either in this thread or another thread). It is invalid in a debate because it is based on the beliefs of the person who brings it up. "I believe this is unnatural, so it is therefore wrong." It has nothing to do with science. And in fact, nature itself is separate from morals, what is right or wrong to begin with.

Perhaps your wife should do some research into chimerism. It has caused at least two women to potentially face losing their children just because their children's DNA did not match their initial samples. And I have provided the studies concerning male DNA found in women's brains earlier in this thread. Along with that, on average, fetuses go through 150-250 genetic changes within the womb (which is not significant, but still pretty interesting).

It is interesting actually. But it doesn't dismiss the fact that a guy who lops off his dick and uses hormones to grow tits is still a guy. So which of the sciences do you have a degree in?

 

[roguenuke]

It is interesting actually. But it doesn't dismiss the fact that a guy who lops off his dick and uses hormones to grow tits is still a guy. So which of the sciences do you have a degree in?

No he isn't, not legally if the law allows him to change (and in most cases/places in the US, it does). You can argue that you think he shouldn't be allowed all you want, but your opinion is not based on any professional knowledge.

 

[tech30528]

No he isn't, not legally if the law allows him to change (and in most cases/places in the US, it does). You can argue that you think he shouldn't be allowed all you want, but your opinion is not based on any professional knowledge.

He can call himself a banana if he wants to, doesn't make him a banana. You have fun with that, I'm of to sleep. Got a long day of redefining how cars work tomorrow. It may all be lies, but I'll sound prefessional doing it, and people who don't know any better might believe it.

 

[roguenuke]

He can call himself a banana if he wants to, doesn't make him a banana. You have fun with that, I'm of to sleep. Got a long day of redefining how cars work tomorrow. It may all be lies, but I'll sound prefessional doing it, and people who don't know any better might believe it.

Again, personal opinion not based on either the law or even science. Bananas do not share the vast majority of their DNA codes with human males, human females do, and in some cases, they can share even sex chromosomes in parts of their body.

 

[tech30528]

I see. So if you are going to say that a woman could be considered a man because they have a speck of male DNA (post a link for how that works BTW) in their brain, then a fetus which has human DNA is a person, right? Or do you have some way to spin that too?

Oh, and you never answered the question of which of the sciences you have a degree in. I suspect it is a BS degree.

 

[roguenuke]

I see. So if you are going to say that a woman could be considered a man because they have a speck of male DNA (post a link for how that works BTW) in their brain, then a fetus which has human DNA is a person, right? Or do you have some way to spin that too?

Oh, and you never answered the question of which of the sciences you have a degree in. I suspect it is a BS degree.

I am saying that a woman can be considered a man because legally our sex is not determined by our DNA and it rarely ever has been.

 

[joG]

So, you're going to be a coward and not answer my questions? Fine, bow out. You wouldn't be the first, nor will you be the last, who can't answer simple questions.

I bet you do run into a few people that "can't" answer your simple questions.

Maybe that is something else you should think about.

 

[joG]

I understand all those things much better than you it seems.

.

Certainly. I thought you probably thought so.

 

[Koros]

I bet you do run into a few people that "can't" answer your simple questions.

Maybe that is something else you should think about.

"You should think about that." Really stellar debate skills there.

 

[Deuce]

I bet you do run into a few people that "can't" answer your simple questions.

Maybe that is something else you should think about.

You should think about why you can't articulate any specific harm caused by two dudes you've never met getting married.

 

[Koros]

You should think about why you can't articulate any specific harm caused by two dudes you've never met getting married.

The problem is, nobody can articulate specific harms. All we get from SSM opponents is soundbites and vague claims about "harming society." But, when push comes to shove, they are all absolutely incapable of defending their point of view. That's understandbale, though. It's hard to defend a position that is based on nothing but fear.

 

[Deuce]

The problem is, nobody can articulate specific harms. All we get from SSM opponents is soundbites and vague claims about "harming society." But, when push comes to shove, they are all absolutely incapable of defending their point of view. That's understandbale, though. It's hard to defend a position that is based on nothing but fear.

The lawyers hired by Prop 8 proponents were asked this question directly by the Supreme Court and were unable to provide an answer. Perhaps its cruel for me to ask a question I know full well there isn't an answer to.

 

[tech30528]

I am saying that a woman can be considered a man because legally our sex is not determined by our DNA and it rarely ever has been.

And once again, your degree is in what exactly?

 

[roguenuke]

And once again, your degree is in what exactly?

I don't need a degree to have knowledge on a subject. It doesn't take a degree to look up the law.

But let me ask you, when's the last time you requested a DNA test from someone before you addressed them under either male or female pronouns? When's the last time you requested a DNA test from someone to verify that they actually were the gender they were claiming upon meeting you?

 

[Koros]

I don't need a degree to have knowledge on a subject. It doesn't take a degree to look up the law.

But let me ask you, when's the last time you requested a DNA test from someone before you addressed them under either male or female pronouns? When's the last time you requested a DNA test from someone to verify that they actually were the gender they were claiming upon meeting you?

I can see what he is saying, but I can see what you are saying as well.

