Ban on same sex marriage unconstitutional

Of course, on a more ideological level, one could teach only the women how to do same-gender mixing of DNA while conveniently suppressing any info on how two guys might mix DNA. Then, men will become evolutionarily irrelevant, thus preparing the way for a true lesbian-feminist paradise.

 

From the dawn of time, I think that the "respective shapes" argument has suggested that there are at least two other anatomical features (possessed by women and men alike) that might penetrate the female genetalia and that there are at least two other ports of entry (possessed by men and women alike) that a guy's disgusting little thing might enter.

 

Which activities were actually FELONIOUS in certain Sourthern states until fairly recently.

 

Miscegenation and driving anything but a Ford.

 

Indeed!

But how exactly how would all them pot-bellied Southern sherriffs know what was being done in one's bedroom so they could round you up and give you a make-believe trial (where you're represented, no doubt, by some backwoods Southern lawyer) before a judge in the town that's got bloodstains on his hands on the night that they hung an innocent man?

 

Surrogate mother... the technology already exists and there are some rich couples who have already taken advantage of it. As for the other issue, the presence of the Y chromosome triggers testosterone, but the X gene actually regulates it (the Y chromosome is smaller and does a whole less than the X does). Any YY baby wouldn't be male or female... apparently it happens sometimes by chance but the embryo is so nonviable there's a miscarriage that follows immediately after pregnancy. Any two men could have a baby of either sex: XY+XY = XX or XY. It's the lesbian couple that would be limited. In order to have a son, they'd have to grab a Y chromosome from a male relative.

 

Ya know, folks, there's a kind of un noticed reality here...some posters are saying, quite rightly, that whatever consenting adults may choose to do is private and none of the government's business whilst others argue, again quite rightly, that the government has the right to impose restrictions on marriage.

Thing is, y'all are talking about TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

Sexual activity among adults IS private, though by no means as private as some might think.

Marriage, however, is a social, public institution. Marriage IS subject to any regulation a legislature can reasonably impose in pursuit of a rational public goal.

Absent a valid constitutional challenge, I think that a state legislature can impose any reasonable regulation it chooses and furthermore, need justify its regulations with little more than its own consensus. That's what legislatures DO.

 

You don't know anything about mules except for the old wives tales. Mules get stubborn when they are smarter than their riders and are given no good reasons for what the rider is asking. They bray to protest the stupidity of their riders. And, if the rider insist on being pushy without good reason, they find themselves on the ground. Check that line I wrote again. You'll see that the rider is the one coming across as stubborn and stupid.

If you want to use an analogy, use one you know something about.

 

There is no objective truth in that quote, there is only religious doctrine. To believe it requires me to believe in that religion, which I don't.

 

A male couple would have actually a 50% chance of a son (XY), a 25% chance of a daughter (XX), and A 25% of the YY monstrosity that would hopefully miscarry. Why would two lesbians find it limiting that they could not, with only their own DNA, produce a son, especially when many, and possibly most, straight women have difficulty accepting their male offspring?

 

By the time science has advanced to that point it would be super-easy to select the sex of the child.

Your ending question is kind of freaky... I prefer to think the majority of all kinds of mothers love and accept their sons. Why would they not accept them just because they have a penis? Mothers may have problems with their teenage sons hiding in the closet with a porno mag... but that gets filed under general family "I REALLY don't want to think about my son/daughter mom/dad grandparents etc. doing _____" There are plenty of lesbians and lesbian couples who have adopted sons.

 

My goodness, where did you get that idea?!

All the mothers I know except their children regardless of sex. That includes adoptive single moms with sons. It might be a little tougher in the teen years to talk about things but that doesn't mean that they have difficulty with them.

 

Let's see here, Deb and Q. V. Atlanta. Perhaps this wierd notion that even many straight women have difficulty accepting their sons comes from the example of my own mother. As for the comment about certain things being difficult to talk about during the son's teenage years, don't kid yourself; fathers are usually worthless in this respect, as they would usually prefer to make love to their high-powered careers rather than have a relationship with their children. Besides, most men, if they thought they could get away with it, would like to take after the zebra stallion and kill their male offspring while they are still in infancy rather than face a challenge to their own mortality when their sons are grown.

 

How deeply bizarre!
Even weirder than the bloodstained Southern judges comment.
There are two discussions going on in this thread.
One about same sex marriage and the law.
Then there's the other one...

 

Uncle,

You mean SOuthern Judges AREN'T bloodstained? I thought it was part of the initiation rite!

 

My two previous comments (straight women having difficulty accepting their sons and fathers wishing, like zebra stallions, to kill their sons in infancy) are, like it or not, based on my own experience with my own parents. The "blood-stained Southern judges" comment was in response to a comment by nosborne about old Southern anti-sodomy laws; and just in case your empirical reference point does not include American popular culture of the 1960s and 1970s, find someone who has got an old platter of Reba McEntyre's "That's the Night That the Lights Went Out in Georgia." Yes, I happen to have an IQ of 165 and I also like making the occasional arrogant comment that will likely go over other people's heads.

 

Would you like cheese with your whine, or just Southern fried zebra kebabs?

Who the hell is Reba McIntyre?

If I were as smart as Ted, I'd know that.

 

Re: Would you like cheese with your whine, or just Southern fried zebra kebabs?

I thought someone else on this board mentioned that you were an old geezer; the comment left me with the impression that you are one who ought to have still been young enough to be musically aware during the '60s and '70s. Even if your geezer status is based upon merely being as old as me (I'm 43, and that's old), one could still learn this info by listening to oldies stations. Just thought it (music of the '60s and '70s) was a common cultural reference point. You don't need to be as smart as Ted to know that, Unc.

 

Whoah. Leaving aside comparative IQ and family history -- and getting even more off-topic -- I'm very puzzled by this zebra behavior.

Some pack animals are known to kill infants under certain circumstances. For example, a lion, after it takes over a pack, will frequently kill all the young infants to try and ensure that any further cubs are sired by him alone. After that he leaves the children alone, but when his sons get to the large juvenile stage he drives them off. The pride leader's thought processes are structured to react to other males in four different ways: 1) kill stepchildren 2) tolerate and protect other cubs 3) drive off juvenile males 4) fight to kill other adult males. And this makes perfect sense from an evolutionary perspective. Purposefully killing your own infant son after going through all the long hard work of guarding and mating with the female... how could any zebra that nutty end up as a dominant herd leader? Is this really a commonly observed, naturally occurring behavior?