No case made against gay marriage

[bridog]

Hey wouldn't it be great if two gay men ended up in the White House? We could then have a president and a "First Man". Then those Muslim extremists would REALLY be intimidated.

God help us.

[bridog]

TAKE COVERRR!!!!

[Pagan and Proud]

bridog wrote:

Hey wouldn't it be great if two gay men ended up in the White House? We could then have a president and a "First Man". Then those Muslim extremists would REALLY be intimidated.
God help us.

Um, it might be nice to think of but honestly we've yet to have our first minority or female president...Although the minority thing is probably about to Change.

[Pagan and Proud]

another reader wrote:

<quoted text>
"relation between husband and wife" does NOT preclude gays and lesbians as a man's spouse can be referred to as his "husband" OR "wife". I've heard many lesbians refer to their partners as "wife". Those trems are not exclusive of a hetero couple.

True. The point Rose was making was about another poster using a Dictionary from the same time period attempting to claim that it(marriage) only referred to heterosexuals.

[Rose T-H]

another reader wrote:

<quoted text>
"relation between husband and wife" does NOT preclude gays and lesbians as a man's spouse can be referred to as his "husband" OR "wife". I've heard many lesbians refer to their partners as "wife". Those trems are not exclusive of a hetero couple.

Hi Another Reader,
You are Absolutely right.
I was not making trying to imply that this did not refer to Gay or Lesbian Couples.
I was trying to give Eric the full definition of the word "Marriage"
I refer to my Bride to be, as my future Wife.
Have a good day.

[another reader]

Rose T-H wrote:

<quoted text>
Hi Another Reader,
You are Absolutely right.
I was not making trying to imply that this did not refer to Gay or Lesbian Couples.
I was trying to give Eric the full definition of the word "Marriage"
I refer to my Bride to be, as my future Wife.
Have a good day.

Oops! Sory darlin'. Did ya ever get the feeling that no matter what any of us says, Eric will still remain the narrow-minded, "my way or the highway" kinda' guy? Granted we are all entitled to our own opinion, yet he seems to think we're all entitled to his.

Peace!

[Dasein9]

Eric wrote:

<quoted text>I have condemned no one, merely expressed grave concern about a paradigm where unelected judges can change the definition of words for capricious reasons. Let me ask you something. Suppose I knew you were coming over and knew you only drank Bud. But I was out of Bud and only had Miller. So I washed out my Bud empties, poured the Miller in, and gave it to you. Is it Bud simply because it's in a Bud container? I'm sorry, changing the label does not change the essence of what something is.

We change laws and the legal meanings of words all the time to accommodate society's needs. For instance, "wife" used to refer to an individual who was not only a married female, but whose property belonged to her husband, whom it was legal to beat, and who could not be raped by her husband. This definition has changed, and I'd say the change is for the better.

The inclusion of same-sex couples in the institution of marriage will NOT change the essence of marriage, it will only change the criteria for participation in the institution, which will continue to exist. That would be an accidental change, and not an essential one, in the technical terminology you're misusing.(According to how the words are defined in philosophical usage.)

[Pagan and Proud]

another reader wrote:

<quoted text>
Oops! Sory darlin'. Did ya ever get the feeling that no matter what any of us says, Eric will still remain the narrow-minded, "my way or the highway" kinda' guy? Granted we are all entitled to our own opinion, yet he seems to think we're all entitled to his.
Peace!

I've met plenty like that before. The interesting thing, if his claims were true about "not caring" and "nothing against Gays" then the terminology wouldn't matter and it would not be any "argument". The issue with the semantics is simply a way of disguising a very specific desire to seperate himself from homosexuals, to draw a line of distinction between "us" and "them". The entire "argument" is very similar to the "I can't be racist because I have Black Friends" defense.

[Rose T-H]

another reader wrote:

<quoted text>
Oops! Sory darlin'. Did ya ever get the feeling that no matter what any of us says, Eric will still remain the narrow-minded, "my way or the highway" kinda' guy? Granted we are all entitled to our own opinion, yet he seems to think we're all entitled to his.
Peace!

I agree, but his is not the only narrow-mindedness.
According to Others, who's names are many and not worth repeating, they feel that we should marry either someone of the opposite sex or just take our "Deviant" lifestyle and go back into the closet.
They are also the one's who call our lifestyle "Deviant", but behind closed doors, do whatever makes them feel good.
Blessed Be

[Dasein9]

I think Eric's of the opinion that Abraham was a real bastard.

1. Eric seems to think the Judaeo-Christian religious definition of marriage is the only one that matters.

2. Abraham's parents weren't Jewish or Christian.

3. Not being Jewish or Christian, Abraham's parents couldn't have been married, according to Eric.

Ergo, Abraham, the founder of Judaism, was a bastard, according to Eric.

Furthermore, Abraham, having been married before founding Judaism, could not have been married according to the Judaeo-Christian standard, which would make Isaac a bastard too.

Eric! You should be ashamed of yourself. Calling the founder of your religion a bastard isn't very nice!

[Rose T-H]

Sorry for posts 141, 142 and 143.
Computer had a glitch.
Had to shut down.

[Pagan and Proud]

Rose T-H wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree, but his is not the only narrow-mindedness.
According to Others, who's names are many and not worth repeating, they feel that we should marry either someone of the opposite sex or just take our "Deviant" lifestyle and go back into the closet.
They are also the one's who call our lifestyle "Deviant", but behind closed doors, do whatever makes them feel good.
Blessed Be

Yep. I understand exactly what you are saying and I agree.
I very simply refuse to go back in the closet in any way shape or form.

[ramdan]

Pagan and Proud wrote:

<quoted text>Yep. I understand exactly what you are saying and I agree.
I very simply refuse to go back in the closet in any way shape or form.

Live and let live!
What is deviant about two people being in love,and wanting to share the same rights as straight couples?

[Dasein9]

ramdan wrote:

<quoted text>
Live and let live!
What is deviant about two people being in love,and wanting to share the same rights as straight couples?

Nothing.

[Pagan and Proud]

Bill wrote:

Are you really fooled

No, No one is fooled by your propaganda and Spam, Wil.
You haven't proven any of your claims, provided no legitimate evidence, and continue to be a compete joke.

[Dasein9]

Charlie wrote:

I also suppose if you love your dog or cat you should move to Massachusetts to get married. What next? What if you love both your dog and cat? I guess if you go to Mass you could marry both of them.

What is it with the less intelligent bigots' obsession with bestiality? This silly argument keeps coming up with them...

[Pagan and Proud]

Charlie wrote:

I also suppose if you love your dog or cat you should move to Massachusetts to get married. What next? What if you love both your dog and cat? I guess if you go to Mass you could marry both of them.

No, once again, contrary to your suggestion, Marriage remains the exclusive realm of Consenting legal Adults. Sorry, you and your strawman still doesn't fly.

[Pagan and Proud]

Charlie wrote:

I sometimes wonder why God made man and woman the way he did? I guess he forgot to put female parts on men and male parts on woman. So everyone could have it their way? Each person should have both sex parts then I guess everyone would be happy in Massachusetts.

Funny, I forgot to see Your Imaginary Friend's signature on the Constitution or any requirement to produce or intend to produce babies as having any relevance to the ability to marry. Perhaps if that's what you intend, then you and your imaginary friend should go and start your own country elsewhere.

[Charlie]

How about your silly picture being side ways? That is what is silly.

[Charlie]

Pagan and Proud. That doesn't make any sense.