🚀 go-pugleaf

Bob Cormack (bob@compopt.com) wrote:
> 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.

> Congratulations, Mike.  An excellent example of a polarizing argument
> that does not even attempt to change anyone's mind.

  The polarization happened the second that pnews grabbed
your article which implicitly compared two human beings'
desire to be married with a human being and door knob
wanting to tie the knot.
  If you can't see how this is polarizing then you are
an absolute idiot and there is no further point in
"discussing" this.

> 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.

  I'm not interested in "making progress" with somebody
who cannot differentiate two human beings and, say,
a rock and a slug. In your fevered imagination,
homosexuals may be nothing better than animals (I've
certainly heard that one before), but I will not grant
such a cretin a dignified argument which starts off
with me defending whether I'm even on the same par as
"real" human beings.

> 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.

  Yassum Massa! Don't hit Toby!
-- 
Michael Thomas	(mike@mtcc.com http://www.mtcc.com/~mike/)
  Pass the bottle and damn the expense
  I've heard it said by a man of sense
  That the labouring classes could scarce live a day
  If people like us didn't eat, drink and pay
    -- A. H. Clough