🚀 go-pugleaf

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/)
  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