From: "Patriot Games" 

"Dionisio"  wrote in message
news:46032ce6$0$5820$4c368faf{at}roadrunner.com...
> Patriot Games wrote:
>> "Dionisio"  wrote:
>>>So far, the law's been a bigger burden on the heterosexuals.

>>>It was a vote well-cast.
>> If fags had NOT attacked and demanded the M-word they'd ALREADY have
>> civil unions and be enjoying the rights and priviliges they should have.
> Yeah, yeah...

I think its true.  I think prior to the attack on heterosexual marriage
most people were fairly receptive to homo civil unions.

Maybe I'm wrong?

> Argument: Call it anything you want, just don't call it marriage.

Correct.

> Okay.
> Done.
> "Domestic partnership."

That works too.

> What's that? An "end run" you say? We were just following
your suggestion,
> yet you object to the term. Why?
> Oh, "domestic partnerships treat the people to the same sort of
> obligations and responsibilities that marriage does." Well, yes, that *is*
> the point remember.
> Oh, we went too far? There's something inherently dangerous in making
> same-sex relationships into a social institution advocating responsible
> behavior, or in holding same-sex couples to obligations?
> Don't get so red in the face! What's upset you now? Eh? "Same-sex
couples"
> is a term you find offensive? "Raises an immoral lifestyle choice to
> something seemingly
> on par with the traditional, heterosexual, concept of the term 'couple' "?
> All, right, we'll get back to that. First though, I'd like an answer as to
> how it is undesirable to allow same-sex *persons* (better?) to enter into
> agreements
> that tie them to one another with obligations and responsi...
> Now you're objecting to an "allusion to the heterosexual phrase 'tying the
> knot' "?
> All, right, I'll remember that. Back to the question: How does fostering
> acts of responsibility and obligation between two same-sex people...
> "Because it creates a fake impression -- an illusion -- of respectability,
> and a mockery of marriage." I see.
> So, in other words, we can call it anything we want; but it will always be
> this "mockery" of marriage, and you will oppose it
regardless of its name?
> I see.

I suppose you could find someone who thinks/believes or represents that
weirdness you invented.

I don't.

> So, in other words, you lied. We can't call it anything.
> Well, I guess we'll call it what it's supposed to be then: Marriage.

Correct.  That's our word.  Come up with your own word.

> Why should *we* join the ranks of the fork-tongued? It seems there are
> enough people in
> that immoral lifestyle choice already...

You invented that.

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag