Who do Hermaphrodites Marry?

[ironcross]

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

-we simply don’t care about “gay sex” per se, as long as gay activists doesn’t try to make it a OFFICIAL LEGAL AND SOCIAL MODEL.

that’s the same thing here.

hermaphrodites are either male or female, under the law, they marry the opposite sex, under the law.
[/quote]

So all you are concerned about marriage-wise is the gender of the person?

So if a man is declared by the state to be a woman, it would be okay for him to marry another man? That’s a new spin.[/quote]

No, it would be okay for him to be re-declared by the state to be a man.

[/quote]

How is the state ever going to do that if the man continues to proclaim himself a woman, fill a woman’s role, and the only person who knows is his gay husband, who probably thinks he won the legal jackpot? By everything you wrote in your first response to this, you are not concerned with this person; they are married as man and woman under the state. Why would you care that they’re having gay sex if they did it legally?

[ironcross]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Will you be gracing us with details of corpophilia, next? Save the details for whatever you folks do in the smut forum, please?[/quote]

lol. When I read “corpophilia” I get a great image of corporate executives getting it on.

[kamui]

How is the state ever going to do that if the man continues to proclaim himself a woman, fill a woman’s role, and the only person who knows is his gay husband, who probably thinks he won the legal jackpot? By everything you wrote in your first response to this, you are not concerned with this person; they are married as man and woman under the state. Why would you care that they’re having gay sex if they did it legally?

That’s not what you asked. I answered your question.
You’re now asking another one, making it sound like i didn’t answered (correctly) the first one.

Moving the goalpost fallacy.

[ironcross]

[quote]kamui wrote:

How is the state ever going to do that if the man continues to proclaim himself a woman, fill a woman’s role, and the only person who knows is his gay husband, who probably thinks he won the legal jackpot? By everything you wrote in your first response to this, you are not concerned with this person; they are married as man and woman under the state. Why would you care that they’re having gay sex if they did it legally?

That’s not what you asked. I answered your question.
You’re now asking another one, making it sound like i didn’t answered (correctly) the first one.

Moving the goalpost fallacy.

[/quote]

I said “that’s a new spin” not “you didn’t correctly answer the first question” because you said, specifically, that you aren’t concerned about gay sex, you are only concerned that a man and a woman are the only ones allowed the marry each other under law. The problem with this is that the law declares who is man and who is woman, so by this declaration of your not caring as long as it fell under the scope and assignment of the law, you would not care if a fully-legal female married a male, even if this female had a penis. If you did, then you’d also have a problem with hermaphrodites, as they are often declared females, but have a fully functional penis. As you said you didn’t have a problem with hermaphrodites because they had assigned themselves a gender by law and could marry the opposite, I could only conclude that you don’t have a problem with other people who have a gender by law, which doesn’t reflect their biological sex, and marry the opposite gender, which is their own sex.

[kamui]

The problem with this is that the law declares who is man and who is woman, so by this declaration of your not caring as long as it fell under the scope and assignment of the law, you would not care if a fully-legal female married a male

which doesn’t means that i do not care about the criterai used by the law to decide and declare who is man and who is woman.

You know, the state doesn’t declare a man to be a woman just because… you decided it would be a cool hypothesis for a little logic-sodomizing on PWI.

Hence this answer :

No, it would be okay for him to be re-declared by the state to be a man.

Maybe it’s my syntax, but it’s pretty clear and obvious, i think.

[ironcross]

[quote]kamui wrote:

The problem with this is that the law declares who is man and who is woman, so by this declaration of your not caring as long as it fell under the scope and assignment of the law, you would not care if a fully-legal female married a male

which doesn’t means that i do not care about the criterai used by the law to decide and declare who is man and who is woman.

You know, the state doesn’t declare a man to be a woman just because… you decided it would be a cool hypothesis for a little logic-sodomizing on PWI.

Hence this answer :

No, it would be okay for him to be re-declared by the state to be a man.

Maybe it’s my syntax, but it’s pretty clear and obvious, i think.

[/quote]

How are they going to assign male or female sex to a hermaphrodite? I think it’s great that you don’t see the logic mis-step you took in your first post by allowing a hermaphrodite to marry as long as they were assigned a legal completely male or completely female sex.

I also think it’s hilarious that these boards have brought the great and peaceful Kamui to stoop to anal-sex insults in a thread concerning gay sex which may not even involve butts

[Sloth]

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Will you be gracing us with details of corpophilia, next? Save the details for whatever you folks do in the smut forum, please?[/quote]

lol. When I read “corpophilia” I get a great image of corporate executives getting it on.[/quote]

Never claimed to be a great typist…recently. Coprophilia, for those confused. And no, I’m not inviting details.

