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.

> 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?

> 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"?

> 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.