Just some questions that I didn't think were asked. High sensitivty arises in these discussions.
And, personally, I don't believe State should mess with: 1. Marriage 2. People's bedrooms. And a few other things. Because state will infringe on people's right to choose these things. But that's another 2 cents.... Yves On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 13:53:35 -0500, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Yves Arsenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 1:39 PM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: Re: Gay Marriage( Was: Re: Activist Judges) > > > > Nope. > > > > But the relation between male and female organs are what I was > > speaking about. The sex relation in general. > > Condensing a serious social issue down to "slot A, tab B" just seems > ridiculous (and offensive) to me. > > Does the text-book application of sex really play that large a role in your > life? > > > I don't even know if this is any argument, other than the fact that > > the 2 relations are infact different. And, that if it is a part of > > marriage (and in general it is a big part of marriage) then using the > > word equal doesn't fit with the facts. > > It is not a big part of "marriage" - it's a big part of relationships, > period (whether married or not, committed or not, straight or not). However > it is a non-existence part of state-defined marriage in the US. > > No marriages are "equal" experientially - this isn't a discussion about the > equality of the marriage experience (it can't be). My marriage is not > "equal" to any other heterosexuals even tho, yes, I sometimes place my penis > in my wife's vagina. > > Why should this specific aspect of sex - the ability to place penis in > vagina - change the fundamental definition of marriage while the millions of > other differences don't? Why should this force a new definition when the > existence or absence of children, social standing, careers, financial > stability, location, race, and millions of other things do not? > > This is an argument about the equality of access and benefits. No sexual > requirements exist to get married or to gain the governmental benefits of > marriage. > > Let's remember that that's what we're talking about: state recognized > marriage, not religiously-recognized marriage. While some religions have > placed a "mulitiply" mandate on their parishioners the state has not. > > Jim Davis > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Purchase Dreamweaver with Homesite Plus from House of Fusion, a Macromedia Authorized Affiliate and support the CF community. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=54 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:148216 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
