On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:

> Being hetero or homosexual only refers to one's activities.

Most behavioural scientists disagree with you -- this is the party line of
the Religious Reich types.

Unless you're prepared to say that being six-foot-four or blue of eye or
having a Roman nose only refers to one activities...?

DS

 

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:

> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
>
> > > Why is telling some people they don't have a right others have NOT
> > > discrimination?
> >
> > Everybody (of age) has the same right to marry somebody of the opposite ---.
>
> This is no more responsive to the question than "Everybody (of age) has
> the same right to marry somebody of their same race" was 50 years ago.

Fine. But if ending discrimination is the goal, than why should siblings be
prevented from marriage? What if they want to get all of these legal marriage
benifits? Either marriage is between a man and a woman, or it is not. And it if
is not, than there are others besides gays that deserve its benefits. Because if
banning marriage of gays is discriminatory, than banning marriage of consenting
adults in parties greater than two etc. certainly is too.

 

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:

> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
>
> > > Why is telling some people they don't have a right others have NOT
> > > discrimination?
> >
> > Everybody (of age) has the same right to marry somebody of the opposite ---.
>
> This is no more responsive to the question than "Everybody (of age) has
> the same right to marry somebody of their same race" was 50 years ago.

Fine. But if ending discrimination is the goal, than why should siblings be
prevented from marriage? What if they want to get all of these legal marriage
benifits? Either marriage is between a man and a woman, or it is not. And it if
is not, than there are others besides gays that deserve its benefits. Because if
banning marriage of gays is discriminatory, than banning marriage of consenting
adults in parties greater than two etc. certainly is too.

 

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:

> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
>
> > > Why is telling some people they don't have a right others have NOT
> > > discrimination?
> >
> > Everybody (of age) has the same right to marry somebody of the opposite ---.
>
> This is no more responsive to the question than "Everybody (of age) has
> the same right to marry somebody of their same race" was 50 years ago.

Fine. But if ending discrimination is the goal, than why should siblings be
prevented from marriage? What if they want to get all of these legal marriage
benifits? Either marriage is between a man and a woman, or it is not. And it if
is not, than there are others besides gays that deserve its benefits. Because if
banning marriage of gays is discriminatory, than banning marriage of consenting
adults in parties greater than two etc. certainly is too.

 

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:

> Fine. But if ending discrimination is the goal, than why should
> siblings be prevented from marriage?

Clear and present public health reasons.

> Because if banning marriage of gays is discriminatory, than banning
> marriage of consenting adults in parties greater than two etc. certainly
> is too.

Is this supposed to be scary and/or threatening? If so, why? Or is it just
another one of those things that you think should be illegal because you
think it's icky or whatever and it's been that way for as long as you can
remember?

DS

 

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:

> Fine. But if ending discrimination is the goal, than why should
> siblings be prevented from marriage?

Clear and present public health reasons.

> Because if banning marriage of gays is discriminatory, than banning
> marriage of consenting adults in parties greater than two etc. certainly
> is too.

Is this supposed to be scary and/or threatening? If so, why? Or is it just
another one of those things that you think should be illegal because you
think it's icky or whatever and it's been that way for as long as you can
remember?

DS

 

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:

> Fine. But if ending discrimination is the goal, than why should
> siblings be prevented from marriage?

Clear and present public health reasons.

> Because if banning marriage of gays is discriminatory, than banning
> marriage of consenting adults in parties greater than two etc. certainly
> is too.

Is this supposed to be scary and/or threatening? If so, why? Or is it just
another one of those things that you think should be illegal because you
think it's icky or whatever and it's been that way for as long as you can
remember?

DS

 

Daniel, Greg, Lloyd.

*Please* remove rec.autos.makers.jeep+****** from your discussions. We
really are not interested.
I'm asking this in the nicest possible way.

David.


"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0312060131380.19494-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
>
> > Fine. But if ending discrimination is the goal, than why should
> > siblings be prevented from marriage?
>
> Clear and present public health reasons.
>
> > Because if banning marriage of gays is discriminatory, than banning
> > marriage of consenting adults in parties greater than two etc. certainly
> > is too.
>
> Is this supposed to be scary and/or threatening? If so, why? Or is it just
> another one of those things that you think should be illegal because you
> think it's icky or whatever and it's been that way for as long as you can
> remember?
>
> DS
>
>

 

Daniel, Greg, Lloyd.

*Please* remove rec.autos.makers.jeep+****** from your discussions. We
really are not interested.
I'm asking this in the nicest possible way.

David.


"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0312060131380.19494-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
>
> > Fine. But if ending discrimination is the goal, than why should
> > siblings be prevented from marriage?
>
> Clear and present public health reasons.
>
> > Because if banning marriage of gays is discriminatory, than banning
> > marriage of consenting adults in parties greater than two etc. certainly
> > is too.
>
> Is this supposed to be scary and/or threatening? If so, why? Or is it just
> another one of those things that you think should be illegal because you
> think it's icky or whatever and it's been that way for as long as you can
> remember?
>
> DS
>
>

 

Daniel, Greg, Lloyd.

*Please* remove rec.autos.makers.jeep+****** from your discussions. We
really are not interested.
I'm asking this in the nicest possible way.

David.


"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0312060131380.19494-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
>
> > Fine. But if ending discrimination is the goal, than why should
> > siblings be prevented from marriage?
>
> Clear and present public health reasons.
>
> > Because if banning marriage of gays is discriminatory, than banning
> > marriage of consenting adults in parties greater than two etc. certainly
> > is too.
>
> Is this supposed to be scary and/or threatening? If so, why? Or is it just
> another one of those things that you think should be illegal because you
> think it's icky or whatever and it's been that way for as long as you can
> remember?
>
> DS
>
>