Re: [OT] No fresh meat for Florida faggots
 

Snit wrote:
>
> "sno" <sno@opelc.com> wrote in 4076D841.F8620D90@opelc.com on 4/9/04 10:07
> AM:
>
> >
> >
> > Snit wrote:
> >>
> >> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in Xns94C67C4B7FDB7xomicron@0.0.0.3 on
> >> 4/9/04 9:12 AM:
> >>
> >>> da_bender@hotmail.com (Dirk) wrote in
> >>> news:f1e3e17f.0404090630.690d483b@posting.google.c om:
> >>>
> >>>> Rather, it's almost exactly like the current fundie platform WRT gay
> >>>> marriage--"Ok, we'll permit you damned-to-Hell queers to live among us
> >>>> without having to worry quite so much about being firebombed, but
> >>>> we'll reserve the right to slight y'all in more subtle ways, like
> >>>> denying the respectability to enter into binding, lifelong personal
> >>>> committments. That way we can continue to have our cake and eat it
> >>>> too--bashing y'all for your promiscuity, *and* bashing y'all for
> >>>> wanting to commit to monogamy."
> >>>
> >>> Homosexuals can already get married.
> >>
> >> Just not to the person they want to. Are you advocating making a sham of
> >> the whole concept of marriage? I hold marriage, at least in a modern
> >> society, to a higher standard.
> >
> > Marriage originally was a religious thing, in most societies....
> > so why don't we go back to calling it "marriage" when there
> > is a religious ceremony involved....
> >
> > And call it a "partner contract" or something like that...
> > for the state contracts.....I think that might solve all this
> > discussion that is going on at this time....
>
> There is a precedence in society for what a marriage is... I am not sure I
> want my marriage re-classified or re-named. I am happily married to my
> wife, though neither of us are religious and we did not have a religious
> ceremony.
>
> Some how religions want a monopoly on the term "marriage". I don't see it.
> I am married...

Society has changed the meaning/feel of words before...there is no
reason that a "partner contract" could not in the future have the
same meaning/feel of the word marriage....

I would be easy to change the present laws...all that would have
to happen is anywhere in a law the word marriage is used substitute
the words "partner contract".....this would give everyone the same
legal rights.....

It probably could be argued that the word marriage in laws, is against
the law....seperation of church and state....as, like I said, the
word marriage is originally a religious thing....and the precedence
for the word marriage involving a religious ceremony is much longer
the present meaning/feel of the word.....<grin>.....

thank you for listening to my thoughts....sno

Re: [OT] No fresh meat for Florida faggots
 

Snit wrote:
>
> "sno" <sno@opelc.com> wrote in 4076D841.F8620D90@opelc.com on 4/9/04 10:07
> AM:
>
> >
> >
> > Snit wrote:
> >>
> >> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in Xns94C67C4B7FDB7xomicron@0.0.0.3 on
> >> 4/9/04 9:12 AM:
> >>
> >>> da_bender@hotmail.com (Dirk) wrote in
> >>> news:f1e3e17f.0404090630.690d483b@posting.google.c om:
> >>>
> >>>> Rather, it's almost exactly like the current fundie platform WRT gay
> >>>> marriage--"Ok, we'll permit you damned-to-Hell queers to live among us
> >>>> without having to worry quite so much about being firebombed, but
> >>>> we'll reserve the right to slight y'all in more subtle ways, like
> >>>> denying the respectability to enter into binding, lifelong personal
> >>>> committments. That way we can continue to have our cake and eat it
> >>>> too--bashing y'all for your promiscuity, *and* bashing y'all for
> >>>> wanting to commit to monogamy."
> >>>
> >>> Homosexuals can already get married.
> >>
> >> Just not to the person they want to. Are you advocating making a sham of
> >> the whole concept of marriage? I hold marriage, at least in a modern
> >> society, to a higher standard.
> >
> > Marriage originally was a religious thing, in most societies....
> > so why don't we go back to calling it "marriage" when there
> > is a religious ceremony involved....
> >
> > And call it a "partner contract" or something like that...
> > for the state contracts.....I think that might solve all this
> > discussion that is going on at this time....
>
> There is a precedence in society for what a marriage is... I am not sure I
> want my marriage re-classified or re-named. I am happily married to my
> wife, though neither of us are religious and we did not have a religious
> ceremony.
>
> Some how religions want a monopoly on the term "marriage". I don't see it.
> I am married...

