On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 07:09:23 GMT, "Robin" 
wrote:

>
> wrote in message
>news:gocn31999o915d70jb1vds5jmif40fd7lj{at}4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 00:11:56 GMT, Casey
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>brothers will not be able to marry
>>>brothers, sisters will not be able to marry sisters, just
>>>as brothers
>>>cannot marry sisters now...BECAUSE people sharing the same
>>>mother and/or
>>>the same father are prohibited from legal marriage in
>>>Canada
>>
>> Not in homosexual marriage because they cannot procreate.
>> Consequently, the reason for disallowing such unions in
>> same sex
>> marriage is unconstitutional. You kanadians really fucked
>> up, jack.
>
>No it's not.  Who says laws against incest are based
>*solely* upon procreation?  That would be like saying
>marriage itself was based solely upon procreation, which we
>already know is untrue.
>
>Oh and BTW, the original claim that one class is allowed
>something that the other class is denied is *still* 100%
>false; unless of course the law has been declared
>unconstitutional by the courts, and you are the only jackass
>that the court bothered to inform.


Wonderful logic! That means that no homosexual in the US is denied the
right to marry because the laws with infinitely small  exception say
they're not and the SCOTUS has not declared such laws
unconstitutional.

Thank you SOOOOOO MUCH for clearing this up for everyone. I hope you
won't mind me using your quote in future debate. I will be sure and
attribute it to you.




--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/19/05 4:59:07 PM ---