Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
|| "~Nins~" wrote in message
|| news:T8G5c.22199$Cb.470749@attbi_s51...
|||
||| Uhh, Stephen, even I think that's reaching a bit far to provide
||| argument. Maybe you should try a different one? Perhaps? I
||| presented argument, and a valid one at that, earlier in the thread,
||| go off of it but in from a civil/legal standpoint. The
||| human-animal thing just isn't going to work.
|||
||
|| Why not? Human-animal marriage is just as valid as same-sex
|| marriage.

You're getting into a whole other area there. Different *species*. You do
what you want, but that is an argument that isn't going to work nor is a
valid one. But just for S&Gs, why do you think it would be valid? For you,
what are the elements that constitute marriage, and what is your definition
of the word? What source do you draw on to either prove or disprove your
argument(s)? When the challenge is presented to you, what they are
presenting is a request for something (i.e., references) to substantiate the
statements you have made. So far, that is what is being made, statements,
keep in mind the questions I posted here. Hope this helps.