Society has changed the meaning/feel of words before...there is no
reason that a "partner contract" could not in the future have the
same meaning/feel of the word marriage....

I would be easy to change the present laws...all that would have
to happen is anywhere in a law the word marriage is used substitute
the words "partner contract".....this would give everyone the same
legal rights.....

It probably could be argued that the word marriage in laws, is against
the law....seperation of church and state....as, like I said, the
word marriage is originally a religious thing....and the precedence
for the word marriage involving a religious ceremony is much longer
the present meaning/feel of the word.....<grin>.....

thank you for listening to my thoughts....sno

Re: [OT] No fresh meat for Florida faggots
 

Snit wrote:
>
> "sno" <sno@opelc.com> wrote in 4076D841.F8620D90@opelc.com on 4/9/04 10:07
> AM:
>
> >
> >
> > Snit wrote:
> >>
> >> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in Xns94C67C4B7FDB7xomicron@0.0.0.3 on
> >> 4/9/04 9:12 AM:
> >>
> >>> da_bender@hotmail.com (Dirk) wrote in
> >>> news:f1e3e17f.0404090630.690d483b@posting.google.c om:
> >>>
> >>>> Rather, it's almost exactly like the current fundie platform WRT gay
> >>>> marriage--"Ok, we'll permit you damned-to-Hell queers to live among us
> >>>> without having to worry quite so much about being firebombed, but
> >>>> we'll reserve the right to slight y'all in more subtle ways, like
> >>>> denying the respectability to enter into binding, lifelong personal
> >>>> committments. That way we can continue to have our cake and eat it
> >>>> too--bashing y'all for your promiscuity, *and* bashing y'all for
> >>>> wanting to commit to monogamy."
> >>>
> >>> Homosexuals can already get married.
> >>
> >> Just not to the person they want to. Are you advocating making a sham of
> >> the whole concept of marriage? I hold marriage, at least in a modern
> >> society, to a higher standard.
> >
> > Marriage originally was a religious thing, in most societies....
> > so why don't we go back to calling it "marriage" when there
> > is a religious ceremony involved....
> >
> > And call it a "partner contract" or something like that...
> > for the state contracts.....I think that might solve all this
> > discussion that is going on at this time....
>
> There is a precedence in society for what a marriage is... I am not sure I
> want my marriage re-classified or re-named. I am happily married to my
> wife, though neither of us are religious and we did not have a religious
> ceremony.
>
> Some how religions want a monopoly on the term "marriage". I don't see it.
> I am married...

Society has changed the meaning/feel of words before...there is no
reason that a "partner contract" could not in the future have the
same meaning/feel of the word marriage....

I would be easy to change the present laws...all that would have
to happen is anywhere in a law the word marriage is used substitute
the words "partner contract".....this would give everyone the same
legal rights.....

It probably could be argued that the word marriage in laws, is against
the law....seperation of church and state....as, like I said, the
word marriage is originally a religious thing....and the precedence
for the word marriage involving a religious ceremony is much longer
the present meaning/feel of the word.....<grin>.....

thank you for listening to my thoughts....sno

Re: [OT] No fresh meat for Florida faggots
 

"sno" <sno@opelc.com> wrote in 4076DE42.765ADA12@opelc.com on 4/9/04 10:32
AM:

