Dear Mary...

In article , "Steven
P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Larry Kessler" wrote in message
...

You aren't the one doing the defining.


Gays have the right to redefine marriage but animal lovers do not? Why
are
you opposed to equal rights?



Nice cheap shot. Most people who disagree with you have raised informed
consent as a ground for marriage, which you ignore in order to change to
straw men -- or straw sheep.

I've also noticed that you haven't responded to anything that involves
hard science with respect to gender.

"Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message
...

Nice cheap shot. Most people who disagree with you have
raised informed consent as a ground for marriage, which you
ignore in order to change to straw men -- or straw sheep.


If we can redefine marriage to include same-sex couples we obviously can
also redefine it so that informed consent is not requirement.



I've also noticed that you haven't responded to anything that involves
hard science with respect to gender.


That's not an issue.

In article t,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message
...

Nice cheap shot. Most people who disagree with you have
raised informed consent as a ground for marriage, which you
ignore in order to change to straw men -- or straw sheep.


If we can redefine marriage to include same-sex couples we obviously can
also redefine it so that informed consent is not requirement.


Has ABSOLUTELY ANYONE proposed that except people like you who don't
want any changes? Do you have any data that says people are out to marry
sheep, other than perhaps the existence of the inflatable sheep product,
"I Love Ewe"?



I've also noticed that you haven't responded to anything that involves
hard science with respect to gender.


That's not an issue.


Because? You keep saying gender is an issue. Gender is not always clear
by objective standards.

Oh. I'm sorry. I forgot. Nothing is an issue if it might cast
aspersions on your positions.

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 19:01:05 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

If we can redefine marriage to include same-sex couples we obviously can
also redefine it so that informed consent is not requirement.

And if we think about it really really hard, and yell really really
loud, we can re-define sunrise as occurring in the West.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message nk.net...
If we can redefine marriage to include same-sex couples we obviously can
also redefine it so that informed consent is not requirement.

If by "we", you mean the people of the US, then you are merely stating
the obvious. It might take a constitutional amendment or two, but
there is, in theory, a process for doing it. You don't even need the
"if" part. Just this alone is true, in a technical sense:

We can define marriage so that informed consent is not
a requirement.

And my response is: So what? There are many things you can do that
you won't do, right?

The real issue is whether or not the legal argument used to justify
the marriage of two men can also be used to justify nonconsensual
marriage. That is, if we make gay marriage legal, will there be a
SCOTUS case that will allow nonconsensual marriage. If you think
that's true, then you are in black helicopter land, and there's no
point in saying anything more.

On the other hand, more problematic is whether or not an argument for
gay marriage could be used to justify marriage between siblings. That
is a lot less clear, and has been debated between legal scholars of
all persuasions in the blogosphere.

Note that I'm not arguing in favor of gay marriage. I'm only saying
that trying to claim that legalizing gay marriage might lead to
legalizing nonconsensual marriage is silly. There are other, more
persuasive, arguments against gay marriage.

"Aloha" wrote in message
om...
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...
If we can redefine marriage to include same-sex couples we obviously can
also redefine it so that informed consent is not requirement.

If by "we", you mean the people of the US, then you are merely stating
the obvious. It might take a constitutional amendment or two, but
there is, in theory, a process for doing it. You don't even need the
"if" part. Just this alone is true, in a technical sense:

We can define marriage so that informed consent is not
a requirement.

And my response is: So what? There are many things you can do that
you won't do, right?


I seem to recall there is Biblical precedent for non consentual marriage. I
do not have the chapter and verse but I think there is a Mosaic law that
allows a man who rapes your daughter to pay a fine then marry her. It seems
there are some consensual issues there. The idea of marriage changes over
time. I wonder how many folks today would consider that Solomon with all his
wives and concubines would fit into their definition of a good marriage.
Take care,
--
Ajax Telamon
"Victory at all costs, victory
in spite of all terror, victory
however long and hard the
road may be; for without victory,
there is no survival."
Winston Churchill:
speech, May 13, 1940

Howard Berkowitz wrote:

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Larry Kessler" wrote:

You aren't the one doing the defining.

Gays have the right to redefine marriage but animal lovers do not?
Why are you opposed to equal rights?

Nice cheap shot. Most people who disagree with you have raised informed
consent as a ground for marriage, which you ignore in order to change to
straw men -- or straw sheep.

I've also noticed that you haven't responded to anything that involves
hard science with respect to gender.

Don't confuse him with the facts. It just makes him mad, but it
doesn't make him any more informed.

--
__________Delete the numerals from my email address to respond__________
"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed...
managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units...Of the
many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me
as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal
and owe equal allegiance to their country."
-- Colin Powell’s autobiography, My American Journey, p. 148

"Larry Kessler" wrote in message
...

Don't confuse him with the facts. It just makes him mad, but it
doesn't make him any more informed.


Facts? I appear to be the only one that's used facts to support his
argument.

Oh, by the way, there's nothing one can post that would make me angry.

Lo, many moons past, on Tue, 16 Mar 2004 17:26:17 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Steven P. McNicoll"
came forth and told this tale in us.military.army


"Larry Kessler" wrote in message
.. .

Don't confuse him with the facts. It just makes him mad, but it
doesn't make him any more informed.


Facts? I appear to be the only one that's used facts to support his
argument.

You haven't used a single fact. You wouldn't recognize a fact if one
jumped up on your desk and began singing "Happy Facts Are Here Again"

All you have been doing is making declarations; one with no support.
When declare that marriage requires a man and a woman, and we ask why,
that indicates that you need to post a little bit more.

So I will ask the obvious question: *Why* do you say that marriage
requires a man and a woman.

Oh, by the way, there's nothing one can post that would make me angry.

Good for you. Evidently, there's also nothing we can post that will
get you to post anything more than declarations and ad hominem
attacks.
--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

"Douglas Berry" wrote in message
...

You haven't used a single fact.


I posted the definition of marriage. What other pertinent facts are there?



Good for you. Evidently, there's also nothing we can post that will
get you to post anything more than declarations and ad hominem
attacks.


If you know what an ad hominem attack is you know I haven't posted one.