Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:

5> Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

4> If two men or two women want to be joined as a family in a marriage,
4> how does it detract from your marriage?

3> It is not a marriage.

2> So, let's summarize. The question is "Why should marriage be restricted
2> to opposite-sex couples?" and the very best, most cogent response you
2> can come up with is "Because marriage is restricted to opposite-sex
2> couples."

> Why are trees called tress, dogs called dogs, etc. If I call a cat a
> dog, does that make it a dog?

We're not considering cats, dogs or trees. We're considering two people
who wish to affirm their relationship to each other, thereby taking on the
social and financial responsibilities and attaining the social and
financial privileges accorded by society to two people in such a
relationship.

You have yet to explain why the sex of the two partners is at all relevant
other than to make circular parrot noises ("Rawk! Man and woman! Reehoo!
Redefining! Rawk! Not a marriage").

You seem very convinced of your rightness on this matter. Surely, then,
you can articulate the basis for your belief in a persuasive and logical
manner, rather than simply repeating a dogmatic statement...?

> The laws related to the institution of marriage were set in place with
> the understanding that a marriage was a union between a man and a woman.

Fifty years ago, your type was saying "The laws related to the institution
of marriage were set in place with the understanding that a marriage was a
union between members of the same race."

> Trying to extend those laws to cover same sex unions is not the right
> way to fix a perceived injustice.

While I'd be interested to learn what you think *is* the right way, I
hardly think you have much basis to be making pronouncements on the
matter. You're not on the receiving end of the injustice.

DS