>
>
> Snit wrote:
>>
>> "sno" <sno@opelc.com> wrote in 4076D841.F8620D90@opelc.com on 4/9/04 10:07
>> AM:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in Xns94C67C4B7FDB7xomicron@0.0.0.3 on
>>>> 4/9/04 9:12 AM:
>>>>
>>>>> da_bender@hotmail.com (Dirk) wrote in
>>>>> news:f1e3e17f.0404090630.690d483b@posting.google.c om:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Rather, it's almost exactly like the current fundie platform WRT gay
>>>>>> marriage--"Ok, we'll permit you damned-to-Hell queers to live among us
>>>>>> without having to worry quite so much about being firebombed, but
>>>>>> we'll reserve the right to slight y'all in more subtle ways, like
>>>>>> denying the respectability to enter into binding, lifelong personal
>>>>>> committments. That way we can continue to have our cake and eat it
>>>>>> too--bashing y'all for your promiscuity, *and* bashing y'all for
>>>>>> wanting to commit to monogamy."
>>>>>
>>>>> Homosexuals can already get married.
>>>>
>>>> Just not to the person they want to. Are you advocating making a sham of
>>>> the whole concept of marriage? I hold marriage, at least in a modern
>>>> society, to a higher standard.
>>>
>>> Marriage originally was a religious thing, in most societies....
>>> so why don't we go back to calling it "marriage" when there
>>> is a religious ceremony involved....
>>>
>>> And call it a "partner contract" or something like that...
>>> for the state contracts.....I think that might solve all this
>>> discussion that is going on at this time....
>>
>> There is a precedence in society for what a marriage is... I am not sure I
>> want my marriage re-classified or re-named. I am happily married to my
>> wife, though neither of us are religious and we did not have a religious
>> ceremony.
>>
>> Some how religions want a monopoly on the term "marriage". I don't see it.
>> I am married...
>
> Society has changed the meaning/feel of words before...there is no
> reason that a "partner contract" could not in the future have the
> same meaning/feel of the word marriage....

True, but there is no reason to change the word "marriage" to imply a
religious endorsement when that is not a part of the word now.
>
> I would be easy to change the present laws...all that would have
> to happen is anywhere in a law the word marriage is used substitute
> the words "partner contract".....this would give everyone the same
> legal rights.....

I think for gay marriage this could be a temporary solution - but in the
long run I see no reason to not allow them refer to themselves as married.
Then again, if the terms were changed, it would not be a big deal to me.
>
> It probably could be argued that the word marriage in laws, is against
> the law....seperation of church and state....as, like I said, the
> word marriage is originally a religious thing....and the precedence
> for the word marriage involving a religious ceremony is much longer
> the present meaning/feel of the word.....<grin>.....

Like many words, it has multiple meanings and connotations. This is a
common reason for debates...
>
> thank you for listening to my thoughts....sno

No problem. And thanks in return. If the term were to change, I would not
be out protesting or really even mind that much. I can see how the change
in the term would appease some people, so it may be a good compromise. The
important thing, to me anyway, is to allow gay couples the same rights and
obligations that straight couples have.

Re: [OT] No fresh meat for Florida faggots
 

"sno" <sno@opelc.com> wrote in 4076DE42.765ADA12@opelc.com on 4/9/04 10:32
AM:

>
>
> Snit wrote:
>>
>> "sno" <sno@opelc.com> wrote in 4076D841.F8620D90@opelc.com on 4/9/04 10:07
>> AM:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in Xns94C67C4B7FDB7xomicron@0.0.0.3 on
>>>> 4/9/04 9:12 AM:
>>>>
>>>>> da_bender@hotmail.com (Dirk) wrote in
>>>>> news:f1e3e17f.0404090630.690d483b@posting.google.c om:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Rather, it's almost exactly like the current fundie platform WRT gay
>>>>>> marriage--"Ok, we'll permit you damned-to-Hell queers to live among us
>>>>>> without having to worry quite so much about being firebombed, but
>>>>>> we'll reserve the right to slight y'all in more subtle ways, like
>>>>>> denying the respectability to enter into binding, lifelong personal
>>>>>> committments. That way we can continue to have our cake and eat it
>>>>>> too--bashing y'all for your promiscuity, *and* bashing y'all for
>>>>>> wanting to commit to monogamy."
>>>>>
>>>>> Homosexuals can already get married.
>>>>
>>>> Just not to the person they want to. Are you advocating making a sham of
>>>> the whole concept of marriage? I hold marriage, at least in a modern
>>>> society, to a higher standard.
>>>
>>> Marriage originally was a religious thing, in most societies....
>>> so why don't we go back to calling it "marriage" when there
>>> is a religious ceremony involved....
>>>
>>> And call it a "partner contract" or something like that...
>>> for the state contracts.....I think that might solve all this
>>> discussion that is going on at this time....
>>
>> There is a precedence in society for what a marriage is... I am not sure I
>> want my marriage re-classified or re-named. I am happily married to my
>> wife, though neither of us are religious and we did not have a religious
>> ceremony.
>>
>> Some how religions want a monopoly on the term "marriage". I don't see it.
>> I am married...
>
> Society has changed the meaning/feel of words before...there is no
> reason that a "partner contract" could not in the future have the
> same meaning/feel of the word marriage....

