81.bb.dnainternet.fi> bad8a7b9   
   XPost: rec.audio.opinion, alt.religion.scientology   
   From: jennconductsREMOVETHIS@mac.com   
      
   In article <85hp76pgt7qurlb1uk1chbdm4aetvujnql@4ax.com>,   
    flipper  wrote:   
      
   > On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 07:31:58 -0700, Jenn   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   > >In article <9ljj76dj6g1lpivsl54p3dutrfof7a6u7v@4ax.com>,   
   > > flipper  wrote:   
   > >   
   > >   
   > >> Making new misrepresentations is not an improvement as I was explicit   
   > >> in the discussion of how definitions change over time and usage but   
   > >> that summary declarations for political purposes is not legitimate.   
   > >   
   > >Why do you presume that gay people call their committed relationships   
   > >marriages for political reasons?   
   >   
   > You are either incredibly naive or demagoging and your propensity for   
   > nitpicking selected out of context snippets while avoiding substance   
   > suggests to me the later.   
   >   
   > It is a popular tactic known in political circles as "framing" (the   
   > debate, issue, question, etc) and, besides the oxymoron 'gay   
   > marriage', another good example is (The) Freedom of Choice (Act) and   
   > the companion ballot box slogan "Pro Choice." Well, Katy bar the door,   
   > who in a free society could possibly be against "freedom" and   
   > "choice?" Break out the drum, fife, and unfurl the flag, boys, the   
   > British are coming to take away our "Freedom of Choice."   
   >   
   > Of course, robbing a liquor store is a "choice" too but you don't see   
   > many folks storming up Bunker Hill to defend it. In fact, pretty much   
   > every thing 'illegal' or 'prohibited' involves a matter of "choice"   
   > so, in fact, the 'slogan' has nothing to do with the issue at hand and   
   > is an attempt to force debate around what is nothing more than an   
   > irrational emotional reaction.   
   >   
   > The oxymoron "gay marriage" attempts to 'frame' that debate by trying   
   > to make it virtually impossible to even mention or discuss the matter   
   > without accepting the premise of redefinition and, like "Freedom of   
   > Choice,' seeks to avoid any rational discourse of the actual issue.   
   >   
   > >  Could it be that they do so simply   
   > >because that is how they view them and there is no difference between   
   > >same-sex marriage and hetero marriage, aside from legal issues?   
   >   
   > Besides having given you prima facie proof of the opposite, none of   
   > the "gay people" I know, whether 'activists' or not, are anywhere near   
   > the brainless twits you imply they are, as the popular description of   
   > heterosexuals as "breeders" indicates.   
      
   OF COURSE there is a political aspect to this, as the people making the   
   decisions are doing so as part of the political process.  But your   
   implication that it's all about politics is discounting the effect that   
   this issue has on real people's lives.  Your "definition" argument is   
   simply silly.  Virtually every change in a law changes a definition.   
   Loving v. Virginia changed the definition of marriage.  To ignore that   
   fact is stupid.   
      
   "Breeders"?  lol   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)