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 =---