Brandon Sommerville wrote:

>
> >Gay marriages wouldn't have gay divorces too?
>
> Irrelevant. The point was that marriage is apparently something too
> valuable to risk tampering with. At a 50% failure rate, society
> apparently doesn't consider it to be that valuable anymore.

How would introducing gay marriage improve said "failure" rate? What is the
magic percentage needed to necessitate gay marriage?

 

Brandon Sommerville wrote:

>
> >Gay marriages wouldn't have gay divorces too?
>
> Irrelevant. The point was that marriage is apparently something too
> valuable to risk tampering with. At a 50% failure rate, society
> apparently doesn't consider it to be that valuable anymore.

How would introducing gay marriage improve said "failure" rate? What is the
magic percentage needed to necessitate gay marriage?

 

Brandon Sommerville wrote:

>
> >Gay marriages wouldn't have gay divorces too?
>
> Irrelevant. The point was that marriage is apparently something too
> valuable to risk tampering with. At a 50% failure rate, society
> apparently doesn't consider it to be that valuable anymore.

How would introducing gay marriage improve said "failure" rate? What is the
magic percentage needed to necessitate gay marriage?

 

Brandon Sommerville wrote:

> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 12:23:43 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>
> >x-no-archive: yes
> >
> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> >> An interesting question. Now that I think about it, incest was fairly
> >> common amongst royalty in a number of different cultures.
> >>
> >> Do I support it? No. Why? Because it's far simpler to ban
> >> incestuous marriages in total than to just ban specific types based on
> >> testing. Suppose the tests were wrong?
> >
> >It's far simpler to discriminate, in other words. Why can't Jeff marry his brother Jerry?
> >Besides who says that the siblings would need be incestous?
>
> That's kind of the point of marriage, isn't it?
>
> >What if they just want those
> >rights that the gay lobby claims are available only by marriage?
>
> Then let them lobby for it.
>
> >> Now, back to the real question, what do you specifically have against
> >> gay marriage?
> >
> >The inconsistencies of the arguments being used to promote it (gays need to get "married"
> >to get the legal benefits, but providing the legal benefits doesn't seem to be good
> >enough), claiming the need to redefine words but only narrowly when convenient, among other
> >reasons already mentioned here.
>
> None of this explains why it is so repugnant to so many that gays be
> allowed to be legally married. Is your concept of marriage (a
> relationship between two people who love each other) so weak that it
> is threatened by gays expressing those same feelings and wanting to be
> recognized in the same fashion?

Negative, nor is that what I said.

 

Brandon Sommerville wrote:

> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 12:23:43 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>
> >x-no-archive: yes
> >
> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> >> An interesting question. Now that I think about it, incest was fairly
> >> common amongst royalty in a number of different cultures.
> >>
> >> Do I support it? No. Why? Because it's far simpler to ban
> >> incestuous marriages in total than to just ban specific types based on
> >> testing. Suppose the tests were wrong?
> >
> >It's far simpler to discriminate, in other words. Why can't Jeff marry his brother Jerry?
> >Besides who says that the siblings would need be incestous?
>
> That's kind of the point of marriage, isn't it?
>
> >What if they just want those
> >rights that the gay lobby claims are available only by marriage?
>
> Then let them lobby for it.
>
> >> Now, back to the real question, what do you specifically have against
> >> gay marriage?
> >
> >The inconsistencies of the arguments being used to promote it (gays need to get "married"
> >to get the legal benefits, but providing the legal benefits doesn't seem to be good
> >enough), claiming the need to redefine words but only narrowly when convenient, among other
> >reasons already mentioned here.
>
> None of this explains why it is so repugnant to so many that gays be
> allowed to be legally married. Is your concept of marriage (a
> relationship between two people who love each other) so weak that it
> is threatened by gays expressing those same feelings and wanting to be
> recognized in the same fashion?

Negative, nor is that what I said.

