XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: alt.survival   
   From: lunch@nofreelunch.us   
      
   On Sun, 28 Sep 2014 10:18:44 -0700, "Wayne"    
   wrote:   
      
   >   
   >   
   >"David J. Hughes"  wrote in message news:w2PVv.315284$y33.307835@fx28.iad...   
   >   
   >On 9/27/2014 10:41 AM, Wayne wrote:   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> "Alex W."  wrote in message news:c8nahmFnvqkU1@mid.individual.net...   
   ...   
   >>>> Ah, you got a hair splitter for Christmas, how nice.   
   >>>> How about they are afforded equal protection under the law.   
   >>>>   
   >>> They already are.  They always have been.  A person's right to marry is   
   >>> not affected by sexual orientation.  A man can marry a woman, and a   
   >>> woman marry a man, regardless of whether either or both of them is   
   >>> heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or any other ___sexual you care to   
   >>> name.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> # To restrict a person's rights by virtue of their anatomy is as primitive   
   >> # and indefensible as restricting their rights by virtue of their religion   
   >> # or skin colour.   
   >>   
   >> Funny you mention religion.  You know damned well that same sex   
   >> "marriage" is a direct attack on religious beliefs.   
   >   
   >   
   ># How do you figure that?   
   ># As along as Bob and Bill, or Jane and Amy, aren't married in your   
   ># church, how does that affect or harm you, your church or your beliefs?   
   >   
   >It equates homosexuality with hetero marriage.  Some churches object to   
   >that.   
      
   So what? Churches don't decide what marriage is in the United States.   
   Sure, the RCC has silly rules, rules that are so silly that the Pope   
   ignores them, but I don't care what any church says about marriage   
   because the law is all that matters.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)