81.bb.dnainternet.fi> 94e3e3cd   
   XPost: rec.audio.opinion, alt.religion.scientology   
   From: jennconductsREMOVETHIS@mac.com   
      
   In article ,   
    flipper  wrote:   
      
   > On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 20:38:34 -0700 (PDT), Jenn    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   > >On Aug 26, 8:21 pm, flipper  wrote:   
   > >> On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 19:11:00 -0700, Jenn   
   > >>   
   > >>   
   > >>   
   > >>   
   > >>   
   > >>  wrote:   
   > >> >In article <5u1e76hjc3mb3j37qdu0ujvqein31at...@4ax.com>,   
   > >> > flipper  wrote:   
   > >>   
   > >> >> On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:59:07 -0700, Jenn   
   > >> >>  wrote:   
   > >>   
   > >> >> >In article ,   
   > >> >> > flipper  wrote:   
   > >>   
   > >> >> >> On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:26:35 -0700, Jenn   
   > >> >> >>  wrote:   
   > >>   
   > >> >> >> >In article <9htd76lulep5ob2l6fibsbgjout0d22...@4ax.com>,   
   > >> >> >> > flipper  wrote:   
   > >>   
   > >> >> >> >> On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:41:47 -0700, Jenn   
   > >> >> >> >>  wrote:   
   > >>   
   > >> >> >> >> >In article <4c76d51a.153638...@news.eternal-september.org>,   
   > >> >> >> >> > s...@spam.com (Don Pearce) wrote:   
   > >>   
   > >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:47:42 +0100, Eeyore   
   > >> >> >> >> >>  wrote:   
   > >>   
   > >> >> >> >> >> >Soundhaspriority ( the real one ? )wrote:   
   > >>   
   > >> >> >> >> >> >> Even worse, we shouldn't have a system where people with   
   > >> >> >> >> >> >> defective   
   > >> >> >> >> >> >> genes   
   > >> >> >> >> >> >> (the homos) are reproducing using these defective genes by   
   > >> >> >> >> >> >> artificial   
   > >> >> >> >> >> >> means,   
   > >> >> >> >> >> >> or otherwise.   
   > >>   
   > >> >> >> >> >> >I know there's a 'redhead gene' but one for homosexuality ?   
   > >> >> >> >> >> >How   
   > >> >> >> >> >> >about   
   > >> >> >> >> >> >bisexuals too ? False argument methinks.   
   > >>   
   > >> >> >> >> >> >Graham   
   > >>   
   > >> >> >> >> >> A gene for homosexuality would disappear from the pool pretty   
   > >> >> >> >> >> quickly,   
   > >> >> >> >> >> one would imagine. A bit like a gene for infertility.   
   > >>   
   > >> >> >> >> >> d   
   > >>   
   > >> >> >> >> >That might be true if gay people never parented children.   
   > >>   
   > >> >> >> >> Not really because it could be recessive.   
   > >>   
   > >> >> >> >True.   
   > >>   
   > >> >> >> There's also experimental evidence to suggest it's environmental or,   
   > >> >> >> if genetic, environmentally triggered as you can alter the incidence   
   > >> >> >> in rats by manipulating population density.   
   > >>   
   > >> >> >> Humans are, of course, more complex but that would indicate it,   
   > >> >> >> assuming genetic, could propagate 'the common way', absent   
   > >> >> >> environmental triggers, even if dominate.   
   > >>   
   > >> >> >> That also suggests if population density is a consistent trigger it   
   > >> >> >> could be a 'natural' population control mechanism. Or not. No one   
   > >> >> >> really knows.   
   > >>   
   > >> >> >> The oxymoron "gay marriage" is an altogether different issue,   
   > >> >> >> though.   
   > >>   
   > >> >> >As opposed to the moronic (without the oxy) legal argument against it.   
   > >> >> >;-)   
   > >>   
   > >> >> So far, the only thing 'moronic' is your suggestion that any differing   
   > >> >> opinion is, without even having heard it, 'moronic'.   
   > >>   
   > >> >Oh, I've heard the legal arguments.  Why would you jump to the   
   > >> >conclusion that I consider any opinion different than mine to be moronic?   
   > >>   
   > >> Because you said as much.   
   > >>   
   > >> >> I said "oxymoron." a figure of speech that combines   
   > >> >> normally-contradictory terms,   
   > >>   
   > >> >I know the word.  I was doing a "play" on the word.   
   > >>   
   > >> >> because it is.   
   > >>   
   > >> >> Marriage is, and has been for thousands of years, defined as a   
   > >> >> heterosexual relationship with "gay," by definition, 'monosexual', so   
   > >> >> the term, substituting definitions, claims a "monosexual heterosexual   
   > >> >> relationship."   
   > >>   
   > >> >Have you looked up the definition of monosexual?  I happen to be   
   > >> >monosexual, and I presume that you are as well, since most people are.   
   > >>   
   > >> I used it as an adjective to relationship and you know darn good and   
   > >> well what was meant by it.   
   > >   
   > >Kind of like you knew darn good and well that the onymoron/moron thing   
   > >was a play on words, right?   
   >   
   > Nice try but that's not a 'play on words', it's just an opportunistic   
   > excuse for using it.   
   >   
   > >Bottom line:  definitions change.   
   >   
   > Then give it a few thousand years.   
   >   
   > If and when definitions change they do so gradually through colloquial   
   > usage and not by arbitrarily deciding it suits someone's political   
   > goals to mangle the language.   
   >   
   > >  There is no logical reason to not   
   > >legalize same-sex marriage.   
   >   
   > There are lots of logical reasons with one being there is no such   
   > thing as "same-sex marriage" and it's Orwellian newspeak gibberish to   
   > mangle the language.   
   >   
   > Too bad we didn't think of this 50 years ago. We could have solved the   
   > 'race problem' by simply declaring everyone is 'white'.   
   >   
   > >  The Prop. 8 decision states it perfectly.   
   >   
   > The Prop 8 decision is 'PC' gibberish.   
      
   I see, counselor.   
      
   Did Loving vs. Virginia "mangle the language"?  Was it "PC gibberish"?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)