Re: POLITICS Disurbing article

[Guest guest]

>> But Christie, you aren't demanding any " rights " whatsoever then. You are

demanding that public endorsement and approval of your relationships be

legislated. Why do you speak of it under the guise of civil rights? <<

are you being sarcastic or serious? Or using some kind of different

definition of " rights " than I have?

I absolutely do not understand what you're talking about. I don't give a damn if

the public approves of or " endorses " my relationships, any more than it does

yours. I just want to be legally identical to you in the legal area of marriage

rights, ie, I want to be able to marry a woman under exactly the same terms and

conditions that you can. That's all.

To me it could not be more clearly a matter of rights.

Christie

[Guest guest]

>> I believe that homosexuals should have 100% the same rights as heterosexuals

(including equal inability for the state to morally sanction their

relationships) <<

I have no problem with that. Is that what you meant in the last post that I

questioned? Then we agree. I would be equally content if the state stopped being

in the marriage business entirely, in fact, that would be my PREFERENCE.

However, if that's not going to happen, then I want the same legal rights you

have as regards marriage. I mean YOU personally, Chris... not your sister. <G>

Christie

[Guest guest]

>> It isn't even remotely analogous, as homosexuals currently have the right of

citizenship. <<

I think it IS analagous, as I'm claiming I am in a second class of citizenship.

However, I simply pointed out that the biblical and other arguments being

offered had also been offered in the service of positions we would now hold to

be indefensible, ie, that black men and all women were less than full human

beings with less than full rights, that women could not vote, that slavery was

acceptable, etc. The issue of citizenship is not required to make my point.

Christie