"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:Yd90b.182702$YN5.135190@sccrnsc01...
Marriage involves persons of the opposite sex. Homosexuals are free to
marry persons of the opposite sex just as heterosexuals are.
Homosexuals
are not denied any rights in this matter, nor in any other matter I can
think of.

You just made the point I was illustrating - to arbitrarily define that
"marriage" can only be between persons of opposite gender may be
traditional
but it is an anachronism based solely on an aversion to homosexuality.

You're trying to change many millennia of history and tradition by
arbitrarily re-defining marriage to suit your own agenda -- and you accuse
Steven of being arbitrary?

No, we're trying to remove an arbitrary restriction that has been in place
for millennia. You speak as though the mere extent of the historical
precedent automatically makes the restriction reasonable. What if
interracial marriage had been banned for millennia? Suppose marriage had
always been defined as the union of two persons of the same race (as indeed
it has been in many times and places). Presumably you would not object to
the "redefinition" of marriage then, nor call the proposed change
"arbitrary". Therefore, you need to cite something other than history and
tradition if you are to justify continuing the exclusion of same-gender
couples from marriage.

--Gary


Now THAT is ironic.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"