california boy

You are trying to define what you think marriage should be. But not only does the Supreme Court disagree with you, but by far the majority of Americans also agree, You are definitely an outliner trying to make a case that marriage is all about the plumbing and not the far more importance of establishing a strong legal foundation, committing to a life long relationship and providing a stable environment for raising children. To the majority of Americans, these are the things that bring value to marriage. Pretty ironic that you list polygamous households marriages as being somehow shameful and shouldn't be legalized either. Really? You don't view stable marriage relationships as an important foundation of American society? Well I guess we will have to disagree with that world view. Do you believe gay couples relationship and society in general is better off if they just living together? I am saying plumbing and whether a couple can reproduce are not the only criteria the majority of Americans judge the value of marriage to be. I really don't know many people that share your radical defining reasons for marriage. Maybe it is more of an Utah thing because of the Church's campaign against gay marriage among its members. Do you think there should be a questioner required to be signed stating each partner's sex and whether they will be able to reproduce?

Well fortunately legal definition of what a marriage is differs from your opinion. And the world is a better place for it. Denying citizens of the right to marry is not a good decision for the country or the world. Keeping a foundation of marriage for all is a strength both to those participating in marriage as well as society in general. To argue agains marriage for even part of the population is to devalue marriage and its importance in our legal system and the public in general.

Curious. Do you see any benefit at all for same sex marriage either to the couple or to society in general or both to their marriages?

Let he who has never had sex with the only reason for doing so was to produce offspring cast the first stone

How much of this post do you think actually addresses the fact that there has never been a declared revelation from God on gay marriage in the church?

Except that unlike the prejudicial priesthood ban against blacks, there has never been ANY claim of a revelation from God prohibiting gay marriage. Like the priesthood ban, it is based on conservative religious prejudices that like the prejudices against blacks go back for centuries

If centering Sacrament meeting on Christ requires rearranging the furniture in order for that to happen, perhaps there are bigger issues.

You don’t really answer any of my questions. You only keep pasting your lists without explaining how you can reach those conclusions and skip the hard questions Then you fill the rest of your post talking about totally irrelevant things to the questions I asked including your contempt of higher education. Really? So I guess at this point, after multiple attempts to actually get answers I’m done trying. It seems pointless.

You have dodged the question several times. Still not clear answers. You say there is no spectrum, yet you list a spectrum of sexual possibilities. This is why I keep asking for clarification. You keep trying to pass this off as some very rare occurrence, yet it is estimated that 42 million people have some form of DSD. Let's look at the spectrum of sexuality you presented. How is this different than how trans people present themselves? How is this different than how trans people present themselves? This is someone who has female reproductive organs but can develop external genitalia more typical male direction. How is this different than a female transitioning to male? Female-appearing or ambiguous genitalia A small penis/clitoris-like structure A partially fused scrotum/labia A urethral opening in an atypical location Sounds again like someone who is trans. The hardest one to totally dismiss because a person has both ovarian and testicular tissue, sometimes in the same gonad (an ovotestis) and sometimes as separate ovaries and testes. they have both male and female characteristics. It is only through surgery that can be used to decide what sex they will present. Sometime it is an arbitrarily decision. It seems to me that people who are trans fit into very similar reproductive and presenting as some born with the various conditions you outlined. Trans people are either male or female but present like the conditions you outlined that occurs naturally. And the same problems concerning restrooms occur. While someone may be CAIS (46,XY): male. Testes, no uterus; body cannot use androgens, so the outside can look female. Do you insist that even they also are male, but present femaie use the male bathroom? Swyer (46,XY): Someone who has Swyer (46,xy) male pathway, streak gonads, female-typical external anatomy but are male but present female-typical anatomy from. birth. Do you force them to use a male bathroom even though they have a female anatomy? I guess you could take the position that trans people are either male or female but they choose to present differently than just their genetics. Just like the approximately 42 million people who fall into these classifications. You can dismiss that number as being unimportant, but would you also say that the number of people who identify as LDS is also unimportant? What is clear to me is there is a spectrum as you have listed.

A distraction? Or you can't answer the question. In you binary view on sex, are they male or female? If you can't answer that, then you can't keep claiming that all sex is binary. What has been central to this discussion is whether sex is binary or if there is a spectrum. You can reject the claim all you want. If you can't answer that simple question, then you are just ignoring concrete proof that sex is not always binary. We aren't talking about allowances. The question is very specific. What binary sex is someone who is intersexed. Your whole foundation of your position is that sex is binary. If intersexed individuals are not male or female, but rather both, then it totally disproves that sex is binary. So I am very interested in a real honest straight forward non dodge answer to a very simple question.

I am unclear which lane you picked. What binary lane do you put someone who is born intersexed?

Would you agree that not all people view sex as binary and not as clear cut as you want it to be? Who is correct on what that definition of sex is? Could it be that there is no right or wrong answer, just differences in opinion on what the definition of what a woman is and what a man is may differ with different people's life experiences? It is way more likely that a true blue Mormon would narrowly define sex as you have and a person with a more liberal background would have a more broad definition. Who's right and who's wrong? Given completely different point of views, I would say there are no hard answers to who is right. As proof of this truth, I offer you 21 pages of disagreement. Neither side is willing to change their opinion because language is fluid. Each side feels like they have a right to control that definition when in fact, no one has that power.

In related news, a Texas judge just struck down a law banning anyone under 18 from attending drag shows.

Even when the trans person looks more masculine than most of the men in the men's bathroom. Yeah that is going to make women believe there are men in their restroom. And you think that is preferred over using the restroom that matches how you present yourself. It won't. Yet the only people that are affected by not being able to use the restroom they present themselves as are trans. That may not be your intent, but that is exactly the result of your ban. Same with banning trans people. If a trans person grooms or abuses a minor, that person should be removed, reported and prosecuted. It is exactly the same. Banning people for possible crimes that might be committed apply to both cases. Of course. I totally agree. All crimes committed by anyone should be reported. Who doesn't agree with that? You keep narrowing down this issue to a black and white males in mens room, females in women's restrooms. But as has been shown numerous times, how a person looks makes a huge difference in how people perceive them. I know you like to not move one inch on this subject, but perhaps you would consider the following, keeping in mind what real trans people actually look like. So here is my proposal. All people must. used the sex listed on their drivers license or identity card. A person who is transitioning must be under physicians care and received hormonal therapy for 12 months or longer. If they have done that, their doctor must fill out a declaration that they are treating their patient who is in transition to their chosen sex. That document can be taken to the DMV and their license/ identity card adjusted to now meet the sex they present themselves as. This does a few very important things. It eliminates the crazy guy who just declares himself to be a woman in order to cruz in the women's restroom. It also allows those transitioning to not get harassed in the women's room for being in the wrong restroom. And women feel safer because they are assured that the person using the woman's bathroom is more interested in being a woman than just there to harass them. In many cases, women may not even realize someone is trans that is using the restroom, unlike current solution that forces masculine people into protected women's spaces. Can you just think about this before reverting to your diatribe that you seem to feel you need to repeat over and over again? Let's find a real solution that actually works better for everyone.