🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3529A8E9.AC0BC0DB@netcom.com>, Gordon@netcom.com wrote:

> Norman Gall wrote:
 
> > 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.

Sure.

> > > 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.

Fine.  But it is now.
 
> > > who decides which behaviour?

> > Ummm... the legislature. The same people who brought you the CCC.

> This would then imply a majority of voters?

Through the hoops and hurdles of Constitutional reform.  People would have
to be extremely well convinced and a very strong and wide spread majority.
 
> > Yawn.  You should really try to get a grip on the concept of relevance.
 
> You mean like perception is one's reality?

Not at all.  How simple.

Norm Gall

-- 
"The Bible is a book that has been read more and examined less than any
 book that ever existed." - Thomas Paine