Re: False Issue

Robert Low wrote:

> mark goldberg  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Kirk Lawson wrote:
> >
> > > Cue the standard "what about infertile couples?" argument.  
> >
> > Possibly fertile, in the sense that men and women are.
>
>
> So menopause is grounds for divorce? What about
> a man who's sterile as a result of chemo or
> radiation exposure? Is he allowed to get married?
> (I seem to recall limitations on the degree
> of religious participation of a man 'injured
> in the testicles' from Leviticus, or maybe
> Deuteronomy.)
again... you missed the mark _ no sin _  it's the cultural honoring, and 
this crap about.. "what if your testes are shrunken- heeeh" is idiocy.
Look.  The common culture has brought forth an honorareum to marriage of 
men and women.  It is a testimony to the 'possibility' and honors that.

Now.. you want to pick nits.. Ok
there's always nits to pick.
But- the rule of marriage is to honor the hope of society, to procreate, 
and continue.

It is that obliquy to that hope.

So you want to quibble, and then claim it's about what "I find 
acceptable" rather than the society and the common culture.
I don't care if you mate with a buffalo, as long as the buffalo gets a vote

Now you want to get philosophical and talk about bestiality, 
homosexuality, Adam and Eve.

I thought you were tired of the common culture.
Have fun- with whatever- just
don't try to destroy the hope of marriage as come out of the culture- it 
has served well for 3300 yrs- live with who and what you want.
Privacy is discretion- and I wish more people would be private about all 
this.

Such face with who you want. Eat what you want. Why does everyone have 
to vote to sanctify everything, as equal... in all manner.  All things 
aren't.  They have weighted values.
Marriage has a weighted value- and your goofing on it is just that.

mark





Mark