Thrown out of an FBO...

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Gary Drescher" wrote:

(A couple's ability or intention to
reproduce together has never been a prerequisite for marriage, nor should
it
be.)

hmmm, is that what you think the issue is about?

It's a commonly cited excuse for opposing same-sex marriage. You haven't
bothered to cite *any* reason for your derogatory characterization, so I was
giving you the benefit of the doubt by speculating that you might have one.
Sorry if I overestimated you.

--Gary

In article ,
"Gary Drescher" wrote:

(A couple's ability or intention to
reproduce together has never been a prerequisite for marriage, nor should
it
be.)

hmmm, is that what you think the issue is about?

It's a commonly cited excuse for opposing same-sex marriage.

The ONLY people I've ever heard cite that "excuse" actually support same-sex
marriage and are using it to misrepresent the opposing view.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Gary Drescher" wrote:

(A couple's ability or intention to
reproduce together has never been a prerequisite for marriage, nor
should
it
be.)

hmmm, is that what you think the issue is about?

It's a commonly cited excuse for opposing same-sex marriage.

The ONLY people I've ever heard cite that "excuse" actually support
same-sex
marriage and are using it to misrepresent the opposing view.

Reality consists of more than what you may remember ever hearing, Bob. A
moment's research would show that the specious procreation-prerequisite
argument is in fact at the heart of much of the world's opposition to
same-sex marriage.

To cite just the most obvious example, the Vatican--which prominently
lobbies against gay marriage in the US and throughout the world--published a
document in 2003 arguing that "marriage exists solely between a man and a
woman... in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of
new human lives... in the Creator's plan, sexual complementarity and
fruitfulness belong to the very nature of marriage".

--Gary

Bob Noel wrote:

In article ,
"Gary Drescher" wrote:

(A couple's ability or intention to
reproduce together has never been a prerequisite for marriage, nor should
it
be.)

hmmm, is that what you think the issue is about?

It's a commonly cited excuse for opposing same-sex marriage.

The ONLY people I've ever heard cite that "excuse" actually support same-sex
marriage and are using it to misrepresent the opposing view.

I would be happily supportive of same-sex marrige if that is what the VOTERS
decide to support. Instead in one state we had a court say something and the
legislature has now twice rejected the a legitimate petititon of the government by
the people who participated in the process.