🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Dq0Lu9.DB@mtcc.com>, mike@mtcc.com (Michael Thomas) says:
>
>Bob Cormack (bob@compopt.com) wrote:
>> I don't believe that there is any precedent relationship here at all.
>> If marriage were a civil right regardless of who was married to whom,
>> then marriage should be extended to any and all, including animals,> inanimate objects, etc.

>  You know that somebody can't think beyond their own
>navel lint when they can't differentiate between fags
>and animals and/or inanimate objects.

>  Hey Bob, fags are human, aren't they?

>  Right Bob? Hey Bob, I don't hear you!

>> In fact, there is a very long tradition of
>> marriage being limited to a man and a woman

>  Blah, blah. And there was a long tradition of
>Christians persecuting Jews, white boys enslaving black
>people, and Europeans using "manifest destiny" to kill
>whichever natives got in their way.
>  "Tradition" doesn't count for jack shit. 

>> Hoping for a legal coup declaring that everyone must accept
>> same-sex marriages without addressing the deeper issue is useless -- 

>  If you're idea of "deeper issues" is to bring up
>idiotic slippery slope arguments that involve legal
>and social arrangements between humans and inanimate
>objects, you probably ought not be allowed to marry
>anybody either -- your brain has slipped into the
>"inanimate" category.

>> even if it succeeded temporarily, it would trigger a legislative
>> backlash that would eventually nullify the court's decision.

>  "Segregation now and forever!"
-- 
>Michael Thomas  (mike@mtcc.com http://www.mtcc.com/~mike/)

Congratulations, Mike.  An excellent example of a polarizing argument
that does not even attempt to change anyone's mind.  You are obviously
more concerned with putting me down with personal attacks than you are
in making any progress toward the goal that you (presumably) want.
If indeed you are in favor of same-sex marriages, then the best course
of action you can take to further this goal is to shut up.  (Of course,
you may be an agent provocateur, in which case you are doing just fine.)

If this is your idea of intelligence, then I'm not in the least disturbed
by your opinion of mine.

Bob Cormack