XPost: alt.fan.britney-spears, alt.fan.madonna, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   XPost: alt.politics, alt.politics.bush, alt.politics.clinton   
   XPost: soc.culture.jewish   
   From: jonathanheroldREMOVECAPS@cox.net   
      
   "Chriz"  wrote in message   
   news:c1kgfq$1j1k8s$1@ID-207118.news.uni-berlin.de...   
   >   
   > ""MIDIcian" (tm)"  wrote in message   
   > news:c1juis$lgg$0@pita.alt.net...   
   > > Your dictionary is attempting to redefine the word "marriage" to a more   
   > > conservative word than it really is.   
   > >   
   > > BTW:  A descendent of Webster was at the what was it, 1993 Republic   
   > > convention (the convention that elected Clinton the 2nd time (because   
   they   
   > > put up Dole and only ran on an anti-Clinton/Liberal (which Clinton   
   isn't,   
   > > btw (he's a moderate)) campaign.   
   >   
   > Wasn't the Bible the first and most accurate definition of what marriage   
   was   
   > about?   
   >   
   >   
      
   no.  marriage is a function of society and religion to control the inherent   
   instinctual actions of males.  According to the process of adaptation and/or   
   evolution, the more fit male will procreate with more females, thus   
   spreading his seed further and creating physical healthier babies.  marriage   
   is a function of society in that it controls the natural male behavior of   
   impregnation then moving on, thus protecting the female from desertion.   
   this is an acceptable and, in some ways, very necessary thing, but religion   
   got a hold of it and made up all this sacred shit about it.  the male's   
   desire to have affairs is quite natural, and women's desire to have monogamy   
   is quite natural, given the different evolutionary instincts of these two   
   very different creatures.  but the man's side of it is the one deemed not   
   acceptable.  once again, things on a mass scale are done to please women,   
   disregarding men's instincts and the women still bitch about equality as   
   they sob in front of the judge and get 70% of every thing that the hapless   
   husband worked for.  I'd like to tell you about toilet seats.  if i walk   
   into a bathroom and the seat is down, then i am inconvenienced by having to   
   lift it up.  but then, as if that weren't enough, i have to put it back down   
   to avoid the women being inconvenienced.  what?  wouldn't it make more sense   
    for each party to do half the work?  if i walk in and the seat is down, i   
   put it up.  she walks in and the seat is up, then she puts it down.  that   
   makes sense and is fair.  that, in and of itself, is enough of a reason for   
   most women to dislike the idea.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)