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

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:

> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:
>
> 4> no religion should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not
> 4> in keeping with its creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize
> 4> marriages by divorced people?), but why should government discriminate?
>
> 3> Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
>
> 2> If two men or two women want to be joined as a family in a marriage,
> 2> how does it detract from your marriage?
>
> > It is not a marriage.
>
> So, let's summarize. The question is "Why should marriage be restricted to
> opposite-sex couples?" and the very best, most cogent response you can
> come up with is "Because marriage is restricted to opposite-sex couples."
>

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

Ed