[kamui]

[quote]
How are they going to assign male or female sex to a hermaphrodite? I think it’s great that you don’t see the logic mis-step you took in your first post by allowing a hermaphrodite to marry as long as they were assigned a legal completely male or completely female sex.[/quote]

Ok. I will re-do it from the beginning.

You asked a question about hermaphrodite’s marriage, making it a issue about sexuality.
I explained what “most western countries” do, which i agree with, to show you that’s not an issue about sexuality but a political and social one.
I remembered you that you did the same confusion previsouly, about gay marriage.

Then you asked me a rhetorical and unrelated question about an hypothetical man who is ascribed a female sex by the state, because you desperately wanted to go back to your sexuality issue.

Then i answered you that your hypothetical man has no reason to be ascribed a female sex by the state, which is, again, a legal, political and social issue.

Now, to answer your last question :

In most western countries, hermaphrodite are adjudged to belong to the sex which (biologically) prevails in them.
And again, i agree with this.

What will you ask next ?
A Shemale scenario ?
A Transgender one ?
A married couple with a bisexual man ?
A married couple with a bisexual female ?
A married couple in an orgy with multiple bisexual couples ?

For the last time : i don’t care what two dicks or two vaginas (or three, or twenty) do in the same bed.

Your “you’re an homophob” trick won’t work with me.

[quote]
I also think it’s hilarious that these boards have brought the great and peaceful Kamui to stoop to anal-sex insults in a thread concerning gay sex which may not even involve butts :)[/quote]

As a citizen, it’s my duty to testify when i witness a rape.

[DrSkeptix]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

…I have known one in real life…

[/quote]

POIDNH
[/quote]

I don’t know why you’d ask for that.[/quote]

I guess what I was asking, in a manner of speaking, is how YOU, IhaveabiologydegreeandyoudontCross, KNOW that this person “has a fully functional penis and vagina.”[/quote]

Could be persistent mullerian duct syndrome, one of a number of failures of mullerian inhibiting factor. Most such cases are castrated as infants and raised as girls, or as Austrians, since ambiguous genitalia goes unnoticed among them.

---

True story:

Years ago, I attended a sick gay man with an “undifferentiated” tumor of the pelvis. I proved that he had ovary cancer, and was, in fact, a chimera; i.e., he was XX/XY and cancer arose in the “streak gonad” which otherwise was destined to be an ovary.

During treatment, his gay male lover and care-giver deserted him, reasoning that he could not possibly love a woman in the same way.

[ironcross]

[quote]kamui wrote:

In most western countries, hermaphrodite are adjudged to belong to the sex which (biologically) prevails in them.
And again, i agree with this.
[/quote]

Hmmm. Perhaps you totally misunderstood the original issue. The issue is, with many of these individuals, there is not a sex that “prevails” with them!! It is ARBITRARILY assigned at birth. You cannot give them a true “prevailing sex” because they are both sexes! If you don’t believe this is possible, go look at the link I posted with the warning and read up on it yourself. It would be no more true to call them a man than to call them a woman and many continue on to have sex with both sexes. So who should they marry, given that they are not biologically more one sex than the other?

[ironcross]

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

…I have known one in real life…

[/quote]

POIDNH
[/quote]

I don’t know why you’d ask for that.[/quote]

I guess what I was asking, in a manner of speaking, is how YOU, IhaveabiologydegreeandyoudontCross, KNOW that this person “has a fully functional penis and vagina.”[/quote]

Could be persistent mullerian duct syndrome, one of a number of failures of mullerian inhibiting factor. Most such cases are castrated as infants and raised as girls, or as Austrians, since ambiguous genitalia goes unnoticed among them.

---

True story:

Years ago, I attended a sick gay man with an “undifferentiated” tumor of the pelvis. I proved that he had ovary cancer, and was, in fact, a chimera; i.e., he was XX/XY and cancer arose in the “streak gonad” which otherwise was destined to be an ovary.

During treatment, his gay male lover and care-giver deserted him, reasoning that he could not possibly love a woman in the same way.

[/quote]

That’s heart-breaking.

What gender did this person identify themselves as and did that change then you showed them that they basically had ovarian cancer?

[DrSkeptix]

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

…I have known one in real life…

[/quote]

POIDNH
[/quote]

I don’t know why you’d ask for that.[/quote]

I guess what I was asking, in a manner of speaking, is how YOU, IhaveabiologydegreeandyoudontCross, KNOW that this person “has a fully functional penis and vagina.”[/quote]

Could be persistent mullerian duct syndrome, one of a number of failures of mullerian inhibiting factor. Most such cases are castrated as infants and raised as girls, or as Austrians, since ambiguous genitalia goes unnoticed among them.

