Gee, I can't get past your first objection in the first paragraph, I clearly see the 'linkage', I must be terribly biased or something. You probably want 'citations' or something to authenticate relationship or maybe if the writers had thrown in the logical linkage phrase vis-à-vis it would have made more sense to you.
v/r //SIGNED// Stephen S. Wolfe, YA2, DAF 6th MDG Data Services Manager 6th MDG Information System Security Officer Comm (813) 827-9994 DSN 651-9994 -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nicholas Geti Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 10:11 PM To: ProFox Email List Subject: Re: [OT] Defending Marriage Others have mentioned a few. Here are some more: 1. First paragraph combines "Western cultural and legal history", "proponents want to skip discussion about when life begins", and "most homosexual activists want to skip the argument about when life begins" These are random statements thrown out without any linking them together in one thought. 2. How does this author know whether "most homosexual activists want to skip the arguments about when life begins". 3. What has the argument about when life begins have anything to do with homosexuals wanting to form a union and call it marriage. I have never even heard this argument being used by proponents of homosexual unions. This argument is used by pro-life people, not homosexuals. 4.. Second paragraph. "The law severely restricts who can and can't marry". So what. It is a law not an ipso facto decree by some ethereal being. It is a man-made rule and can be changed if enough people want it so. This is an example of circular reasoning. It is true because it is true. 5. "And marriage necessarily has to be discriminatory. The definition has to exclude..." My question is why does it have to exclude various parties. See item 4 above. 6. "its definition has to exclude other pairings from claiming the benefits given to married couples." Why does it have to exclude other pairings? If enough people want to pass a law giving these same privileges to others, so be it. Whether you call it "marriage" or a "civil union" is irrelevant. The benefits can be assigned by a new law. 7. Too much baloney in the next few paragraphs. So skipping down to "Doctors advertise heavily in homosexual publications, etc, etc." Don't know where the author gets this "fact". I don't know that any of my doctors have even advertised, let alone put ads in these publications. The author will have to back up this statement. 8. "Doctors advertise because homosexuals routinely injures its participants." That is a wild statement. What kind of injuries? I know some homosexuals in the church where my wife works. They are caring, helpful people. 9. "Homosexuals suffer higher rates of depression and suicides" This may be true but it would not have anything to do with being one; if society puts pressure and discriminates against any group, naturally they are going to be depressed. I'll bet that blacks have more depression than whites just based on discrimination. 10. Women's different sensibilities put a natural check on the sexual appetites of men. What a crock of BS. I could go on at length refuting this statement. Just one possibility: I guess he thinks that women don't enjoy sex. Well, Stephen, I don't intend to waste any more of my time on this useless drivel. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wolfe, Stephen S YA-02 6 MDSS/SGSI" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "ProFox Email List" <profox@leafe.com> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 11:14 AM Subject: RE: [OT] Defending Marriage > Sure I'm serious, I thought it would be easy for you? > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
