Index of SPPS Budget Discussion http://www.e-democracy.org/stpaul/spps-posts.html _________________________________________
Thomas Swift writes: >> The question is what type of >> environment do we want to encourage for our children: >> two Bobs or two Alice's or one Bob and one Alice. This argument is a red herring ... we should focus on the love and caring of the parents for the child. There is no indication that the ability to love and care for a child is dependent upon heterosexuality. >> No matter how you feel about the root >> cause of homosexuality, you cannot deny the fact that >> whom we choose to have relationships, sexual or >> otherwise are based on decisions we have control over. No matter how you try to objectify it, your argument still assumes a "choice" being made by the gay person. I don't think there's a hope of convincing opponents of same-sex marriages of the fallacy of this argument. >>And let's do take sex out of the equation. Once we >>redefine the marriage contract to include all of these >>chaste homosexuals just what argument are you going to >>use to deny this new contract to polygamists, family >>members or any other combination of beings the human >>mind can conjure? The polygamy argument (and the vague "things much worse" argument that Senator Bachman leaps to in her little video homily on the amendment) are just more red herrings. While it makes for effective demagoguery, there's no logical connection. Rick Mons Tanglewood neighborhood of Shoreview _____________________________________________ SPPS Budget Reduction Forum - Feb. 23-27 Co-Sponsored By NEAT: http://www.stpaulneat.org/ _____________________________________________ NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
