Post by shegeek72Post by Matthew JohnsonNot true. As I already pointed out MANY TIMES now, the verb used
for "to marry" exists in two forms: one of a man marrying a woman,
another of a woman being led in marriage by a man. There is NO
CONCEPT of 'marriage' outside of these in the culture of the time.
Uh, what does marriage got to do with transsexuality?
I already answered that question. In fact, the answer is staring you
in the face in the text you included above.
Post by shegeek72They are two separate things.
No, they are not, as explained above; 'marriage' in the Bible is
ALWAYS between a man and a woman.
Post by shegeek72Post by Matthew JohnsonPost by shegeek72As I've pointed out before, no where in the Bible does it say *only*
males and females were created;
This is patently false. I already explained why. Your only response
was a foot-stamping repetition of your own gross ignorance.
Then please quote the section and verse where it specfically says ONLY
males and females were created.
I did. Genesis 1:27. And I already explained why the wording implies
ONLY males and females. You only further establish your ignorance and
obduracy by repeating the question.
Recall:
And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He
him; male and female created He them. (Gen 1:27 JPS)
That is: all of existing mankind was made "male and female". One
each. No inbetweens, no "third gender".
Post by shegeek72Even if you could come up with some reaching interpretation,
intersexed people blow that concept out of the water.
That of course, is your _dream_. That is why you come up with shoddy
rationalization after shoddy rationalization for your perversion. But
it is still only a dream no matter how much pseudo-scientific
'evidence' you come up with. No, they do NOT "blow that concept out
of the water". I have already explained the reson for this to you too.
But you pretend not to know. Thus confirming not only your ignorance,
but your deep dishonesty too.
Post by shegeek72Post by Matthew JohnsonI don't have to look at the letter to know it is wrong. You may be
female legally, but only because the laws of the state are
corrupt.
Then federal laws also must be "corrupt," as it says female on my
passport and social security and will soon say so on my birth
certificate.
Obviously if the law is allowing the change to even the birth
certificate, it must be corrupt. You were not born female.
Post by shegeek72Post by Matthew JohnsonYou are certainly have no grounds to claim you are female
'chemically', since you yourself admit you have not had the genetic
testing done.
Genetics is genes; hormones are chemicals.
What pseudo-scientific babble is this? Genes _are_ chemical.
Post by shegeek72Since my last hormonal lab test showed levels of estrogen and
testosterone in line with a genetic female, I most certainly am
female chemically / hormonally.
No, that does not follow. That would follow only if your own body were
making those hormones on its own, without the assistance of any
drugs/hormones you take. But you have to take HRT levels of estrogen
for the rest of your life once the post-op year of dangerous levesl of
hormones is over.
Post by shegeek72You just refuse to believe facts when they're not inline with your
religious beliefs.
Since you just denied that genes were chemical in nature, I would say
that accusation fits you better. Since you claim to be the same as a
natural female despite having to continue to take hormones, that
accusation really does fit you better.
Post by shegeek72I prefer to believe medical science over religious beliefs when the
two conflict.
No, you do not. For you just denied that genes were chemical in
nature, So once again, I would say that accusation fits you better.
But even worse than that, you have to cite pagan superstition as the
_sole_ support for your own pagan belief in the existence of a "third
gender". That proves to the whole NG that you haven't even got a
_clue_ what it means to believe medical science.
Therefore, yet _again_ your own words prove you do NOT "believe
science [medical or not] over religious beliefs".
Keep digging yourself deeper into the hole.
Post by shegeek72For example, Galileo was convicted of heresy and sentenced to house
arrest for the remainder of his life because of his ideas that the
heavens didn't revolve around the earth.
How typical of you, that you bring up as an example, a historical
incident you do NOT understand. Galileo was not condemned because he
taught heliocentricism, he was condemned because he was stiff-necked,
obnoxious and stubborn. If he had been more accomodating to his own
personal friend who had been elected Pope, he would have been allowed
to continue to believe it without abjuring it, and to teach it
quietly.
But like you, he was too inflexible. He chose open confrontation
instead, so he turned it into an issue of papal power and lost.
Post by shegeek72Unfortunately, a similar situation exists with people who believe as
you.
Not at all, no matter how often you repeat this groundlessly.
Post by shegeek72All the scientific research in the world on transsexualism wouldn't
convince you (as you refuse to accept the third gender in some
cultures), so it's pointless arguing with you.
Nice try, but wrong. As I pointed out above, the so-called "scientific
evidence" you give us is nothing but pagan superstition. So what makes
it "pointless arguing with you" is your own totally irrational
acceptance of pagan superstition as 'evidence'.
So it is you, not I, who has made it "pointless arguing". So yet once
again, the accusation you level at me fits you MUCH better.
Post by shegeek72Then why do I continue to do so? For entertainment and wit
sharpening.
Then it isn't working, Your wits are NOT getting sharper. The only
thing that is getting 'sharper' is the VERY sharp contrast between
your delusional words and all common sense.
But of course, this is only to be expected after you have spent so
much time, money and effort carving your beloved lie into your own
flesh.
--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)