On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 00:35:30 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:

>Siblings cannot either. I don't see you pointing out the 'discrimination' here.

There are significant medical reasons for disallowing siblings to
marry. Are you suggesting that there are similar reasons preventing
gays from marrying?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 00:35:30 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:

>Siblings cannot either. I don't see you pointing out the 'discrimination' here.

There are significant medical reasons for disallowing siblings to
marry. Are you suggesting that there are similar reasons preventing
gays from marrying?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 23:33:26 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
wrote:

>
>
>"C. E. White" wrote:
>
>> Lesbian couples can even have children.
>
>Technically, no. There has to be a real ----- involved somewhere.

Have you never heard of a sperm bank?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 23:33:26 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
wrote:

>
>
>"C. E. White" wrote:
>
>> Lesbian couples can even have children.
>
>Technically, no. There has to be a real ----- involved somewhere.

Have you never heard of a sperm bank?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 23:33:26 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
wrote:

>
>
>"C. E. White" wrote:
>
>> Lesbian couples can even have children.
>
>Technically, no. There has to be a real ----- involved somewhere.

Have you never heard of a sperm bank?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 21:51:16 GMT, "David J. Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:

>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>news:8170e4c810deaf732ac373b4a63f687c@news.terane ws.com...
>> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 17:33:26 GMT, "David J. Allen"
>> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Having a little trouble understanding the argument Lloyd? Let me clarify.
>> >The gay activist agenda is to redefine and rebuild our whole social
>> >structure to abstract out distinction between sexual preference.
>>
>> You keep mentioning this point. Why is this a problem?
>
>For some things it matters. Marriage is one of them. Marriage has a
>distinct value to society that would be diminished without it's focus on the
>traditional family. Where would we go in the long run if we lost that?
>Hard to say, but I believe it would be harmful. It's just my view though.

We're already in the long run now. With divorce rates as high as they
are, marriage has apparently lost whatever sacred aspect there was to
it to society in general.

>> So gay families with either adopted kids or kids from prior
>> relationships don't count?
>
>I'm not for gay adoption and kids from prior marriages don't mean anything
>legally in a new marriage of any stripe. Step parents don't have any legal
>obligations or rights to step children.

They provide a stable environment for those kids to grow up in.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 21:51:16 GMT, "David J. Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:

>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>news:8170e4c810deaf732ac373b4a63f687c@news.terane ws.com...
>> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 17:33:26 GMT, "David J. Allen"
>> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Having a little trouble understanding the argument Lloyd? Let me clarify.
>> >The gay activist agenda is to redefine and rebuild our whole social
>> >structure to abstract out distinction between sexual preference.
>>
>> You keep mentioning this point. Why is this a problem?
>
>For some things it matters. Marriage is one of them. Marriage has a
>distinct value to society that would be diminished without it's focus on the
>traditional family. Where would we go in the long run if we lost that?
>Hard to say, but I believe it would be harmful. It's just my view though.

We're already in the long run now. With divorce rates as high as they
are, marriage has apparently lost whatever sacred aspect there was to
it to society in general.

>> So gay families with either adopted kids or kids from prior
>> relationships don't count?
>
>I'm not for gay adoption and kids from prior marriages don't mean anything
>legally in a new marriage of any stripe. Step parents don't have any legal
>obligations or rights to step children.

They provide a stable environment for those kids to grow up in.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 21:51:16 GMT, "David J. Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:

>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>news:8170e4c810deaf732ac373b4a63f687c@news.terane ws.com...
>> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 17:33:26 GMT, "David J. Allen"
>> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Having a little trouble understanding the argument Lloyd? Let me clarify.
>> >The gay activist agenda is to redefine and rebuild our whole social
>> >structure to abstract out distinction between sexual preference.
>>
>> You keep mentioning this point. Why is this a problem?
>
>For some things it matters. Marriage is one of them. Marriage has a
>distinct value to society that would be diminished without it's focus on the
>traditional family. Where would we go in the long run if we lost that?
>Hard to say, but I believe it would be harmful. It's just my view though.

We're already in the long run now. With divorce rates as high as they
are, marriage has apparently lost whatever sacred aspect there was to
it to society in general.

>> So gay families with either adopted kids or kids from prior
>> relationships don't count?
>
>I'm not for gay adoption and kids from prior marriages don't mean anything
>legally in a new marriage of any stripe. Step parents don't have any legal
>obligations or rights to step children.

They provide a stable environment for those kids to grow up in.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 00:34:45 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <3FCE2318.F0DD5CF7@mindspring.com>,
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >The "new class of civil union" would cover that just fine.
>> >>
>> >> Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
>> >
>> >This statement is the sort of crap uttered by psudeo-liberals that I find
>> >particularly offensive. Trying to redine the word "marriage" to cover same
>> >--- unions is not discrimination.
>> >
>> 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 ---.

Why not just acknowledge that they have the right to marry?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 00:34:45 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <3FCE2318.F0DD5CF7@mindspring.com>,
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >The "new class of civil union" would cover that just fine.
>> >>
>> >> Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
>> >
>> >This statement is the sort of crap uttered by psudeo-liberals that I find
>> >particularly offensive. Trying to redine the word "marriage" to cover same
>> >--- unions is not discrimination.
>> >
>> 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 ---.

Why not just acknowledge that they have the right to marry?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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