-> EC>You insist on using your objections to a sex act as an objection to
-> EC>marriage. THAT is a classic example of a "strawman" argument.
 
-> You are trying to make *ME* the subject of this discussion

Not at all.  You are voicing your objections.  I am discussing those
objections.  A marriage is not a sex act.

-> This is a same-sex sodomite `marriage'.

A marriage is not a sex act.

-> And a male and female couple getting `married' has nothing to do with
sex
-> relations,

Obviously.

-> and the preacher `marrying' them is not a participant in that
-> union, either.

Obviously wrong.  A marriage doesn't happen without someone performing the
marriage.  A marriage can happen without a cake.  Preachers can decline to
perform a marriage for any number of reasons.  And preachers are not public
accommodations.  Which makes your example awfully irrelevant.

-> > By the way...sex between two people of the same sex is `sodomy'. It
has
-> >been defined as such since the days of Abraham and Lot, when the two
-> >cities Sodom and Gommorah were destroyed over the practice of
-> >homosexuality (among other things).

-> EC>Historically incorrect.  The Supreme Court's majority opinion in
Lawrence
-> EC>v Texas goes into the history of sodomy laws.

-> EC>http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas/Opinion_of_the_Court

-> Historically correct. To a devout, practicing Christian, the Bible
supercedes
-> any court of the United States.

-> EC>The term covers different-sex as well as same-sex, as well as a wide
-> EC>variety of specific sex acts.  The application you are making has
only
-> EC>been common in the last few decades.  More generally, through
history, the
-> EC>term has been used for ANY sex act that is not for the purpose of
-> EC>procreation.  If you really want to use the term "sodomite" to apply
to
-> EC>anyone who has given or received oral sex with anyone of either sex,
-> EC>anyone who has engaged in sex where either participant had a
vasectomy or
-> EC>tubal ligation, or where a condom or any other contraceptive was
involved,
-> EC>well, that would be more historically accurate, but it would not
support
-> EC>your argument very well.

The Court was not RULING on the meaning of the word!  The Court was
reviewing the literature on the meaning of the word!

--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)