---

True story:

Years ago, I attended a sick gay man with an “undifferentiated” tumor of the pelvis. I proved that he had ovary cancer, and was, in fact, a chimera; i.e., he was XX/XY and cancer arose in the “streak gonad” which otherwise was destined to be an ovary.

During treatment, his gay male lover and care-giver deserted him, reasoning that he could not possibly love a woman in the same way.

[/quote]

That’s heart-breaking.

What gender did this person identify themselves as and did that change then you showed them that they basically had ovarian cancer?[/quote]

(Heart-breaking? A bitter example of true human nature? No: comedy = tragedy + time.)

He was a man. He was always a man; why would having ovaries change that? Certainly you have noticed that having testicles does not a man make.

[ironcross]

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

…I have known one in real life…

[/quote]

POIDNH
[/quote]

I don’t know why you’d ask for that.[/quote]

I guess what I was asking, in a manner of speaking, is how YOU, IhaveabiologydegreeandyoudontCross, KNOW that this person “has a fully functional penis and vagina.”[/quote]

Could be persistent mullerian duct syndrome, one of a number of failures of mullerian inhibiting factor. Most such cases are castrated as infants and raised as girls, or as Austrians, since ambiguous genitalia goes unnoticed among them.

---

True story:

Years ago, I attended a sick gay man with an “undifferentiated” tumor of the pelvis. I proved that he had ovary cancer, and was, in fact, a chimera; i.e., he was XX/XY and cancer arose in the “streak gonad” which otherwise was destined to be an ovary.

During treatment, his gay male lover and care-giver deserted him, reasoning that he could not possibly love a woman in the same way.

[/quote]

That’s heart-breaking.

What gender did this person identify themselves as and did that change then you showed them that they basically had ovarian cancer?[/quote]

(Heart-breaking? A bitter example of true human nature? No: comedy = tragedy + time.)

He was a man. He was always a man; why would having ovaries change that? Certainly you have noticed that having testicles does not a man make.
[/quote]

No matter how big they are

[HoustonGuy]

Each other?

Themselves?

[BlueCollarTr8n]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I love the “profundity” of Miss IC’s premise:

Hermaphrodites exist in this world. Rarely.

They possess genitals from both sexes.

MAYBE one or two of 'em wants to get legally married someday. How should they “register” themselves in order to do so?

Because they technically, anatomically could “register” themselves as either sex we, society, have a (illusionary or fabricated) quandary on our hands.

Therefore, in order to extricate society from this “quandary” inherent in the hermaphrodite puzzle, gay marriage should be legalized.

LOL[/quote]

Wow…I’ve never reasoned it all out that way. I’m going to have to re-consider my position.

[ironcross]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I love the “profundity” of Miss IC’s premise:

Hermaphrodites exist in this world. Rarely.

They possess genitals from both sexes.

MAYBE one or two of 'em wants to get legally married someday. How should they “register” themselves in order to do so?

Because they technically, anatomically could “register” themselves as either sex we, society, have a (illusionary or fabricated) quandary on our hands.

Therefore, in order to extricate society from this “quandary” inherent in the hermaphrodite puzzle, gay marriage should be legalized.

LOL[/quote]

I think it’s funny that you don’t see/wont acknowledge the gray area entered and the implications of that gray area. The quandary only exists if you try to arbitrarily set a limit on what constitutes male and female biology by state definitions. If you let all citizens assign themselves apart from varying physical characteristics, there’s no problem. This means that if a man want to assign himself as a woman while retaining his manhood so he can marry a man, the state wouldn’t object.

[Sloth]

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I love the “profundity” of Miss IC’s premise:

Hermaphrodites exist in this world. Rarely.

They possess genitals from both sexes.

MAYBE one or two of 'em wants to get legally married someday. How should they “register” themselves in order to do so?

Because they technically, anatomically could “register” themselves as either sex we, society, have a (illusionary or fabricated) quandary on our hands.

Therefore, in order to extricate society from this “quandary” inherent in the hermaphrodite puzzle, gay marriage should be legalized.

LOL[/quote]

I think it’s funny that you don’t see/wont acknowledge the gray area entered and the implications of that gray area. The quandary only exists if you try to arbitrarily set a limit on what constitutes male and female biology by state definitions. If you let all citizens assign themselves apart from varying physical characteristics, there’s no problem. This means that if a man want to assign himself as a woman while retaining his manhood so he can marry a man, the state wouldn’t object.
[/quote]

Ketchup, is that you?