[PLUG-TALK] Is this Marriage Right or Wrong? (possible MRC)

[Michael Robinson]

On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 13:04 -0800, Michael wrote:
> Michael Robinson wrote:
> > There are not two married women, people of the same gender are not
> > capable of marrying each other.
> 
> Not true.  Their marriage is recognized by the state of Washington.
> 
> > In order for two "women" to have a baby
> > without artificial means or one of them being a man in reality
> > requires a sperm donor.  And it is not the production of children
> > that makes a marriage valid, it is openness to the creation of
> > children that does.
> 
> They were very open to producing children when they got married - are proceded
> to do so.  Twice.
> 
> There were no artificial means involved.
> 
> > Marriage is an institution that requires a man and a woman.  A man that
> > calls himself a woman is still a man.  A woman that calls herself a
> > man is still a woman.  As far as is the marriage valid is concerned,
> > were there witnesses to the marriage and were both parties free to
> > marry?  If they are religious, did they follow the rules of their
> > faith pertaining to marriage?
> 
> Yes to witnesses, yet to rules of their faith.  Yes to the license issued by
> the state of Washington. (I know you didn't ask, but thought you'd like to
> know.)
> 
> > Because we are talking about a man and a woman obviously.
> 
> No we are not.  You are denying the reality of their present marriage.
> 
> It was a marriage recognized by both the state and church of the couple,
> entered into with the intent to, among other things, have children.
> 
> Is it valid?
> 
> c'mon Mr. Robinson.  Don't quibble: Yes or No?

I know by the laws of biology and your admission that no artificial
means were used by them to conceive two children that they are in fact
a man and a woman.  It is valid because they are a man and a woman.
Never in the history of humanity have two men or two men naturally
brought a child into the world.