Xomicron

Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote in
news:BC9C1E8B.47E76%snit@nospam-cableone.net:

> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in Xns94C67C4B7FDB7xomicron@0.0.0.3 on
> 4/9/04 9:12 AM:
>
>> da_bender@hotmail.com (Dirk) wrote in
>> news:f1e3e17f.0404090630.690d483b@posting.google.c om:
>>
>>> Rather, it's almost exactly like the current fundie platform WRT gay
>>> marriage--"Ok, we'll permit you damned-to-Hell queers to live among us
>>> without having to worry quite so much about being firebombed, but
>>> we'll reserve the right to slight y'all in more subtle ways, like
>>> denying the respectability to enter into binding, lifelong personal
>>> committments. That way we can continue to have our cake and eat it
>>> too--bashing y'all for your promiscuity, *and* bashing y'all for
>>> wanting to commit to monogamy."
>>
>> Homosexuals can already get married.
>
> Just not to the person they want to.

There's no law that says a person can marry whoever they want.

> Are you advocating making a sham of the whole concept of marriage?

Homosexuals are already trying to do that.

Xomicron

Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote in
news:BC9C1E8B.47E76%snit@nospam-cableone.net:

> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in Xns94C67C4B7FDB7xomicron@0.0.0.3 on
> 4/9/04 9:12 AM:
>
>> da_bender@hotmail.com (Dirk) wrote in
>> news:f1e3e17f.0404090630.690d483b@posting.google.c om:
>>
>>> Rather, it's almost exactly like the current fundie platform WRT gay
>>> marriage--"Ok, we'll permit you damned-to-Hell queers to live among us
>>> without having to worry quite so much about being firebombed, but
>>> we'll reserve the right to slight y'all in more subtle ways, like
>>> denying the respectability to enter into binding, lifelong personal
>>> committments. That way we can continue to have our cake and eat it
>>> too--bashing y'all for your promiscuity, *and* bashing y'all for
>>> wanting to commit to monogamy."
>>
>> Homosexuals can already get married.
>
> Just not to the person they want to.

There's no law that says a person can marry whoever they want.

> Are you advocating making a sham of the whole concept of marriage?

Homosexuals are already trying to do that.

Xomicron

Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote in
news:BC9C1E8B.47E76%snit@nospam-cableone.net:

> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in Xns94C67C4B7FDB7xomicron@0.0.0.3 on
> 4/9/04 9:12 AM:
>
>> da_bender@hotmail.com (Dirk) wrote in
>> news:f1e3e17f.0404090630.690d483b@posting.google.c om:
>>
>>> Rather, it's almost exactly like the current fundie platform WRT gay
>>> marriage--"Ok, we'll permit you damned-to-Hell queers to live among us
>>> without having to worry quite so much about being firebombed, but
>>> we'll reserve the right to slight y'all in more subtle ways, like
>>> denying the respectability to enter into binding, lifelong personal
>>> committments. That way we can continue to have our cake and eat it
>>> too--bashing y'all for your promiscuity, *and* bashing y'all for
>>> wanting to commit to monogamy."
>>
>> Homosexuals can already get married.
>
> Just not to the person they want to.

There's no law that says a person can marry whoever they want.

> Are you advocating making a sham of the whole concept of marriage?

Homosexuals are already trying to do that.

sno

Snit wrote:
>
> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in Xns94C67C4B7FDB7xomicron@0.0.0.3 on
> 4/9/04 9:12 AM:
>
> > da_bender@hotmail.com (Dirk) wrote in
> > news:f1e3e17f.0404090630.690d483b@posting.google.c om:
> >
> >> Rather, it's almost exactly like the current fundie platform WRT gay
> >> marriage--"Ok, we'll permit you damned-to-Hell queers to live among us
> >> without having to worry quite so much about being firebombed, but
> >> we'll reserve the right to slight y'all in more subtle ways, like
> >> denying the respectability to enter into binding, lifelong personal
> >> committments. That way we can continue to have our cake and eat it
> >> too--bashing y'all for your promiscuity, *and* bashing y'all for
> >> wanting to commit to monogamy."
> >
> > Homosexuals can already get married.
>
> Just not to the person they want to. Are you advocating making a sham of
> the whole concept of marriage? I hold marriage, at least in a modern
> society, to a higher standard.

Marriage originally was a religious thing, in most societies....
so why don't we go back to calling it "marriage" when there
is a religious ceremony involved....

And call it a "partner contract" or something like that...
for the state contracts.....I think that might solve all this
discussion that is going on at this time....


