The reason your "logic" falls apart is that you're using the wrong comparisons.
Just like your donkey comment, these are all red-herrings and have nothing to do with the actual debate. Just typical disinformation spread by the opponents to prevent discussion of the substance of the issues. Read the Supreme Court decision in Loving vs Virginia. That is the precedent that will prevail. On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Michael Grant [Modus IS] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Scott, how is it bigotry when it's defined as "between a man and a woman." > Always has been. Check the oxford dictionary. This isn't a matter of me > interpreting it differently than its original intent. If we rewrite marriage > to allow gay union, should we also rewrite it to accommodate polygamy? > Should we also rewrite it allow for multiple couples in swinger > relationships to have a single union? You'll no doubt say that's ridiculous, > but why is it any different. If you are gay it's "the way you were born," > well the urge to have multiple wives or group relationships may also be "the > way you were born." I just don't think it should be changed. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:280935 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
