Re: Shapes of a Wedge

From: wallyshoes <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
Date: Sat May 22 2004 - 06:45:18 EDT

Gordon brown wrote:

> On Fri, 21 May 2004, John W Burgeson wrote:
>
> > OTOH, if the possibilities of other unions are set aside, exactly what
> > arguments (except religious ones) can be stated for OPPOSING gay
> > marriage?
>
> Burgy,

For one thing, we now have to reissue all the dictionaries since nobody ever
heard of such a concept in the past history of mankind. Comparing it to
civil rights movements just obscures the real motivations.

Gordon said:

>
>
> Gays talk about rights deriving from marriage that they think they
> deserve, but if they want rights that are not available to celibate
> roommates, aren't they asking for an implied endorsement (or maybe even
> encouragement) of their sexual practices? Maybe the fundamental question
> that should be asked is what interest the government should have in
> officially recognizing any marriage and then whether or not that would
> apply to gays.

There was an article in USA today about the lack of "safety nets" for gay
couples in the "golden years". This has been a recurring theme in the news
up here in Kennedyland. The reason that they want marriage so badly is that
then they too can dip into the Social Security well. Of course the Libbers
up here have no problem with that. The more on the dole the better.

Walt

--
===================================
Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
(Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic
If you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
===================================
Received on Sat May 22 06:45:48 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat May 22 2004 - 06:45:49 EDT