Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Reply to thread

Message

What what exactly are we trying to prove here? That the California Supreme Court finds that the definition of man and woman is sufficiently vague that the the term marriage cannot be accurately defined?

I think there is sufficient justification presented in this tread to prove that point. Regardless of whether we define sexual aberrations as environmental or genetic, the differences definitely exist in all societies.

As more and more genetic research is conducted the human genome, one overriding fact stands out - that no two humans are 100% genetically the same and in some cases we are very different. The lesson that learns to be re-learned is that all humans are created equal in the eyes of the law. Creating a rule or regulation is based on differences in human anatomy should be avoided at all costs because we will always have trouble with the definition.

Just be glad that "Homo sapiens" are the only surviving species in our genus - or we would really have trouble with definitions.

<blockquote data-quote="Hobo1" data-source="post: 81159" data-attributes="member: 2055">What what exactly are we trying to prove here?&nbsp; That the California Supreme Court finds that the definition of man and woman is sufficiently vague that the the term marriage cannot be accurately defined?I think there is sufficient justification presented in this tread to prove that point.&nbsp; Regardless of whether we define sexual aberrations as environmental or genetic, the differences definitely exist in all societies.As more and more genetic research is conducted the human genome, one overriding fact stands out - that no two humans are 100% genetically the same and in some cases we are very different.&nbsp; The lesson that learns to be re-learned is that all humans are created equal in the eyes of the law.&nbsp; Creating a rule or regulation is based on differences in human anatomy should be avoided at all costs because we will always have trouble with the definition. Just be glad that &quot;Homo sapiens&quot; are the only surviving species in our genus - or we would really have trouble with definitions.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hobo1, post: 81159, member: 2055"] What what exactly are we trying to prove here? That the California Supreme Court finds that the definition of man and woman is sufficiently vague that the the term marriage cannot be accurately defined? I think there is sufficient justification presented in this tread to prove that point. Regardless of whether we define sexual aberrations as environmental or genetic, the differences definitely exist in all societies. As more and more genetic research is conducted the human genome, one overriding fact stands out - that no two humans are 100% genetically the same and in some cases we are very different. The lesson that learns to be re-learned is that all humans are created equal [I]in the eyes of the law[/I]. Creating a rule or regulation is based on differences in human anatomy should be avoided at all costs because we will always have trouble with the definition. Just be glad that "Homo sapiens" are the only surviving species in our genus - or we would really have trouble with definitions. [/QUOTE]

Verification