XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: alt.survival   
   From: davidjhughes.tx@netzero.com   
      
   On 9/24/2014 12:15 PM, Just Wondering wrote:   
   > On 9/24/2014 11:00 AM, deep wrote:   
   >> On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 08:12:30 -0700, "Wayne"    
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> Assume that man A has the right to marry a woman, and man B has the   
   >>> right to   
   >>> marry a woman.   
   >>>   
   >>> In what weird world of logic does that mean that man A has a right to   
   >>> marry   
   >>> man B?   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >> Because they are still people.   And the law says we have the   
   >> responsibility to treat all people equally.   
   >>   
   > We already do.  All people have always had the right to marry.  Marriage   
   > by definition is between a man and a woman.   
      
   Or a man and multiple women, or a woman and multiple men, or multiple   
   men and multiple women.   
      
      There has never been a law   
   > against a homosexual man or woman marrying.   
      
   Incorrect, in some countries at some times, a homosexual man marrying a   
   heterosexual woman was legally fraud.   
      
      Just like anyone else, if a   
   > homosexual man wants to marry, he has to find a woman to do it with. And   
   > if a homosexual woman wants to marry, she has to find a man to do it   
   > with.  There of any number of examples of homosexuals marrying that way.   
   >   Similarly, a heterosexual man has never had a right to "marry" another   
   > man, and a heterosexual woman has never had a right to "marry" another   
   > woman.  By definition, a man-man relationship, and a woman-woman   
   > relationship, is not marriage.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)