🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

> 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.

> > > >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.

> 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.

Norm Gall

-- 
"Never ask a man what sort of computer he drives. If it's a Mac, 
 he'll tell you. If not, why embarrass him?"        - Tom Clancy