--
Virus checking completed: All viruses functioning normally

This tag line is generated by:

SLTG (Silly Little Tag Generator)

sno

Snit wrote:
>
> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in Xns94C67C4B7FDB7xomicron@0.0.0.3 on
> 4/9/04 9:12 AM:
>
> > da_bender@hotmail.com (Dirk) wrote in
> > news:f1e3e17f.0404090630.690d483b@posting.google.c om:
> >
> >> Rather, it's almost exactly like the current fundie platform WRT gay
> >> marriage--"Ok, we'll permit you damned-to-Hell queers to live among us
> >> without having to worry quite so much about being firebombed, but
> >> we'll reserve the right to slight y'all in more subtle ways, like
> >> denying the respectability to enter into binding, lifelong personal
> >> committments. That way we can continue to have our cake and eat it
> >> too--bashing y'all for your promiscuity, *and* bashing y'all for
> >> wanting to commit to monogamy."
> >
> > Homosexuals can already get married.
>
> Just not to the person they want to. Are you advocating making a sham of
> the whole concept of marriage? I hold marriage, at least in a modern
> society, to a higher standard.

Marriage originally was a religious thing, in most societies....
so why don't we go back to calling it "marriage" when there
is a religious ceremony involved....

And call it a "partner contract" or something like that...
for the state contracts.....I think that might solve all this
discussion that is going on at this time....


--
Virus checking completed: All viruses functioning normally

This tag line is generated by:

SLTG (Silly Little Tag Generator)

sno

Snit wrote:
>
> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in Xns94C67C4B7FDB7xomicron@0.0.0.3 on
> 4/9/04 9:12 AM:
>
> > da_bender@hotmail.com (Dirk) wrote in
> > news:f1e3e17f.0404090630.690d483b@posting.google.c om:
> >
> >> Rather, it's almost exactly like the current fundie platform WRT gay
> >> marriage--"Ok, we'll permit you damned-to-Hell queers to live among us
> >> without having to worry quite so much about being firebombed, but
> >> we'll reserve the right to slight y'all in more subtle ways, like
> >> denying the respectability to enter into binding, lifelong personal
> >> committments. That way we can continue to have our cake and eat it
> >> too--bashing y'all for your promiscuity, *and* bashing y'all for
> >> wanting to commit to monogamy."
> >
> > Homosexuals can already get married.
>
> Just not to the person they want to. Are you advocating making a sham of
> the whole concept of marriage? I hold marriage, at least in a modern
> society, to a higher standard.

Marriage originally was a religious thing, in most societies....
so why don't we go back to calling it "marriage" when there
is a religious ceremony involved....

And call it a "partner contract" or something like that...
for the state contracts.....I think that might solve all this
discussion that is going on at this time....


--
Virus checking completed: All viruses functioning normally

This tag line is generated by:

SLTG (Silly Little Tag Generator)

sno

Snit wrote:
>
> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in Xns94C67C4B7FDB7xomicron@0.0.0.3 on
> 4/9/04 9:12 AM:
>
> > da_bender@hotmail.com (Dirk) wrote in
> > news:f1e3e17f.0404090630.690d483b@posting.google.c om:
> >
> >> Rather, it's almost exactly like the current fundie platform WRT gay
> >> marriage--"Ok, we'll permit you damned-to-Hell queers to live among us
> >> without having to worry quite so much about being firebombed, but
> >> we'll reserve the right to slight y'all in more subtle ways, like
> >> denying the respectability to enter into binding, lifelong personal
> >> committments. That way we can continue to have our cake and eat it
> >> too--bashing y'all for your promiscuity, *and* bashing y'all for
> >> wanting to commit to monogamy."
> >
> > Homosexuals can already get married.
>
> Just not to the person they want to. Are you advocating making a sham of
> the whole concept of marriage? I hold marriage, at least in a modern
> society, to a higher standard.

Marriage originally was a religious thing, in most societies....
so why don't we go back to calling it "marriage" when there
is a religious ceremony involved....

And call it a "partner contract" or something like that...
for the state contracts.....I think that might solve all this
discussion that is going on at this time....


--
Virus checking completed: All viruses functioning normally

This tag line is generated by:

SLTG (Silly Little Tag Generator)

Snit

"Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in Xns94C6854973AA8xomicron@0.0.0.1 on
4/9/04 10:06 AM:

> Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote in
> news:BC9C1E8B.47E76%snit@nospam-cableone.net:
>
>> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in Xns94C67C4B7FDB7xomicron@0.0.0.3 on
>> 4/9/04 9:12 AM:
>>
>>> da_bender@hotmail.com (Dirk) wrote in
>>> news:f1e3e17f.0404090630.690d483b@posting.google.c om:
>>>
>>>> Rather, it's almost exactly like the current fundie platform WRT gay
>>>> marriage--"Ok, we'll permit you damned-to-Hell queers to live among us
>>>> without having to worry quite so much about being firebombed, but
>>>> we'll reserve the right to slight y'all in more subtle ways, like
>>>> denying the respectability to enter into binding, lifelong personal
>>>> committments. That way we can continue to have our cake and eat it
>>>> too--bashing y'all for your promiscuity, *and* bashing y'all for
>>>> wanting to commit to monogamy."
>>>
>>> Homosexuals can already get married.
>>
>> Just not to the person they want to.
>
> There's no law that says a person can marry whoever they want.
>
>> Are you advocating making a sham of the whole concept of marriage?
>
> Homosexuals are already trying to do that.

