Wrong, Saltie. I never said anything about a hysterectomy for women or a “chopadictomy” for men. The fact that the woman-to-man has a full complement of female sex organs should be enough to make her a woman, period.

And if you really want to get into specifics, anyone born with XX chromasomes is a woman; anyone born with XY is a male. Period. You can’t change nature to suit your needs.

Regards,
Peter H.

As for “groups”; marriage is still defined as TWO people.

But why? There is a logical reason for limiting marriage to opposite sex couples if the purpose of marriage is to encourage the nuclear family. But if the marriage institution is to include a type of relationship — not individual exceptions — but an entire type of relationship that is incapable of making nuclear families, then by definition, encouraging the nuclear family can no longer be the purpose.

So gay-marriage proponents tell us that marriage should be about two people taking care of eachother. But if taking care of others is the purpose, not only is there no logical reason to restrict who can take care of whom, but larger groups of people would inherantly be better at taking care of one another than couples would.

Your TWO person limit is then completely arbitrary. restricting marriage to same-sex couples is not.

Many of us happen to believe that allowing two people who love each other to make a legal commitment to commit their lives to each other and take care of each other for life IS in society’s benefit.

Great! Fabulous! but thats not the argument gays have been making by suing under the equal protection clause, and its not a decision that is up to “many of us” or a decision that is up to the courts. That is a decision that is up to the people.

Period.

Huh? So if someone is impotent or has had a hysterectomy, he/she is no gender at all? You said “full working order”…!! (BTw, I don’t consider someone a “man” who can give birth, either, but it’s not because of the LACK of a penis, it’s because of the PRESENCE of ovaries and a uterus. A man who had his pecker removed due to cancer or whatnot is still a man, unlike in your definition, but a “man” who gives birth most certainly is not.

Why shouldn’t the rationale for same-sex couples be used for any group of persons or persons and animals?

Oh, please–the day an animal gives CONSENT to “marry” someone, applies for the license, and signs the legal documents, then come talk to me; otherwise, shut up. As for “groups”; marriage is still defined as TWO people.

And in your opinion, does society have a right to encourage things it deems beneficial to it, or not?

Many of us happen to believe that allowing two people who love each other to make a legal commitment to commit their lives to each other and take care of each other for life IS in society’s benefit.

Its so f***ed up.

Gender identity disorder is still recognized as a mental disorder by the pschiatric association, despite having declassified homosexuality decades ago.

So if I think I’m President of the United States, will Oregon law recognize me as such?

FUBAR!

AE, how exactly is that possible? Would a penis and testicals then be considered female?

This makes no sense; and it probably figures that some socialist pushed this law through the legislature.

Regards,
Peter H.

You heard it here first, folks!

Why shouldn’t the rationale for same-sex couples be used for any group of persons or persons and animals?

How about a brother and a sister (both adults)? How about a group of people?

This is a “slippery slope” logical fallacy. They are seperate issues that should be debated on their own merits, if they have any.

Anyone who wants to “join in union” outside of the church, should be allowed to do so. This goes for straight, gay, whatever.

How about a brother and a sister (both adults)? How about a group of people?

And in your opinion, does society have a right to encourage things it deems beneficial to it, or not? just curious.

Anyone who wants to “join in union” outside of the church, should be allowed to do so. This goes for straight, gay, whatever. Then, if the couple separates, they go to court for a divorce or whatever you want to call it. For those “married” inside the church, they should have to return to the church if they want to separate. The government should have no say in the religious aspect and the churches should have no link with the civil aspect. Both should be deemed entirely separate things.
I believe this will solve the problem of whether or not marriage should be just for one man and one woman.

since they do not have the requisite sex organs in full working order

She doesnt have the requisite sex organs in any order. She’s a woman with no male organs whatsoever who cut her breasts off. (Oregon law, however, recognizes her vagina and uterus as male)

as a straight guy, my rationale is that the Constitution guarantees us life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and being in love with someone and wanting to marry them is perhaps the best example of that

When did government subsidy become part of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?