Thrown out of an FBO...

4. What's a "gay married couple"?

Well, I'll take that one on, Jay, by asking in return -- and in
seriousness -- what's a "married couple"?

If the answer is, it's an essentially *legal* status, based on state or
Federal laws regulating marriage, then I'll want to know why it
shouldn't be available to gay as well as heterosexual couples.

Um, well, that's like asking why people who don't own land can't sell
it. Or why folks who order food in a restaurant must pay for it. It's
a legal definition.

Marriage is a state that exists between a man and a woman. You can
have the same legal rights between two men, or two women, if you'd
like, but you'll have to come up with a new name for it. Call it
"frimage", or "shariage", or some other made-up word for it -- but the
word "marriage" is already taken.

This ain't a religious issue. I don't care who is screwing whom, as
long as it's behind closed doors. But you'll have to come up with a
new term. (And I believe the majority of voters agree with me, for
once.)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...
If the answer is, it's an essentially *legal* status, based on state or
Federal laws regulating marriage, then I'll want to know why it
shouldn't be available to gay as well as heterosexual couples.

Marriage is a state that exists between a man and a woman. You can
have the same legal rights between two men, or two women, if you'd
like, but you'll have to come up with a new name for it.

Why? When we broadened marriage rights to include interracial couples, we
didn't have to come up with a new name for marriage. When we broadened
voting rights to include women, we didn't have to come up with a new name
for voting (even though voting had previously been regarded--for thousands
of years, in cultures throughout the world--as an inherently male activity).

Legal definitions evolve all the time. Why should they ossify instead? An as
an empirical fact, a growing number of nations (and portions of nations,
including the US) do define legal marriage without regard to the race,
religion, or gender of the participants.

--Gary

For further discussion, here is the exact wording of the recent referendum
in Wisconsin:
"Shall section 13 of article XIII of the constitution be created to provide
that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or
recognized as a marriage in this state and that a legal status identical or
substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall
not be valid or recognized in this state."



The Yes vote was 59%, the No vote was 41%.



While not clearly defining the word marriage to be between a man and a
woman, several other states referendums did just that according the CNN 2006
Votes website.



Jim

There's the key word...Evolve.

You're using it on a person who is incapable of evolving. It scares him, so
he'd rather keep things the same for as long as possible.

mike

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message

Legal definitions evolve all the time. Why should they ossify instead? An
as an empirical fact, a growing number of nations (and portions of
nations, including the US) do define legal marriage without regard to the
race, religion, or gender of the participants.

--Gary

"mike regish" wrote in message
. ..
There's the key word...Evolve.

You're using it on a person who is incapable of evolving. It scares him,
so he'd rather keep things the same for as long as possible.

Let's try, on both sides, to avoid posts that consist exclusively of
personal taunts. Such posts do nothing to advance the discussion.

--Gary



mike

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message

Legal definitions evolve all the time. Why should they ossify instead? An
as an empirical fact, a growing number of nations (and portions of
nations, including the US) do define legal marriage without regard to the
race, religion, or gender of the participants.

--Gary

mike regish wrote:

There's the key word...Evolve.

You're using it on a person who is incapable of evolving. It scares him, so
he'd rather keep things the same for as long as possible.

How 'liberal' of you. Just spew out personal insults and ad-hominem attacks.
Maybe then they could become true, you don't need any facts.

Well, at least I didn't call a charter owner a cheap SOB employer.

mike

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
mike regish wrote:

There's the key word...Evolve.

You're using it on a person who is incapable of evolving. It scares him,
so
he'd rather keep things the same for as long as possible.

How 'liberal' of you. Just spew out personal insults and ad-hominem
attacks.
Maybe then they could become true, you don't need any facts.

mike regish wrote:

Well, at least I didn't call a charter owner a cheap SOB employer.

mike

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
mike regish wrote:

There's the key word...Evolve.

You're using it on a person who is incapable of evolving. It scares him,
so
he'd rather keep things the same for as long as possible.

How 'liberal' of you. Just spew out personal insults and ad-hominem
attacks.
Maybe then they could become true, you don't need any facts.



So what? You have displayed no shortage of personal insults.

There's more where these came from...

At least I KNOW when I'm insulting somebody. And I usually do it
intentionally.

mike

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...


mike regish wrote:

Well, at least I didn't call a charter owner a cheap SOB employer.

mike

So what? You have displayed no shortage of personal insults.

Why. Does that somehow threaten YOUR marriage?

mike

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...
4. What's a "gay married couple"?


Marriage is a state that exists between a man and a woman. You can
have the same legal rights between two men, or two women, if you'd
like, but you'll have to come up with a new name for it.