Posted on 01/23/2005 8:52:09 PM PST by Cracker72
Sorry but no matter the cosmetics, it is still a man. A castrated man.
Just damn!! Do these people have larva eating their brains?
A name change does not void a marriage, nor does sexual mutilation. It as real a marriage as ever, even if they are wierd.
I told you guys around six months ago that if 'intersex' and 'transgender' issues were not address before you enacted these 'anti-homosexual marriage' state amendments that these issues were going to come back to bite you in the but.
But none of you wanted to listen.
I wonder when the GLBT organization is going to use AIS (Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome) intersex people, in federal court, as a basis to throw 'anti-homosexual marriage' state amendments.
You got the logic for DSM IV reversed, those standards there to make sure the person legally sane (calm minded, non-violent, non-split personality, not bi-polar) before they can go forward with hormones, let alone surgery.
Mis-assigned or purposely re-assigned? It would seem to me that it is relatively easy to determine the genetic gender of a baby.
If the parents decide with the doctor's help to turn their son into a girl because they're afraid of the ribbing he will get with a small or deformed penis then that's shameful and should be illegal. Likewise for girl's born with male-looking genitalia.
I would consider sex re-assignment by one person against another, especially in the case of a controlling adult against a defenseless child, as a form of battery on the level of torture and mutilation no matter what the intentions.
With the recent advances in plastic surgery and a culture that is very willing to practice on younger and younger clients (e.g. breast enlargements for teens) the vast majority of these oddball cases should be eliminated.
"If the parents decide with the doctor's help to turn their son into a girl because they're afraid of the ribbing he will get with a small or deformed penis then that's shameful and should be illegal. Likewise for girl's born with male-looking genitalia."
The current medical thinking on treating infants, with ambiguous genitalia, is to wait until the child can tell their parents and physicians which gender they are. There have been a number of cases, where the decision was made at birth, where the wrong assignment was made. It was not for the reason of concern the child would be ribbed over their genitals, it was more of thinking the parents had to be able to think of the child as one definite gender.
I am personally in favor of a longer definition along the lines of "A valid marriage requires one person to be born male and remain male throughout the marriage while the other person must be born female and remain female throughout the marriage. If either or both undergo sex reassignment during the marriage then the marriage becomes null and void."
I believe that the Constitution is a very good place for defining the basic terms that underly our form of government and the minimal definitions needed to guide the society as a whole so as to be governable through a constitution. If we are going to take the time to define marriage in the constitution, or through the less effective forum of congressional legislation, then we should take the time to make it crystal clear.
After all, the tax code requires reams and reams of paper to describe in order to close all of the loopholes average citizens might be able to take advantage of while keeping all of the lobbyists' loopholes open wide enough to fly Lear Jets through.
And if the doctors are so concerned, then why not require genetic testing in doubtful cases and correctly inform the parents of their child's sex? At that point the parents could work with their child's given gender rather than against it.
Also since it is the majority belief that homosexuality is wrong, I believe that it is the responsibility of all people to make it clear what true gender they are before engaging in intimate relations.
If a teenager is attracted to another Christian teen and has been misinformed about his/her gender, then how can he/she represent him/herself correctly to a prospective suitor?
Of course in the future we will all be wearing unisex lycra jumpsuits and gender will be the least of our worries as people start dating intelligent octopi from the plant Zorkol!
That just it, because the laws are so vague that intersex people can be banned from marrying anyone this is how these amendments will be attacked.
Of course, I believe the government should have NO say on marriage one way or another when dealing with adults; it opens up too many doors for abuses of powers to have it any other way.
And with fake boobs, and pumped full of female whore moans so he acts/thinks/talks/looks like a female. Aside from the fact that while "his" face is still a bit manly, a few more years of whore moans should clear that right up. Then he will be a man who doesn't have a penis, look like a man, talk like a man, act like a man, think like a man, or do anything else like a man, except be missing the tail in one Chromosome.
But I guess this is a bit complicated for you. After all God ::snicker:: created man and woman ::snicker:: in His image ::snicker:: and so there's only two genders with nothing in between.
Applying the Bible to real life can be tricky. But when you side with the Bible against what is obvious in front of your face, how else can we describe that except as a mental illness? Some people just aren't cut out for reality, I guess. But you know, there are ways to avoid it that are less unpleasant for the rest of us (for instance: marijuana abuse)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.