Re: [OT] No fresh meat for Florida faggots
 

"David Fritzinger" <dfritzin@macNoSpam.com> wrote in
dfritzin-DE107F.09004809042004@orngc...4.socal.rr.com on 4/9/04 12:00
PM:

> In article <Xns94C697EAF4AABxomicron@0.0.0.1>,
> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
>
>> David Fritzinger <dfritzin@macNoSpam.com> wrote in
>> news:dfritzin-C58307.08502609042004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com:
>>
>>> 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?
>>
>> You think that love is the only reason for marriage? No wonder you liberals
>> have such a shallow view of marriage.
>
> So, what *is* the reason for marriage? Is it just to produce children?
> If so, many people shouldn't be married, including my (now deceased)
> father and step-mother, since he was in his 60s and she in her late 40s
> when they married. Who should be allowed to marry, oh great Snubis?

Well, here I am going to jump in. Your now deceased father should not be
allowed to marry, as I doubt he could give consent. :)

Re: [OT] No fresh meat for Florida faggots
 

David Fritzinger wrote:
>
> 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?

You are right, it does not change anything as far as what you have
with your partner....the problem a lot of people have, is that
they feel calling the secular contract between other then male/female
relationships "marriage", will dilute the meaning/feel
of the word....

I do not see any reason the legal meaning of the word marriage
could not be changed to something else...this would prevent
the meaning/feel of the word marriage, as presently used, from
being diluted....if what they feel is right....it also would
give legal rights to those who do not have them....even thou
the have committed to each other in the same manner as male/
female....

Some also feel that only male/female relationships should have
all these legal rights, because some of them were made to encourage
partnerships that led to the birth of children...I feel with
the present adoption laws....and the wanting of many non
male/female partnerships to adopt, that the laws should apply
to all....adoption does not accomplish exactly the same thing
as birthing a child...because birthing raises the population
which is advantageous to society ....but adopting
also is advantageous to society...

Male/female raising of children may, or may not, be better
then homosexual raising of children....but either is much,
much better then not having any parents at all....

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








word....

Re: [OT] No fresh meat for Florida faggots
 

David Fritzinger wrote:
>
> 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?

You are right, it does not change anything as far as what you have
with your partner....the problem a lot of people have, is that
they feel calling the secular contract between other then male/female
relationships "marriage", will dilute the meaning/feel
of the word....

I do not see any reason the legal meaning of the word marriage
could not be changed to something else...this would prevent
the meaning/feel of the word marriage, as presently used, from
being diluted....if what they feel is right....it also would
give legal rights to those who do not have them....even thou
the have committed to each other in the same manner as male/
female....

Some also feel that only male/female relationships should have
all these legal rights, because some of them were made to encourage
partnerships that led to the birth of children...I feel with
the present adoption laws....and the wanting of many non
male/female partnerships to adopt, that the laws should apply
to all....adoption does not accomplish exactly the same thing
as birthing a child...because birthing raises the population
which is advantageous to society ....but adopting
also is advantageous to society...

Male/female raising of children may, or may not, be better
then homosexual raising of children....but either is much,
much better then not having any parents at all....

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








word....

Re: [OT] No fresh meat for Florida faggots
 

David Fritzinger wrote:
>
> 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?

You are right, it does not change anything as far as what you have
with your partner....the problem a lot of people have, is that
they feel calling the secular contract between other then male/female
relationships "marriage", will dilute the meaning/feel
of the word....

I do not see any reason the legal meaning of the word marriage
could not be changed to something else...this would prevent
the meaning/feel of the word marriage, as presently used, from
being diluted....if what they feel is right....it also would
give legal rights to those who do not have them....even thou
the have committed to each other in the same manner as male/
female....

Some also feel that only male/female relationships should have
all these legal rights, because some of them were made to encourage
partnerships that led to the birth of children...I feel with
the present adoption laws....and the wanting of many non
male/female partnerships to adopt, that the laws should apply
to all....adoption does not accomplish exactly the same thing
as birthing a child...because birthing raises the population
which is advantageous to society ....but adopting
also is advantageous to society...

Male/female raising of children may, or may not, be better
then homosexual raising of children....but either is much,
much better then not having any parents at all....

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








word....

Re: [OT] No fresh meat for Florida faggots
 

David Fritzinger wrote:
>
> 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?

You are right, it does not change anything as far as what you have
with your partner....the problem a lot of people have, is that
they feel calling the secular contract between other then male/female
relationships "marriage", will dilute the meaning/feel
of the word....

I do not see any reason the legal meaning of the word marriage
could not be changed to something else...this would prevent
the meaning/feel of the word marriage, as presently used, from
being diluted....if what they feel is right....it also would
give legal rights to those who do not have them....even thou
the have committed to each other in the same manner as male/
female....

Some also feel that only male/female relationships should have
all these legal rights, because some of them were made to encourage
partnerships that led to the birth of children...I feel with
the present adoption laws....and the wanting of many non
male/female partnerships to adopt, that the laws should apply
to all....adoption does not accomplish exactly the same thing
as birthing a child...because birthing raises the population
which is advantageous to society ....but adopting
also is advantageous to society...

