And that was also part of my point.... One "marriage" involves a civil contract. The other, biological functions.
Government should probably leave it alone. All around tax benefits for people in some form of committed relationship seems to be what they should be concerned with. Yves On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:43:14 -0500, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Yves Arsenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 8:23 PM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: Re: Gay Marriage( Was: Re: Activist Judges) > > > > Jim. > > > > According to many, many, many people who I've heard, seen known... > > > > When they spoke of marriage, it was spoke of in this manner. > > > > Get married, family, etc.... the sexual function of marriage was an > > unavoidable perception of what marriage was. > > > > You are a bit off track with diabeties. Millions of people believe > > that marriage indeed has some relation to this biological function. > > While, I've only heard of you who brought up a diabetic issue. It is a > > bit off subject, for the sake of your argument. > > And millions don't. So what makes one group correct - correct enough to > deprive the other group of the freedoms they cherish? > > Jim Davis > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Stay Ahead of Hackers - Download ZoneAlarm Pro http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=65 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:148376 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