True, but there is no reason to change the word "marriage" to imply a
religious endorsement when that is not a part of the word now.
>
> I would be easy to change the present laws...all that would have
> to happen is anywhere in a law the word marriage is used substitute
> the words "partner contract".....this would give everyone the same
> legal rights.....

I think for gay marriage this could be a temporary solution - but in the
long run I see no reason to not allow them refer to themselves as married.
Then again, if the terms were changed, it would not be a big deal to me.
>
> It probably could be argued that the word marriage in laws, is against
> the law....seperation of church and state....as, like I said, the
> word marriage is originally a religious thing....and the precedence
> for the word marriage involving a religious ceremony is much longer
> the present meaning/feel of the word.....<grin>.....

Like many words, it has multiple meanings and connotations. This is a
common reason for debates...
>
> thank you for listening to my thoughts....sno

No problem. And thanks in return. If the term were to change, I would not
be out protesting or really even mind that much. I can see how the change
in the term would appease some people, so it may be a good compromise. The
important thing, to me anyway, is to allow gay couples the same rights and
obligations that straight couples have.

Re: [OT] No fresh meat for Florida faggots
 

"sno" <sno@opelc.com> wrote in 4076DE42.765ADA12@opelc.com on 4/9/04 10:32
AM:

>
>
> Snit wrote:
>>
>> "sno" <sno@opelc.com> wrote in 4076D841.F8620D90@opelc.com on 4/9/04 10:07
>> AM:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in Xns94C67C4B7FDB7xomicron@0.0.0.3 on
>>>> 4/9/04 9:12 AM:
>>>>
>>>>> da_bender@hotmail.com (Dirk) wrote in
>>>>> news:f1e3e17f.0404090630.690d483b@posting.google.c om:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Rather, it's almost exactly like the current fundie platform WRT gay
>>>>>> marriage--"Ok, we'll permit you damned-to-Hell queers to live among us
>>>>>> without having to worry quite so much about being firebombed, but
>>>>>> we'll reserve the right to slight y'all in more subtle ways, like
>>>>>> denying the respectability to enter into binding, lifelong personal
>>>>>> committments. That way we can continue to have our cake and eat it
>>>>>> too--bashing y'all for your promiscuity, *and* bashing y'all for
>>>>>> wanting to commit to monogamy."
>>>>>
>>>>> Homosexuals can already get married.
>>>>
>>>> Just not to the person they want to. Are you advocating making a sham of
>>>> the whole concept of marriage? I hold marriage, at least in a modern
>>>> society, to a higher standard.
>>>
>>> Marriage originally was a religious thing, in most societies....
>>> so why don't we go back to calling it "marriage" when there
>>> is a religious ceremony involved....
>>>
>>> And call it a "partner contract" or something like that...
>>> for the state contracts.....I think that might solve all this
>>> discussion that is going on at this time....
>>
>> There is a precedence in society for what a marriage is... I am not sure I
>> want my marriage re-classified or re-named. I am happily married to my
>> wife, though neither of us are religious and we did not have a religious
>> ceremony.
>>
>> Some how religions want a monopoly on the term "marriage". I don't see it.
>> I am married...
>
> Society has changed the meaning/feel of words before...there is no
> reason that a "partner contract" could not in the future have the
> same meaning/feel of the word marriage....

True, but there is no reason to change the word "marriage" to imply a
religious endorsement when that is not a part of the word now.
>
> I would be easy to change the present laws...all that would have
> to happen is anywhere in a law the word marriage is used substitute
> the words "partner contract".....this would give everyone the same
> legal rights.....

I think for gay marriage this could be a temporary solution - but in the
long run I see no reason to not allow them refer to themselves as married.
Then again, if the terms were changed, it would not be a big deal to me.
>
> It probably could be argued that the word marriage in laws, is against
> the law....seperation of church and state....as, like I said, the
> word marriage is originally a religious thing....and the precedence
> for the word marriage involving a religious ceremony is much longer
> the present meaning/feel of the word.....<grin>.....

Like many words, it has multiple meanings and connotations. This is a
common reason for debates...
>
> thank you for listening to my thoughts....sno

No problem. And thanks in return. If the term were to change, I would not
be out protesting or really even mind that much. I can see how the change
in the term would appease some people, so it may be a good compromise. The
important thing, to me anyway, is to allow gay couples the same rights and
obligations that straight couples have.

