Laws Can't Define 'Man' or 'Woman,' So How Can They Ban Gay Marriage?

[dalelynnsims]

Good thoughts here


http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=d3362852002e314524ffb9ac8eac3c91



DaleLynn Sims
A Kindred Spirit
http://www.kindredspiritlakeside.homestead.com
http://www.bodieslikeours.org

"Happy are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God" (Matthew 5:9).

Peace, Salam, Shalom, Mír, Ashtee, Heiwa, Damai, Saanti, Pokój, La Paix, Der Frieden, Barish, Amaní, La Paz, Aman, Pyong'hwa, Hedd, K'é, Fred, Búdech, Shanti, Vrede: In any language, the appeal of peace is well-nigh universal.

[Glenn]

The summary I wrote a while ago identifies at least six ways to determine whether someone is considered "male" or "female." For you newer kids on the block, it's still posted at:

http://users.snip.net/~gbooker/is.zip

See the PowerPoint slide show, starting on slide 16.

It also throws a wrench in attempts to make homosexuality illegal. If you did that, who can xx/xy mosaics love?

Glenn

[dalelynnsims]

HI there again Glen

We are still using the slide show although it has been aded to quite a bit and a few changes here and there its great as it really helps others grasp the depth and breath of these facts.

HUgz!

DaleLynn Sims
A Kindred Spirit
http://www.kindredspiritlakeside.homestead.com
http://www.bodieslikeours.org

"Happy are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God" (Matthew 5:9).

Peace, Salam, Shalom, Mír, Ashtee, Heiwa, Damai, Saanti, Pokój, La Paix, Der Frieden, Barish, Amaní, La Paz, Aman, Pyong'hwa, Hedd, K'é, Fred, Búdech, Shanti, Vrede: In any language, the appeal of peace is well-nigh universal.

[Glenn]

If you've got improvements for the slide show you'd like to share, I'd appreciate feedback.

Glenn

[Dana Gold]

The current "controversy" over gay or "same-sex" marriage and whether it should be banned or accepted has some significant problems. Either way, for intersexed and trans folk there are and/or will be "snags":

IF the above marriage issue is eventually "allowed" (legalized) then will they be just the usual marriages as EVERYBODY else, OR will they be accepted but distinguished as "same-sex" marriages and designated as such? For example: a gay couple marries and knows and doesn't mind the union being considered as a gay marriage. But: if an intersexed person, identifying (and appearing) as female, but legally male, were to marry a "normal" 46XY man, and it might be publicly and/or officially documented as a "same-sex or gay marriage" how would she and her husband feel about that!? That might just be contrary to their concept of self and union and embarassing to say the least to that couple, as well as a TS person and his or her mate in the same position. Not to mention legally, for although such marriage might be legal, that doesn't preclude other public/social agencies from not accepting it into their policies....meaning it would apply to gays as well in that instance.
If "gay/same sex marriage" passes the current law of the land ,that is, .for gays it would be great, bad if not....However for IS and TS folk: if pass: would those couples wish to be known as gay or same-sex?. Would they have to present themselves as such in order to wed? Granted, they would, at least, enjoy legal "benefits'.
.
Which brings me to 2 aspects of, what I see, as the real problem:

1.) The "institution" of marriage being sanctimonious ONLY within the realm of designated acceptable "decency" and "normal behaviour"...that is, you aren't decent and normal if you fall under the definition of "homosexual", which can mean not just gay, but TS, as well as IS.

2.) The definition by "normal" standards of male and female, as pointed out by DaleLynn, which still focus on and maintain their genito-centric theory of the "classification" of the "sexes" And exemplified by the "pre-fabricated" and Victorian categories by medical authorities of what male/female pseudo hermaphrodite; true hermaphrodite (both yet neither by their "standards"); Not to mention what a "real" man or woman should be behaviourly (shrinks) :rolleyes: .

These 2 above are the roots of the problem, as I see it.

It is unfair representation that both sides of the same-sex marriage issue seem to have forgetten about (or omitted?) people who are intersexed (especially in cases of those hormonally and/or surgically "altered") AND also those who have undergone a sex-change to the opposite of born phenotypic/genetic sex.

That, to me, is a "raw deal":mad:

A BLO link:

http://www.bodieslikeours.org/marriage.html