[Clyde Slick]

On Aug 28, 1:28*am, flipper wrote:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 09:33:23 -0700 (PDT), "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to





Reason!" wrote:
On Aug 26, 10:38*pm, Jenn wrote:
On Aug 26, 8:21*pm, flipper wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 19:11:00 -0700, Jenn

wrote:
In article ,
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 ,
flipper wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:41:47 -0700, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:47:42 +0100, Eeyore
m 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?

Bottom line: *definitions change. *There is no logical reason to not
legalize same-sex marriage. *The Prop. 8 decision states it perfectly.

I think the easier route would be for there to be no "marriage
licenses" issued by the government. If boneheads like Flipper want to
argue definitions they would recognize that "marriage" has been a
religious term for the same thousands of years he argues.

You'd have a hard time proving that in prehistory but, setting that
aside, just which religion do you propose 'invented' it and how did
they force it upon all the others?

Have the government issue civil union licenses and let each church
determine who they will marry or not marry.

I'll go ya one better. Why is government making laws or issuing
anything about 'unions'?-

property rights, inheritance, living wills, etc.