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

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 14:02:06 -0500, "C. E. White"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:00:25 -0500, "C. E. White"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >I am not suggesting that the government institutionalize discrimination. Marriage
>> >is a union between a man and a woman. It is not a same sex union. If there are
>> >particular laws related to the term "marriage" that make "marriages" beneficial
>> >and same sex unions feel they deserve these benefits, then change the law, or
>> >have the law ruled unconstitutional. Don't try to circumvent the process by
>> >redefining the word.
>>
>> This confuses me greatly.  If two men or two women want to be joined
>> as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?
>
>It is not a marriage. 

It's a commitment between two people to live together and care for
each other.  Sounds like a marriage to me.  Hell, hopefully they'll be
better at it than hetero couples, isn't the divorce rate around 50%
now?

>I am not opposed to people of the same sex entering into a
>commited relationship, but that is not the same thing as a traditional marriage. 

How does calling their relationship marriage change your marriage?

>If
>there are benefits related to a traditional marriage that same sex couple feel they
>are entitled to, then they should petition their representatives to pass laws to
>extend these benefits to them and not try to duck the process by redefining an
>establishment that has long been in place.

Just become something is traditionally limited doesn't make that
limitation sensible.
-- 
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing 
to make one stupid person look smart.