Male/female raising of children may, or may not, be better
then homosexual raising of children....but either is much,
much better then not having any parents at all....

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








word....

Re: [OT] No fresh meat for Florida faggots
 

Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote in
news:BC9C4044.4800B%snit@nospam-cableone.net:

> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in Xns94C697EAF4AABxomicron@0.0.0.1 on
> 4/9/04 11:56 AM:
>
>> David Fritzinger <dfritzin@macNoSpam.com> wrote in
>> news:dfritzin-C58307.08502609042004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com:
>>
>>> 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?
>>
>> You think that love is the only reason for marriage? No wonder you
>> liberals have such a shallow view of marriage.
>
> Nobody has suggested it is the only reason, but to deny it as an
> important reason does not fit with the modern view of marriage.

The "modern" view of marriage doesn't benefit anyone. I don't understand
how people in my grandparents' generation can get married hardly knowing
each other but stay together a lifetime, yet now people get married after
getting to know each other very well and then they end up getting divorced.

Re: [OT] No fresh meat for Florida faggots
 

Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote in
news:BC9C4044.4800B%snit@nospam-cableone.net:

> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in Xns94C697EAF4AABxomicron@0.0.0.1 on
> 4/9/04 11:56 AM:
>
>> David Fritzinger <dfritzin@macNoSpam.com> wrote in
>> news:dfritzin-C58307.08502609042004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com:
>>
>>> 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?
>>
>> You think that love is the only reason for marriage? No wonder you
>> liberals have such a shallow view of marriage.
>
> Nobody has suggested it is the only reason, but to deny it as an
> important reason does not fit with the modern view of marriage.

The "modern" view of marriage doesn't benefit anyone. I don't understand
how people in my grandparents' generation can get married hardly knowing
each other but stay together a lifetime, yet now people get married after
getting to know each other very well and then they end up getting divorced.

Re: [OT] No fresh meat for Florida faggots
 

Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote in
news:BC9C4044.4800B%snit@nospam-cableone.net:

> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in Xns94C697EAF4AABxomicron@0.0.0.1 on
> 4/9/04 11:56 AM:
>
>> David Fritzinger <dfritzin@macNoSpam.com> wrote in
>> news:dfritzin-C58307.08502609042004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com:
>>
>>> 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?
>>
>> You think that love is the only reason for marriage? No wonder you
>> liberals have such a shallow view of marriage.
>
> Nobody has suggested it is the only reason, but to deny it as an
> important reason does not fit with the modern view of marriage.

The "modern" view of marriage doesn't benefit anyone. I don't understand
how people in my grandparents' generation can get married hardly knowing
each other but stay together a lifetime, yet now people get married after
getting to know each other very well and then they end up getting divorced.

Re: [OT] No fresh meat for Florida faggots
 

Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote in
news:BC9C4044.4800B%snit@nospam-cableone.net:

> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in Xns94C697EAF4AABxomicron@0.0.0.1 on
> 4/9/04 11:56 AM:
>
>> David Fritzinger <dfritzin@macNoSpam.com> wrote in
>> news:dfritzin-C58307.08502609042004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com:
>>
>>> 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?
>>
>> You think that love is the only reason for marriage? No wonder you
>> liberals have such a shallow view of marriage.
>
> Nobody has suggested it is the only reason, but to deny it as an
> important reason does not fit with the modern view of marriage.

The "modern" view of marriage doesn't benefit anyone. I don't understand
how people in my grandparents' generation can get married hardly knowing
each other but stay together a lifetime, yet now people get married after
getting to know each other very well and then they end up getting divorced.

Re: [OT] No fresh meat for Florida faggots
 

In article <BC9C41BE.4800F%snit@nospam-cableone.net>,
Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:

> "David Fritzinger" <dfritzin@macNoSpam.com> wrote in
> dfritzin-DE107F.09004809042004@orngc...4.socal.rr.com on 4/9/04 12:00
> PM:
>
> > In article <Xns94C697EAF4AABxomicron@0.0.0.1>,
> > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
> >
> >> David Fritzinger <dfritzin@macNoSpam.com> wrote in
> >> news:dfritzin-C58307.08502609042004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com:
> >>
> >>> 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?
> >>
> >> You think that love is the only reason for marriage? No wonder you liberals
> >> have such a shallow view of marriage.
> >
> > So, what *is* the reason for marriage? Is it just to produce children?
> > If so, many people shouldn't be married, including my (now deceased)
> > father and step-mother, since he was in his 60s and she in her late 40s
> > when they married. Who should be allowed to marry, oh great Snubis?
>
> Well, here I am going to jump in. Your now deceased father should not be
> allowed to marry, as I doubt he could give consent. :)

I realize you were trying to make a joke, Snit, but I found your comment
to be in poor taste and unfunny in the extreme.

--
Dave Fritzinger