BTW. I don't believe I was referring to state requirements.
If the state requirements are the definition of marriage, then it simply wouldn't matter. If this is it: "A state recognized legal commitment between two people, which creates interpersonal responsibilities and civil benefits (taxes, etc)" Then those two sisters I knew who lived together for many years would have been married also. Yves On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 13:59:07 -0500, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Yves Arsenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 1:50 PM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: Re: Gay Marriage( Was: Re: Activist Judges) > > > > I believe I did. > > > > Because they are very different biologically. If we are strickly > > saying marriage is just a choice people make to be together, then > > there is no difference. But there is the sexual biological issue in > > marriage if sex is a big part of marriage. > > Again - sex is a non-existent issue when considering state marriage > requirements and benefits. > > The state doesn't care if your marriage results in sex or children, period. > If you're married and not having sex at all you get the same benefits as > those married and having sex. > > Since there is no change in the requirements or the benefits why should > there be a change in the label? And why only for this and not for the > millions of other things that also do not affect requirements or benefits? > > Jim Davis > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:148221 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=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