Take a MTF transsexual for example. This individual is born male, named "John," and lives his childhood as a boy. He has male anatomy, goes through puberty as testosterone floods his system, grows facial hair, and is a part of the boys' cross country team in high school. In every way, shape, and form, John is a boy. Except, of course, how he feels inside.

Inside, John hates being a boy. When he thinks of his future, he thinks of himself as a girl. He doesn't picture himself walking in to a job interview in a suit and tie, but rather a skirt and heels. When he looks at his own body, it doesn't feel like it is his. His physique, his penis, his slightly hairy (and flat) chest, his facial hair, his deep voice...all of those things feel alien and wrong to him. To him, he is "Jane," not "John."

After he gets a bit older, and a bit braver, he comes out as trans to his family and friends. He starts living his life as Jane, and feels so much happier. Now, living as a woman, Jane is happier. Yet, things are still wrong. Though she feels better about herself, and is happy to have people refer to her as "her," she still deals with fundamental problems that she doesn't like. She doesn't have the breasts she wants. She still has to shave her face. She still has a penis and testicles. She's happier, but not fully happy yet.

Several years go by, Jane saves up more and more money and decides to go through the plastic surgery need to get a tracheal shave, breast implants, cheek implants, and laser hair removal. Outwardly, she feels and looks more and more female with every surgery. Yet, there is still the problem of the genitals. Though she has breasts, a feminine figure, and a feminine face; and though people assume she is biologically female when they meet her, Jane still knows that she will have to deal with male genitals every time she undresses.

A few more years go by, and now Jane has saved enough money for the full sexual reassignment surgery. The day comes, and she is both scared and elated to finally go through with what she has wanted for more years than she can remember. The surgery is a success, and as she recovers she finally feels complete. She feels like the person she has always wanted to be. For the first time in her life, she has nothing about her body that feels foreign, alien, or unwanted. She is a happy woman.

The reason I give that story is to demonstrate how both of you are correct. Tech30528 is correct that, biologically speaking, Jane is still male. Despite outward appearances, Jane still has a set of XY chromosomes. She does not have overies or a uterus. She was still born with a penis, with testicles, and with everything that made her biologically and physiologically a male. Yet, outwardly and cosmetically, she is female. She has a vagina that (although not exactly the same, physiologically, as the vaginas of women who were born with them) functions properly. She can have sex quite pleasurably, she can undress in front of women and not be looked at as anything BUT another woman. To the entire world, unless you got in to her history or DNA, she is a woman.

Did she change her biological sex? No, she didn't. That is an impossibility. Her DNA cannot change. Her chromosomes cannot change. So, yes, tech is correct that Jane is still, in some ways, male.

BUT, does that mean that she doesn't deserve to be socially treated as a woman? Certainly not. Jane has every right to be treated as a woman socially, legally, and personally. You cannot tell that she has male DNA unless, as you said, you give her a DNA test. The sex she was born as, and the sex she appears to be now, are two separate issues. To refer to Jane as anything other than a woman is rude, uncalled for, and entirely unnecessary.

 

[roguenuke]

I can see what he is saying, but I can see what you are saying as well.

Take a MTF transsexual for example. This individual is born male, named "John," and lives his childhood as a boy. He has male anatomy, goes through puberty as testosterone floods his system, grows facial hair, and is a part of the boys' cross country team in high school. In every way, shape, and form, John is a boy. Except, of course, how he feels inside.

Inside, John hates being a boy. When he thinks of his future, he thinks of himself as a girl. He doesn't picture himself walking in to a job interview in a suit and tie, but rather a skirt and heels. When he looks at his own body, it doesn't feel like it is his. His physique, his penis, his slightly hairy (and flat) chest, his facial hair, his deep voice...all of those things feel alien and wrong to him. To him, he is "Jane," not "John."

After he gets a bit older, and a bit braver, he comes out as trans to his family and friends. He starts living his life as Jane, and feels so much happier. Now, living as a woman, Jane is happier. Yet, things are still wrong. Though she feels better about herself, and is happy to have people refer to her as "her," she still deals with fundamental problems that she doesn't like. She doesn't have the breasts she wants. She still has to shave her face. She still has a penis and testicles. She's happier, but not fully happy yet.

Several years go by, Jane saves up more and more money and decides to go through the plastic surgery need to get a tracheal shave, breast implants, cheek implants, and laser hair removal. Outwardly, she feels and looks more and more female with every surgery. Yet, there is still the problem of the genitals. Though she has breasts, a feminine figure, and a feminine face; and though people assume she is biologically female when they meet her, Jane still knows that she will have to deal with male genitals every time she undresses.

A few more years go by, and now Jane has saved enough money for the full sexual reassignment surgery. The day comes, and she is both scared and elated to finally go through with what she has wanted for more years than she can remember. The surgery is a success, and as she recovers she finally feels complete. She feels like the person she has always wanted to be. For the first time in her life, she has nothing about her body that feels foreign, alien, or unwanted. She is a happy woman.