 

Brandon Sommerville wrote:

> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 12:23:43 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>
> >x-no-archive: yes
> >
> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> >> An interesting question. Now that I think about it, incest was fairly
> >> common amongst royalty in a number of different cultures.
> >>
> >> Do I support it? No. Why? Because it's far simpler to ban
> >> incestuous marriages in total than to just ban specific types based on
> >> testing. Suppose the tests were wrong?
> >
> >It's far simpler to discriminate, in other words. Why can't Jeff marry his brother Jerry?
> >Besides who says that the siblings would need be incestous?
>
> That's kind of the point of marriage, isn't it?
>
> >What if they just want those
> >rights that the gay lobby claims are available only by marriage?
>
> Then let them lobby for it.
>
> >> Now, back to the real question, what do you specifically have against
> >> gay marriage?
> >
> >The inconsistencies of the arguments being used to promote it (gays need to get "married"
> >to get the legal benefits, but providing the legal benefits doesn't seem to be good
> >enough), claiming the need to redefine words but only narrowly when convenient, among other
> >reasons already mentioned here.
>
> None of this explains why it is so repugnant to so many that gays be
> allowed to be legally married. Is your concept of marriage (a
> relationship between two people who love each other) so weak that it
> is threatened by gays expressing those same feelings and wanting to be
> recognized in the same fashion?

Negative, nor is that what I said.

 

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 19:34:36 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 12:23:43 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>> >
>> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:

>> >> Now, back to the real question, what do you specifically have against
>> >> gay marriage?
>> >
>> >The inconsistencies of the arguments being used to promote it (gays need to get "married"
>> >to get the legal benefits, but providing the legal benefits doesn't seem to be good
>> >enough), claiming the need to redefine words but only narrowly when convenient, among other
>> >reasons already mentioned here.
>>
>> None of this explains why it is so repugnant to so many that gays be
>> allowed to be legally married. Is your concept of marriage (a
>> relationship between two people who love each other) so weak that it
>> is threatened by gays expressing those same feelings and wanting to be
>> recognized in the same fashion?
>
>Negative, nor is that what I said.

I know it's not what you said. It's just that none of the arguments
presented seem to be a substantive reason not to allow them to get
married, just a desperate attempt to maintain the status quo.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 19:34:36 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 12:23:43 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>> >
>> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:

>> >> Now, back to the real question, what do you specifically have against
>> >> gay marriage?
>> >
>> >The inconsistencies of the arguments being used to promote it (gays need to get "married"
>> >to get the legal benefits, but providing the legal benefits doesn't seem to be good
>> >enough), claiming the need to redefine words but only narrowly when convenient, among other
>> >reasons already mentioned here.
>>
>> None of this explains why it is so repugnant to so many that gays be
>> allowed to be legally married. Is your concept of marriage (a
>> relationship between two people who love each other) so weak that it
>> is threatened by gays expressing those same feelings and wanting to be
>> recognized in the same fashion?
>
>Negative, nor is that what I said.

I know it's not what you said. It's just that none of the arguments
presented seem to be a substantive reason not to allow them to get
married, just a desperate attempt to maintain the status quo.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 19:34:36 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 12:23:43 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>> >
>> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:

>> >> Now, back to the real question, what do you specifically have against
>> >> gay marriage?
>> >
>> >The inconsistencies of the arguments being used to promote it (gays need to get "married"
>> >to get the legal benefits, but providing the legal benefits doesn't seem to be good
>> >enough), claiming the need to redefine words but only narrowly when convenient, among other
>> >reasons already mentioned here.
>>
>> None of this explains why it is so repugnant to so many that gays be
>> allowed to be legally married. Is your concept of marriage (a
>> relationship between two people who love each other) so weak that it
>> is threatened by gays expressing those same feelings and wanting to be
>> recognized in the same fashion?
>
>Negative, nor is that what I said.

I know it's not what you said. It's just that none of the arguments
presented seem to be a substantive reason not to allow them to get
married, just a desperate attempt to maintain the status quo.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 19:33:44 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:

>
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
>>
>> >Gay marriages wouldn't have gay divorces too?
>>
>> Irrelevant. The point was that marriage is apparently something too
>> valuable to risk tampering with. At a 50% failure rate, society
>> apparently doesn't consider it to be that valuable anymore.
>
>How would introducing gay marriage improve said "failure" rate? What is the
>magic percentage needed to necessitate gay marriage?

It wouldn't. The point is that marriage is no longer held to be a
truly sacred institution by society any more. If it was, there
wouldn't be so much failure.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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