In what way? By saying that homosexuals can marry, you seem to be implying
they can make a sham of the idea of marriage and marry someone they are not
attracted to. This is ridiculous. You seem to be wanting to diminish the
institution of marriage, which, to me anyway, represents two people who love
each other and are committed to each other. Now I would not want to
necessarily deny someone the "right" to enter into such a sham marriage, but
to encourage it, as you seem to do, simply makes no sense to me.

The idea that two people of the same --- marrying would somehow weaken the
institution of marriage is not supported. The idea that encouraging people
to enter into marriages which are not based on love, at least in a modern
society, clearly is diminishing the institution.

Then again, the institution of marriage is pretty weak as it is... your
apparent support of reducing its strength would probably not do much.

Snit

"Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in Xns94C6854973AA8xomicron@0.0.0.1 on
4/9/04 10:06 AM:

> Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote in
> news:BC9C1E8B.47E76%snit@nospam-cableone.net:
>
>> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in Xns94C67C4B7FDB7xomicron@0.0.0.3 on
>> 4/9/04 9:12 AM:
>>
>>> da_bender@hotmail.com (Dirk) wrote in
>>> news:f1e3e17f.0404090630.690d483b@posting.google.c om:
>>>
>>>> Rather, it's almost exactly like the current fundie platform WRT gay
>>>> marriage--"Ok, we'll permit you damned-to-Hell queers to live among us
>>>> without having to worry quite so much about being firebombed, but
>>>> we'll reserve the right to slight y'all in more subtle ways, like
>>>> denying the respectability to enter into binding, lifelong personal
>>>> committments. That way we can continue to have our cake and eat it
>>>> too--bashing y'all for your promiscuity, *and* bashing y'all for
>>>> wanting to commit to monogamy."
>>>
>>> Homosexuals can already get married.
>>
>> Just not to the person they want to.
>
> There's no law that says a person can marry whoever they want.
>
>> Are you advocating making a sham of the whole concept of marriage?
>
> Homosexuals are already trying to do that.

In what way? By saying that homosexuals can marry, you seem to be implying
they can make a sham of the idea of marriage and marry someone they are not
attracted to. This is ridiculous. You seem to be wanting to diminish the
institution of marriage, which, to me anyway, represents two people who love
each other and are committed to each other. Now I would not want to
necessarily deny someone the "right" to enter into such a sham marriage, but
to encourage it, as you seem to do, simply makes no sense to me.

The idea that two people of the same --- marrying would somehow weaken the
institution of marriage is not supported. The idea that encouraging people
to enter into marriages which are not based on love, at least in a modern
society, clearly is diminishing the institution.

Then again, the institution of marriage is pretty weak as it is... your
apparent support of reducing its strength would probably not do much.

Snit

"Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in Xns94C6854973AA8xomicron@0.0.0.1 on
4/9/04 10:06 AM:

> Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote in
> news:BC9C1E8B.47E76%snit@nospam-cableone.net:
>
>> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in Xns94C67C4B7FDB7xomicron@0.0.0.3 on
>> 4/9/04 9:12 AM:
>>
>>> da_bender@hotmail.com (Dirk) wrote in
>>> news:f1e3e17f.0404090630.690d483b@posting.google.c om:
>>>
>>>> Rather, it's almost exactly like the current fundie platform WRT gay
>>>> marriage--"Ok, we'll permit you damned-to-Hell queers to live among us
>>>> without having to worry quite so much about being firebombed, but
>>>> we'll reserve the right to slight y'all in more subtle ways, like
>>>> denying the respectability to enter into binding, lifelong personal
>>>> committments. That way we can continue to have our cake and eat it
>>>> too--bashing y'all for your promiscuity, *and* bashing y'all for
>>>> wanting to commit to monogamy."
>>>
>>> Homosexuals can already get married.
>>
>> Just not to the person they want to.
>
> There's no law that says a person can marry whoever they want.
>
>> Are you advocating making a sham of the whole concept of marriage?
>
> Homosexuals are already trying to do that.

In what way? By saying that homosexuals can marry, you seem to be implying
they can make a sham of the idea of marriage and marry someone they are not
attracted to. This is ridiculous. You seem to be wanting to diminish the
institution of marriage, which, to me anyway, represents two people who love
each other and are committed to each other. Now I would not want to
necessarily deny someone the "right" to enter into such a sham marriage, but
to encourage it, as you seem to do, simply makes no sense to me.

The idea that two people of the same --- marrying would somehow weaken the
institution of marriage is not supported. The idea that encouraging people
to enter into marriages which are not based on love, at least in a modern
society, clearly is diminishing the institution.

Then again, the institution of marriage is pretty weak as it is... your
apparent support of reducing its strength would probably not do much.