The reason I give that story is to demonstrate how both of you are correct. Tech30528 is correct that, biologically speaking, Jane is still male. Despite outward appearances, Jane still has a set of XY chromosomes. She does not have overies or a uterus. She was still born with a penis, with testicles, and with everything that made her biologically and physiologically a male. Yet, outwardly and cosmetically, she is female. She has a vagina that (although not exactly the same, physiologically, as the vaginas of women who were born with them) functions properly. She can have sex quite pleasurably, she can undress in front of women and not be looked at as anything BUT another woman. To the entire world, unless you got in to her history or DNA, she is a woman.

Did she change her biological sex? No, she didn't. That is an impossibility. Her DNA cannot change. Her chromosomes cannot change. So, yes, tech is correct that Jane is still, in some ways, male.

BUT, does that mean that she doesn't deserve to be socially treated as a woman? Certainly not. Jane has every right to be treated as a woman socially, legally, and personally. You cannot tell that she has male DNA unless, as you said, you give her a DNA test. The sex she was born as, and the sex she appears to be now, are two separate issues. To refer to Jane as anything other than a woman is rude, uncalled for, and entirely unnecessary.

See, and I also have a transgender sister who is basically a lesbian. She started this world and was raised a he, my brother, but told us soon into adulthood that she felt like she was a woman trapped in a man's body. She is living as a woman (had issues right before starting the hormone therapy with a stomach problem). She has a daughter right now that she currently is working on custody/visitation issues over with an ex. Luckily, the judge who has her case doesn't care, and has no issue with the "father" being a woman (despite being in rural NC), and it doesn't seem to be affecting any part of the case.

I understand that some people see things as possibly being issues, but plenty of things can be issues that are not taken into consideration, that to me, from my own experience, would be likely to cause more issues for children than having parents of the same sex. Heck, many other children most likely wouldn't even notice that a child has two daddies or two mommies until they are almost out of elementary school. I take my son to Kindergarten every morning, and I only really know a few of the mothers at all. Now, I'm willing to bet that a larger percentage of the children that go to my son's school have two parents compared to most other schools, only because a majority of the school is made up of military family children. And I think it would be much harder on children to have a single parent in school or two working parents than two parents of the same sex.

But along with all of this, I also think it is wrong to shelter children from possible hurt in life. Instead of being a disqualifying/unequalling factor, it seems like it would be better to ask those potential parents how they would react to any discrimination their partnership might cause to the child or how they might teach the child to react to that discrimination. Use it as a determining factor over their answer. Possibly ask something similar based on potential discrimination the other family might face as well for their own answer.

 

[CLAX1911]

The problem is, nobody can articulate specific harms. All we get from SSM opponents is soundbites and vague claims about "harming society." But, when push comes to shove, they are all absolutely incapable of defending their point of view. That's understandbale, though. It's hard to defend a position that is based on nothing but fear.

I never have seen a single straight answer. Just a bunch of "god says blah", and "unnatural blah" nothing.

 

[tech30528]

I don't need a degree to have knowledge on a subject. It doesn't take a degree to look up the law.

But let me ask you, when's the last time you requested a DNA test from someone before you addressed them under either male or female pronouns? When's the last time you requested a DNA test from someone to verify that they actually were the gender they were claiming upon meeting you?

Ok, so no degree, but you continue to espouse "science". How about a job? Do you have one of those? Something in the medical field perhaps? Somewhere where you may have first hand information of some of your claims? You have yet to post any proof of your claim of male cells in females, you claim that DNA testing is not accurate and yet you think it should be the standard of gender identification. Your bio says you are female. Are you sure? Have you had DNA testing? From what you have said, that would require a brain biopsy. If you have had one, it could explain a lot. But I think I'll stick to other methods to determine gender. Your arguement is ridiculous, and you have wasted a good deal of everyone's time with your assinine theories. Here I was thinking you were going to lay down some ground breaking research, all you have provided is... nothing.

 

[roguenuke]

Ok, so no degree, but you continue to espouse "science". How about a job? Do you have one of those? Something in the medical field perhaps? Somewhere where you may have first hand information of some of your claims? You have yet to post any proof of your claim of male cells in females, you claim that DNA testing is not accurate and yet you think it should be the standard of gender identification. Your bio says you are female. Are you sure? Have you had DNA testing? From what you have said, that would require a brain biopsy. If you have had one, it could explain a lot. But I think I'll stick to other methods to determine gender. Your arguement is ridiculous, and you have wasted a good deal of everyone's time with your assinine theories. Here I was thinking you were going to lay down some ground breaking research, all you have provided is... nothing.

I have science to back me up, along with the law, both of which I have provided reputable links to/for. (I have had college courses in the law, since my degree that I'm going for is in Criminal Justice, but along with that I have extensive training in the nuclear power field, and I just happen to be really good at science.)

I'm not the one that requires a DNA test to show what sex a person is. I only take their word for it. It doesn't matter to me. I refer to my transgendered sister as "her" despite having been raised alongside "him" and knowing that her birth certificate says "male" (at the moment). You are the one making the claim that gender is genetic, yet I'm willing to bet that you have never once asked to see a genetic test for anyone to prove that they really are a man/woman.