On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, DTJ wrote:

>> But the same could be said of those who would want the right to marry
>> their dog or their tree (admitedly ridiculous examples

> They are no more ridiculous than *** ------- another man.

If you want to start regulating marriage based on the specific sexual acts
engaged in, you have a *large* job ahead of you, and your work will by no
means be confined to homosexuals.

DS

 

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, DTJ wrote:

> Homosexuality is a mental disorder.

Most of the first world disagrees with you.

> there is proof it is not genetic.

Oh? Go ahead and provide it, then.

T-H-X, DTJ...the audience is listening.

DS

 

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, DTJ wrote:

> Homosexuality is a mental disorder.

Most of the first world disagrees with you.

> there is proof it is not genetic.

Oh? Go ahead and provide it, then.

T-H-X, DTJ...the audience is listening.

DS

 

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, DTJ wrote:

> Homosexuality is a mental disorder.

Most of the first world disagrees with you.

> there is proof it is not genetic.

Oh? Go ahead and provide it, then.

T-H-X, DTJ...the audience is listening.

DS

 

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > > > 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?
> >
> >
> > So why don't the other examples of potential married couples or groups
> > have as much validity as gay "couples". You want to discriminate
> > against those others.
>
> Are you sure?
>
> DS

Heh heh! Good point - I assumed...

But if you're for those other things too (i.e., I can marry my dog, my
cat, my tree, my car, my daughter, my mother...), then it makes it
appear that, truly, you just want to totally gut the institution and any
meaning of the word "marriage". That does appear to be the goal of
some.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

 

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > > > 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?
> >
> >
> > So why don't the other examples of potential married couples or groups
> > have as much validity as gay "couples". You want to discriminate
> > against those others.
>
> Are you sure?
>
> DS

Heh heh! Good point - I assumed...

But if you're for those other things too (i.e., I can marry my dog, my
cat, my tree, my car, my daughter, my mother...), then it makes it
appear that, truly, you just want to totally gut the institution and any
meaning of the word "marriage". That does appear to be the goal of
some.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

 

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > > > 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?
> >
> >
> > So why don't the other examples of potential married couples or groups
> > have as much validity as gay "couples". You want to discriminate
> > against those others.
>
> Are you sure?
>
> DS

Heh heh! Good point - I assumed...

But if you're for those other things too (i.e., I can marry my dog, my
cat, my tree, my car, my daughter, my mother...), then it makes it
appear that, truly, you just want to totally gut the institution and any
meaning of the word "marriage". That does appear to be the goal of
some.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

 

Daniel J Stern wrote:
>
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > > the Religious Reich types.
> >
> > Very Lloyd-like.
>
> *shrug* That's neither here nor there. It's convenient shorthand for those
> who wish to codify their religious beliefs so as to enforce them upon
> those whose beliefs differ. That's all.
>
> > > 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...?
>
> > Nice try at illogic - those are inherited traits, specifically *NOT*
> > activities.
>
> People who are six-foot-four usually duck when passing through low
> doorways or staircases with low-drop headers. People who have blue eyes
> usually put on sunglasses before people with brown eyes. Those are
> behaviors (or "activities") springing from their being 6'4" or blue-eyed,
> respectively.
>
> Surely you're not *really* so crass as to believe that all heterosexual
> --- is an expression of love while all homosexual --- is simply an
> "activity"...are you?

No, but neither do I accept that homosexuality is more than a choice. I
just believe that there is a "natural" order to things.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

 

Daniel J Stern wrote:
>
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > > the Religious Reich types.
> >
> > Very Lloyd-like.
>
> *shrug* That's neither here nor there. It's convenient shorthand for those
> who wish to codify their religious beliefs so as to enforce them upon
> those whose beliefs differ. That's all.
>
> > > 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...?
>
> > Nice try at illogic - those are inherited traits, specifically *NOT*
> > activities.
>
> People who are six-foot-four usually duck when passing through low
> doorways or staircases with low-drop headers. People who have blue eyes
> usually put on sunglasses before people with brown eyes. Those are
> behaviors (or "activities") springing from their being 6'4" or blue-eyed,
> respectively.
>
> Surely you're not *really* so crass as to believe that all heterosexual
> --- is an expression of love while all homosexual --- is simply an
> "activity"...are you?

No, but neither do I accept that homosexuality is more than a choice. I
just believe that there is a "natural" order to things.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

 

Daniel J Stern wrote:
>
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > > the Religious Reich types.
> >
> > Very Lloyd-like.
>
> *shrug* That's neither here nor there. It's convenient shorthand for those
> who wish to codify their religious beliefs so as to enforce them upon
> those whose beliefs differ. That's all.
>
> > > 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...?
>
> > Nice try at illogic - those are inherited traits, specifically *NOT*
> > activities.
>
> People who are six-foot-four usually duck when passing through low
> doorways or staircases with low-drop headers. People who have blue eyes
> usually put on sunglasses before people with brown eyes. Those are
> behaviors (or "activities") springing from their being 6'4" or blue-eyed,
> respectively.
>
> Surely you're not *really* so crass as to believe that all heterosexual
> --- is an expression of love while all homosexual --- is simply an
> "activity"...are you?

No, but neither do I accept that homosexuality is more than a choice. I
just believe that there is a "natural" order to things.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----