Dear Mary...

(Firelock) wrote:

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message link.net...
"Firelock" wrote in message
om...

A government decision solely based on which genitals
the government thinks are between the legs of the citizens
affected by the decision. What else could it be except
for discrimination based on sex?


It's not a government decision.

Whose then? Your god's? The *government* is the body that,
when Alex and Sam come in for a marriage license application,
look in Alex and Sam's pants to make sure that they have just
one penis and one vagina between them. Tell me again, why
should we the people impel the government to care?

If you don't want to marry someone of the same sex,
then don't. If you think it is against your religion
for people to do so, then don't join a church that's
willing to perform a religious same-sex marriage service.
If you think that you should be able to tell other
grownups who they can and can't marry, get over yourself.

Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
Married 8 years, and still wondering how the marriages
of other people are supposed to harm my own.

Of course...a voice of reason in the silly forest.
--

-Gord.

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.

Doug Anderson wrote:

(Emma Anne) writes:

Replacement_Tommel wrote:

"I know up on top you are seeing great sights, but down on the bottom
we, too, should have rights!" ~Yertle the Turtle, by Dr. Seuss

I haven't seen that one for a while - though I had it almost memorized
at one point from reading it too many times. And I think I can *still*
recite a good bit of One Fish Two Fish from memory. . .

Shameful parenting #517: I used to turn two or three pages of "One
Fish Two Fish" at the same time when my kids would insist on me
reading it to them.

I distinctly remember rigging Candyland so the game would hurry up and
end already.

I am quite enjoying the age they are at now, though. Having rather
stunted reading tastes, I like to read their books. And they can cook
things I like to eat, and (kind of) clean up afterward.

"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 Wed, 10 Mar 2004 03:00:46 GMT, "Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote:

Homosexuality is a choice, like becoming a murderer. There is nothing
in the Constitution about murderers, either (except for the bit about "cruel
and unusual punishment).

Al Minyard

I see...I take it that you're a man, right?...can you tell me at
what age you chose to be a man?

Somewhere around the age of 13.


Al Minyard

On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 03:28:10 -0500, Howard Berkowitz wrote:


Even without getting into things of the mind, sexuality and gender
simply aren't as simple as some would like them to be. In the example I
cited, neither party would have any homosexual ideation or any gender
dysphoria. Each, with perfectly good reason, considers their partner of
the other biological gender. A physician performing a routine physical
on either would have little reason to suspect anything. I suspect even
culposcopy would show a sad malformation of the cervix, but still no
reason to suspect an actual sexual misidentification.

No, you picked an extremely rare medical condition that has nothing
to do with homosexuality. When you have to reach that far for an argument
you are, in effect, saying that you have no logical argument.

This has nothing to do with either the military or aviation. End of thread.

Al Minyard

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.

Alan Minyard wrote:

On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 03:00:46 GMT, "Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote:

Homosexuality is a choice, like becoming a murderer. There is nothing
in the Constitution about murderers, either (except for the bit about "cruel
and unusual punishment).

Al Minyard

I see...I take it that you're a man, right?...can you tell me at
what age you chose to be a man?

Somewhere around the age of 13.


Al Minyard

Remarkable...do you remember consciously making that
choice?...what factors convinced you?...
--

-Gord.

Lo, many moons past, on Thu, 11 Mar 2004 16:20:05 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Steven P. McNicoll"
came forth and told this tale in us.military.army

If marriage can be arbitrarily redefined to include members of the same sex
then it can also be redefined to remove informed consent.

Thst would require removing the functional basis of contract law and
most criminal laws. So you're reaching.

--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local