Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>
>>Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>
>>>>And to the guy who wants to marry his sister, or his dog, or a tree, or
>>>>a rock - what do you tell him?
>
>
>>>You tell him, Bill, that his dog, his tree or his rock is not sentient and
>>>is therefore unable to give consent, and that family members are
>>>prohibited from intermarrying for medical reasons.
>
>
>>Well if the medical thing was used in the past to prevent racially mixed
>>marriage, then, by liberal logic, "medical reasons" can never be used
>>for denail of alleged rights in any "rights" issue in the future,
>>because we all know that if a = b, then d = f (by liberal logic).
>
>
> The above paragraph consists of you railing against something that has not
> been argued -- at least you've not provided a cite for any such an
> argument. It seems to be something you're afraid might be argued.
>
>
>>Oh, but Daniel - he disagrees with you about the sentient part,
>
>
> Your comparison of homosexual people to dogs, trees and rocks is noted.

Nice try, Daniel, but dishonest.

You're trying to divert attention away from my very valid point that the
criteria that you imply for "marriage" (i.e., must be two *humans*, both
parties must be sentient) are no less arbitrary than the criteria that a
marriage must be between one man and one woman. I claim, although,
tongue in cheek, that you are trying to impose your very narrow and
chauvinistic beliefs (what the hell - call them your own religious
beliefs) on others. It's a valid point - deal with it rather than
trying the shell game.

Same thing with age. If you say that a minor can't consent, with no
other standard to go on, aren't you imposing your own adultist view on
others? To throw out all rules imposed by personal belief systems means
that sadult ought ot be able to marry minors. And any attempt by you to
rationalize such a taboo would be like the arguments that people give
for not allowing marriage to be anything but one man/one woman.

One other thing - the taboo on brother and sister marrying (for medical
reasons) - that presents another dilemma for liberals: So why not
brother "marrying" brother, or sister "marrying" sister - no medical
problem there since no children can be produced by that "relationship"
(we'll overlook for the moment one of the main purposes of true
marriage)? The liberal dilemma is that that would be "sexually"
discriminatory because - hey - you're allowing bro and bro but not bro
and sis - clearly a case of sexual discrimination in liberal/ACLU-think.
So by liberal/ACLU-think, you'd then have to allow sis and sis
"marriage". And, once again, to not allow bro on bro would be imposing
your narrow-minded view on others.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---