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

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 21:01:46 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 14:45:46 -0500, "C. E. White"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Why are trees called tress, dogs called dogs, etc. If I call a cat a dog, does
>>that make it a dog? 
>
>Not the same thing.  You're refusing to call a cat a cat if it doesn't
>have a tail.

A cat is, intrinsically, a cat. No redefinition of the word "cat" will
change what it is.

A marriage is whatever it's defined to be, legally.
Since a marriage is (and would remain, in the US at least) between
only 2 people, what gender those two people happen to be doesn't
affect the marriage of other people.
>
>>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. Trying to extend those laws to cover same sex unions is not the right
>>way to fix a perceived injustice. It may be the "liberal" way, but that
>>doesn't make it right.
>
>How does having two men or two women instead of a man and a woman make
>the laws fall apart?

It doesn't, obviously.
But more important, it doesn't make anything else fall apart, either.
>
>Is it because there might be questions about who wears the tux and who
>the dress?  Who changes their last name?  Beyond that, I can't see any
>issues at all.

-- 
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"