Scott Hedrick wrote:

"Herb Schaltegger" lid
wrote in message ...
Go back to talking about marrying your dog if you don't want to recognize
that CHOICE plays very little part in what kind of people (especially
gender) that one finds attractive.

I don't dispute that at all. What I *said* was, if the mission was to get
married, then choosing a partner whom one isn't permitted to marry was a
bad choice. I didn't say anything at all about attraction, since being
attracted to a partner isn't a requirement for marriage.

PLEASE don't get all "Stuffie" here, okay? Go back to the crux of the
issue: people don't choose to whom they are attracted. Once they become
attracted, they often want to stay together. Having made that choice, the
real debate is: should the law allow couples to formalize the relationship
and if so, in what way. Second, should the level of recognition (and the
degree of formality and the societal obligations to be imposed) depend on
whether the couple is comprised of a man and a woman, two women, or two
men?

If we disagree, fine. But let's not argue about the marriage itself. Few
people in a modern, free culture get married as an end in itself; they get
married as a step in a relationship, not to create the relationship in the
first place.
--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Remove invalid nonsense for email.