Re: [OT] No fresh meat for Florida faggots
 

"sno" <sno@opelc.com> wrote in 4076DE42.765ADA12@opelc.com on 4/9/04 10:32
AM:

>
>
> Snit wrote:
>>
>> "sno" <sno@opelc.com> wrote in 4076D841.F8620D90@opelc.com on 4/9/04 10:07
>> AM:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in Xns94C67C4B7FDB7xomicron@0.0.0.3 on
>>>> 4/9/04 9:12 AM:
>>>>
>>>>> da_bender@hotmail.com (Dirk) wrote in
>>>>> news:f1e3e17f.0404090630.690d483b@posting.google.c om:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Rather, it's almost exactly like the current fundie platform WRT gay
>>>>>> marriage--"Ok, we'll permit you damned-to-Hell queers to live among us
>>>>>> without having to worry quite so much about being firebombed, but
>>>>>> we'll reserve the right to slight y'all in more subtle ways, like
>>>>>> denying the respectability to enter into binding, lifelong personal
>>>>>> committments. That way we can continue to have our cake and eat it
>>>>>> too--bashing y'all for your promiscuity, *and* bashing y'all for
>>>>>> wanting to commit to monogamy."
>>>>>
>>>>> Homosexuals can already get married.
>>>>
>>>> Just not to the person they want to. Are you advocating making a sham of
>>>> the whole concept of marriage? I hold marriage, at least in a modern
>>>> society, to a higher standard.
>>>
>>> Marriage originally was a religious thing, in most societies....
>>> so why don't we go back to calling it "marriage" when there
>>> is a religious ceremony involved....
>>>
>>> And call it a "partner contract" or something like that...
>>> for the state contracts.....I think that might solve all this
>>> discussion that is going on at this time....
>>
>> There is a precedence in society for what a marriage is... I am not sure I
>> want my marriage re-classified or re-named. I am happily married to my
>> wife, though neither of us are religious and we did not have a religious
>> ceremony.
>>
>> Some how religions want a monopoly on the term "marriage". I don't see it.
>> I am married...
>
> Society has changed the meaning/feel of words before...there is no
> reason that a "partner contract" could not in the future have the
> same meaning/feel of the word marriage....

True, but there is no reason to change the word "marriage" to imply a
religious endorsement when that is not a part of the word now.
>
> I would be easy to change the present laws...all that would have
> to happen is anywhere in a law the word marriage is used substitute
> the words "partner contract".....this would give everyone the same
> legal rights.....

I think for gay marriage this could be a temporary solution - but in the
long run I see no reason to not allow them refer to themselves as married.
Then again, if the terms were changed, it would not be a big deal to me.
>
> It probably could be argued that the word marriage in laws, is against
> the law....seperation of church and state....as, like I said, the
> word marriage is originally a religious thing....and the precedence
> for the word marriage involving a religious ceremony is much longer
> the present meaning/feel of the word.....<grin>.....

Like many words, it has multiple meanings and connotations. This is a
common reason for debates...
>
> thank you for listening to my thoughts....sno

No problem. And thanks in return. If the term were to change, I would not
be out protesting or really even mind that much. I can see how the change
in the term would appease some people, so it may be a good compromise. The
important thing, to me anyway, is to allow gay couples the same rights and
obligations that straight couples have.

Re: [OT] No fresh meat for Florida faggots
 

In article <Xns94C6854973AA8xomicron@0.0.0.1>,
Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:

> Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote in
> news:BC9C1E8B.47E76%snit@nospam-cableone.net:
>
> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in Xns94C67C4B7FDB7xomicron@0.0.0.3 on
> > 4/9/04 9:12 AM:
> >
> >> da_bender@hotmail.com (Dirk) wrote in
> >> news:f1e3e17f.0404090630.690d483b@posting.google.c om:
> >>
> >>> Rather, it's almost exactly like the current fundie platform WRT gay
> >>> marriage--"Ok, we'll permit you damned-to-Hell queers to live among us
> >>> without having to worry quite so much about being firebombed, but
> >>> we'll reserve the right to slight y'all in more subtle ways, like
> >>> denying the respectability to enter into binding, lifelong personal
> >>> committments. That way we can continue to have our cake and eat it
> >>> too--bashing y'all for your promiscuity, *and* bashing y'all for
> >>> wanting to commit to monogamy."
> >>
> >> Homosexuals can already get married.
> >
> > Just not to the person they want to.
>
> There's no law that says a person can marry whoever they want.
>
> > Are you advocating making a sham of the whole concept of marriage?
>
> Homosexuals are already trying to do that.

