XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: alt.survival   
   From: ingilt@yahoo.co.uk   
      
   On 24/09/2014 19:32, RD Sandman wrote:   
   > Just Wondering  wrote in   
   > news:5422fc1f$0$16445$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net:   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > Marriage between  a man and woman is a religious construct for the   
   > purposes of procreation.  Unfortunately over the years people have made   
   > it become a legal one.  Not everyone follows the Christian bible....see   
   > Mormonism, or Islam.   
      
   Or indeed the Old Testament part of the bible: many of its heroes and   
   prophets indulged in multiple wives, surrogate motherhood and other   
   shenanigans the modern churches forbid.   
      
   You're wrong about your definition, though: marriage is not a religious   
   construct per se.  The god-botherers want to define the debate in those   
   terms, and they are dead wrong.  Within the confines of their faith,   
   they have a certain definition, but in civil society marriage is a   
   contract, and no more.  Historically, it has always been a construction   
   to organise and dispose of very practical issues such as inheritance,   
   rights and duties, assets and liabilities, and suchlike.  The farmer's   
   daughter marries the neighbouring farmer's son because it takes two to   
   work a farm and keep the lands together.  The merchant marries his   
   daughter off to his journeyman in order to ensure the continuation of   
   his business.  These concerns are not at all religious but of huge   
   practical and social importance, even today.   
      
      
   >   
   >    There has never   
   >> been a law against a homosexual man or woman marrying.  Just like   
   >> anyone else, if a homosexual man wants to marry, he has to find a   
   >> woman to do it with.   
   >   
   > Why would that be?  Simply to use the term "marriage"?  Here is the   
   > definition of "marriage" per Sage:   
   >   
   > marriage -   
   >   
   > 1.  The act of marrying, the nuptial ceremony.   
   > 2.  Two people who are married to each other.   
   > 3.  The state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or   
   > until divorce).   
   > 4.  A close and intimate union.   
   >   
   >   And if a homosexual woman wants to marry, she has   
   >> to find a man to do it with.   
   >   
   > Why?  If the purpose of the marriage is not procreation what difference   
   > does it make...the sex of the couples?   
   >   
   >    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.   
   >   
   > Interesting.......I just provided four definitions above and not one of   
   > them says that.   
   >   
      
   See mo comment above: because he tries to pull the believers' trick of   
   conflating the two different concepts of religious and civil marriage,   
   and thus to impose his version on the rest of us.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)