🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4l6vkq$dis@boulder.earthnet.net>, bob@compopt.com (Bob Cormack) writes:
> Well David, since I respect your opinion (and you managed to reply without
> gratituous insults) I apologize for the "inaminate object" phrase.  It 
> wasn't meant to be offensive, and I'm sorry if you took it that way.

Actually, I'm not really that offended I guess.  I was more exasperated by the
debate taking what I saw as being several steps back.  Thanks for the apology.

> For your information, someone did once try to marry a horse in Boulder.

How quaint!

> 
> My main point (which I notice that nobody has addressed) is that hetero-
> sexual marriage is itself restricted -- hardly the hallmark of an
> absolute right.

To address this:  I don't think marriage is an absolute right.  And I
wouldn't argue the merits of same-sex marriage based on this premise.
Thus, there should be no problem with the introduction of same-sex
marriage implying that people have the right to marry anything.  I think
marriage is a "given" right based on several criteria decided on by our
representative government (legislative, judicial, executive).

This is a political issue.  Our task is to convince others that there
are enough worthy gay citizens of this country that want to marry to
justify expanding marriage laws to be inclusive of them.  It is also our
task to show that extending such rights would, on balance, be for the good
of the country.  There are many examples in history where such rights were
given.  Women and minorities have not always had the right to vote.
Segregation was legal in the not-so-distant past.  Inter-racial marriage
has been illegal.

What am I doing to make things happen?  I'm trying to present myself as
a decent gay citizen who's an asset to the community, and I contribute
to the debate whenever I feel I have something of substance to add.  If
enough people will do this, the political climate will change to allow
gay marriage.

> 
> My secondary point was that people who think that same-sex marriage should
> be allowed are a small minority -- insulting everyone else is not going
> to achieve your goals, regardless of how superior it makes you feel.

You're addressing a sensitive subject, and making statements that affect
a group of which (I assume) you're not a member.  This is not a safe
thing to do if you are really bothered by insults.  I'm not saying it's
right to insult you, but I would try not to let it affect my opinion if I were
in your position.  We've been over this, though.

BTW:  I don't think it's that small a minority.  I thought (from the last
statistics I saw) that it was about a 65/35 split, but I don't have any
survey data to back this up.

> 
> As for flaming:  I make it a point never to say anything on the net that
> I wouldn't be willing to say in person.  

Sounds like a good practice.

d.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
David Ensign                            U S WEST Advanced Technologies
4001 Discovery Drive Suite 320                      Boulder, CO  80303
(303) 541-7034 (voice)  (303) 541-6773 (fax)  dave5@advtech.uswest.com