Again, I have to ask (since you never answered the last time I did so),
what is so wrong with homosexual marriage? If the couple that has a
loving relationship next door happens to be, so Jo-anne and Mary instead
of John and Mary, how does this hurt you, or weaken your marriage,
assuming you are married? It certainly doesn't weaken my marriage. And,
I don't see how it hurts society. So, answer the question, Snubis, how
does homosexual marriage hurt heterosexual marriage, or weaken the bonds
between a man and wife?

--
Dave Fritzinger

Re: [OT] No fresh meat for Florida faggots
 

In article <Xns94C6854973AA8xomicron@0.0.0.1>,
Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:

> Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote in
> news:BC9C1E8B.47E76%snit@nospam-cableone.net:
>
> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in Xns94C67C4B7FDB7xomicron@0.0.0.3 on
> > 4/9/04 9:12 AM:
> >
> >> da_bender@hotmail.com (Dirk) wrote in
> >> news:f1e3e17f.0404090630.690d483b@posting.google.c om:
> >>
> >>> Rather, it's almost exactly like the current fundie platform WRT gay
> >>> marriage--"Ok, we'll permit you damned-to-Hell queers to live among us
> >>> without having to worry quite so much about being firebombed, but
> >>> we'll reserve the right to slight y'all in more subtle ways, like
> >>> denying the respectability to enter into binding, lifelong personal
> >>> committments. That way we can continue to have our cake and eat it
> >>> too--bashing y'all for your promiscuity, *and* bashing y'all for
> >>> wanting to commit to monogamy."
> >>
> >> Homosexuals can already get married.
> >
> > Just not to the person they want to.
>
> There's no law that says a person can marry whoever they want.
>
> > Are you advocating making a sham of the whole concept of marriage?
>
> Homosexuals are already trying to do that.

Again, I have to ask (since you never answered the last time I did so),
what is so wrong with homosexual marriage? If the couple that has a
loving relationship next door happens to be, so Jo-anne and Mary instead
of John and Mary, how does this hurt you, or weaken your marriage,
assuming you are married? It certainly doesn't weaken my marriage. And,
I don't see how it hurts society. So, answer the question, Snubis, how
does homosexual marriage hurt heterosexual marriage, or weaken the bonds
between a man and wife?

--
Dave Fritzinger

Re: [OT] No fresh meat for Florida faggots
 

In article <Xns94C6854973AA8xomicron@0.0.0.1>,
Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:

> Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote in
> news:BC9C1E8B.47E76%snit@nospam-cableone.net:
>
> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in Xns94C67C4B7FDB7xomicron@0.0.0.3 on
> > 4/9/04 9:12 AM:
> >
> >> da_bender@hotmail.com (Dirk) wrote in
> >> news:f1e3e17f.0404090630.690d483b@posting.google.c om:
> >>
> >>> Rather, it's almost exactly like the current fundie platform WRT gay
> >>> marriage--"Ok, we'll permit you damned-to-Hell queers to live among us
> >>> without having to worry quite so much about being firebombed, but
> >>> we'll reserve the right to slight y'all in more subtle ways, like
> >>> denying the respectability to enter into binding, lifelong personal
> >>> committments. That way we can continue to have our cake and eat it
> >>> too--bashing y'all for your promiscuity, *and* bashing y'all for
> >>> wanting to commit to monogamy."
> >>
> >> Homosexuals can already get married.
> >
> > Just not to the person they want to.
>
> There's no law that says a person can marry whoever they want.
>
> > Are you advocating making a sham of the whole concept of marriage?
>
> Homosexuals are already trying to do that.

Again, I have to ask (since you never answered the last time I did so),
what is so wrong with homosexual marriage? If the couple that has a
loving relationship next door happens to be, so Jo-anne and Mary instead
of John and Mary, how does this hurt you, or weaken your marriage,
assuming you are married? It certainly doesn't weaken my marriage. And,
I don't see how it hurts society. So, answer the question, Snubis, how
does homosexual marriage hurt heterosexual marriage, or weaken the bonds
between a man and wife?

--
Dave Fritzinger