Bill Putney wrote:
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Your comparison of homosexual people to dogs, trees and rocks is
>>>> noted.
>>>
>>> Nice try, Daniel, but dishonest.
>>
>>
>> Not particularly, Bill. I'm not the one who lumped 'em all together;
>> you are.
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> It's "very valid" in your mind, of course, for it's your opinion, but
>> that's all it is. Society is made up of humans. Trees, rocks and
>> dogs are not part of society. Laws are written by humans. Trees,
>> rocks and dogs do not write laws. Religious and political beliefs
>> are held by humans, not by trees, rocks or dogs.
>
> So, once again, you are applying arbitrary criteria. Your limiting
> it
> with your word "society". Someone else could arbitrarily say "I think
> your criteria that both parties have to belong to 'society' as you
> deifne it is much to narrow. I choose to say that it is limited only
> to
> anything on the planet earth". Remember - your standard is that you
> have no standard but someone's opinion. Not my choice, but yours -
> simply holding you to it and not allowing you to step on someone elses
> rights who wants to arbitrarily boundary things by some other criteria
> than what you arbitrarily decide on.
>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> I call your bluff: How?
>
> You can't be this lacking of mental capacity. Just one example is all
> I'm gonna waste time on for you: Cirteria of it has to be between two
> humans. As arbitrary as any other criteria.
>
>>> 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?
>>
>>
>> No standard other than consent is needed. What is so difficult for
>> you about the concept of "consenting adults"?
>
> Not a thing. What you pretend not to understand is that that is an
> arbitrary criteria.
>
>>> 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".
>>
>>
>> Has anyone actually argued this? It sounds like anothr of your
>> tortured hypotheticals.
>
> Nope - just trying to think like an ACLU/liberal, but, you're right -
> it
> is tortured and painful, but that's the way they are - don't shoot the
> messenger.
>
> 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 =---