On 04/07/2012 18:42, e27002 wrote:
On Jul 4, 5:51 pm, Nick wrote:
In ,





wrote:
On Jul 4, 12:27 pm, Nick wrote:
In ,

wrote:
On Jul 4, 9:51 am, wrote:
On Jul 4, 7:42 am, Martin wrote:

On 03/07/2012 18:06, Alistair Gunn wrote:

In uk.railway 77002 twisted the electrons to say:
There is nothing conservative about encouraging sodomy.

Quick! Let's make the government small enough that it can fit inside
everyone's bedrooms?

Why are libertarians not libertarian about sodomy?

Perhaps if gay marriage were rebranded "deregulated marriage" it might
be more popular amongst the political right?

There is nothing wrong with a "bright and cheerful" marriage. One
would expect that to be the norm.

I don't see any problem with having that as the only criterion for two
or more people to be joined in union.

One would like to think that the man and woman involved had a deep
conviction that they are right for each other. Although I agree it is
entirely, and only, their business. That is assuming they are over
the age of consent.

Including, of course, the man and the other man ...

If you have any knowledge of the English language, you will know that
cannot be a marriage. A circle can never be a square.

While this is a valid etymological point, in this context it obfuscates
the issue.

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman