🚀 go-pugleaf

Norman Gall wrote:
> 
> In article <3528F6F2.8534CDCF@netcom.com>, Gordon@netcom.com wrote:
> 
> > Norman Gall wrote:
> 
> > > Same thing, since non-heterosexual marriage has nothing more to do with
> > > anyone else than does heterosexual marriage.
> 
> > The definition of marriage includes only one male and one female.
> 
> The legal definition does, but there are thousands of same-sex couples
> living as married. We can simply change the law.

'WE' could change the law, but only if 'WE' change the term.

> > If
> > those engaging in homosexual activity want to use the word marriage they
> > are out of luck. They need to come up with another term.
> >
> > Redifinition of terms is a good negotiating ploy though.
> 
> Hardly one of negotiation.  There are lots of terms that have changed
> their meanings in law and elsewhere - even persons not legally married can
> be considered spouses under certain laws. The removal of the arbitrary
> condition of opposite-sex completes the move.

I don't believe the 'condition' was arbitrary.

> > > > >The keyword here is 'predator'. They'll always have the right to
> > > > >'discrimiante' on that basis - just not on the basis of orientation.
> > > >
> > > > But they _should_ have the right to discriminate on that basis.
> > >
> > > But why?
> >
> > If a society says that one cannot discriminate based on behaviour,
> 
> But no one does. No one is advocating the repeal of the CCC.
> 
> > who decides which behaviour?
> 
> Ummm... the legislature. The same people who brought you the CCC.

This would then imply a majority of voters?
 
> > Poor service in a restaurant means too bad you
> > MUST still patronize the business. Someone convicted of theft MUST be
> > allowed to work in a financial institution?
> 
> Yawn.  You should really try to get a grip on the concept of relevance.

You mean like perception is one's reality?

Gordon.