On Jul 4, 7:55*pm, Eric wrote:
On 2012-07-04, e27002 wrote:

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

So if I disagree with you, I must therefore have no knowledge of the
English language (which was not the subject of discussion). So not an
honest or a defensible argument then, are you happy to use it?

And no, a circle is not a square, but both are geometric figures formed
by enclosing part of the plane with an unbroken line. Both are shapes
that might be used in, say, the design of a steam locomotive.

Dictionary definitions are not a valid basis for arguing about concepts.

And we do not really want to know about your world view, beliefs, and
opinions, much less have you expect that we should agree with them.

Sentiment mutual. Take your left field mishigas elsewhere.

On 2012-07-04, e27002 wrote:
On Jul 4, 7:55?pm, Eric wrote:
On 2012-07-04, e27002 wrote:

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

So if I disagree with you, I must therefore have no knowledge of the
English language (which was not the subject of discussion). So not an
honest or a defensible argument then, are you happy to use it?

And no, a circle is not a square, but both are geometric figures formed
by enclosing part of the plane with an unbroken line. Both are shapes
that might be used in, say, the design of a steam locomotive.

Dictionary definitions are not a valid basis for arguing about concepts.

And we do not really want to know about your world view, beliefs, and
opinions, much less have you expect that we should agree with them.

Sentiment mutual. Take your left field mishigas elsewhere.

Yiddish insults now! Not even bad arguments any more. Often taken as a
sign that someone has no arguments left and can hope only for the last
word.

But then we know what you are like, and I should really have known
better than to speak to you at all.

E.
--
ms fnd in a lbry

On Jul 4, 10:36*pm, Eric wrote:
On 2012-07-04, e27002 wrote:





On Jul 4, 7:55?pm, Eric wrote:
On 2012-07-04, e27002 wrote:

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

So if I disagree with you, I must therefore have no knowledge of the
English language (which was not the subject of discussion). So not an
honest or a defensible argument then, are you happy to use it?

And no, a circle is not a square, but both are geometric figures formed
by enclosing part of the plane with an unbroken line. Both are shapes
that might be used in, say, the design of a steam locomotive.

Dictionary definitions are not a valid basis for arguing about concepts.

And we do not really want to know about your world view, beliefs, and
opinions, much less have you expect that we should agree with them.

Sentiment mutual. *Take your left field mishigas elsewhere.

Yiddish insults now! Not even bad arguments any more. Often taken as a
sign that someone has no arguments left and can hope only for the last
word.

But then we know what you are like, and I should really have known
better than to speak to you at all.

You can dish it out but not take it? I do not expect you to share my
beliefs. But, I am as entitled to hold them, as you yours.

Your unpleasantness was not necessary. What makes you think we want
your commie, homo hugging, global warming, baby killing nonsense?

Let me try one more time: "Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
Period".

And, where were your "good" arguments?

On 05/07/2012 06:56, e27002 wrote:
Your unpleasantness was not necessary. What makes you think we want
your commie, homo hugging, global warming, baby killing nonsense?


Bingo!


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

In article ,
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 05/07/2012 06:56, e27002 wrote:
Your unpleasantness was not necessary. What makes you think we want
your commie, homo hugging, global warming, baby killing nonsense?


Bingo!

:-)

Nick
--
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 22:56:33 -0700 (PDT)
e27002 wrote:
your commie, homo hugging, global warming, baby killing nonsense?

Yeah , global warming is all a big conspiracy.

Hows are the forest fires doing over there these days? Has the temp dropped
under 100F yet?

Let me try one more time: "Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
Period".

Marriage is whatever its defined to be by the society it exists in, not
by some 2000 year old increasingly irrelevant book.

B2003

On Jul 5, 9:49*am, wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 22:56:33 -0700 (PDT)

e27002 wrote:
your commie, homo hugging, global warming, baby killing nonsense?

Yeah , global warming is all a big conspiracy.

Hows are the forest fires doing over there these days? Has the temp dropped
under 100F yet?

Not too many fires on the south coast of England. We have had an
awful amount of rain though.

Al Gore is glad to have you on board his money making venture I am
sure. Do check out the energy consumption of his mansion.

Hint, the Hockey Stick graph to watch is the money supply.

Let me try one more time: "Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
Period".

Marriage is whatever its defined to be by the society it exists in, not
by some 2000 year old increasingly irrelevant book.

Try as I might, I cannot think of one culture over the most recent
3,000 years that has defined marriage other than the accepted way.
Now I will grant you that many have, and some do, allow a man to have
several simultaneous marriages. Only one AFIK allows a woman to have
several husbands. I will leave the feminazis to argue that one.
Except to say one cannot imagine the tsuris more than one wife would
bring. And, as for more than one mother-in-law, oivey.

On Thu, 5 Jul 2012 04:08:23 -0700 (PDT)
77002 wrote:
Try as I might, I cannot think of one culture over the most recent
3,000 years that has defined marriage other than the accepted way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

Not sure why it bothers you so much if 2 men or 2 women want to live together
and have a legal document proving their connection.

What no one seems to give a toss about and which I think is far more
important is gay adoption. Many kids don't get a proper upbringing for whatever
reason but if the state has a choice of who to give a child to then its
IMO beholden to put them in a normal family - ie man & women. A child needs a
mother and a father, not 2 of one and zero of the other. Gay adopters should
be a last resort if there is simply nowhere else for the child to go. The
childs rights are paramount, the couples rights are irrelevant.

Except to say one cannot imagine the tsuris more than one wife would
bring. And, as for more than one mother-in-law, oivey.

You might want to ditch the faux jewish nonsense.

B2003

On Jul 5, 12:45*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jul 2012 04:08:23 -0700 (PDT)

77002 wrote:
Try as I might, I cannot think of one culture over the most recent
3,000 years that has defined marriage other than the accepted way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

Thank you.

Not sure why it bothers you so much if 2 men or 2 women want to live together
and have a legal document proving their connection.

Living together? That is their affair. Just keep it out of my face.

Marriage? That bothers me because it is one more devaluation of our
culture. It reduces the value and status of marriage.

What no one seems to give a toss about and which I think is far more
important is gay adoption. Many kids don't get a proper upbringing for whatever
reason but if the state has a choice of who to give a child to then its
IMO beholden to put them in a normal family - ie man & women. A child needs a
mother and a father, not 2 of one and zero of the other. Gay adopters should
be a last resort if there is simply nowhere else for the child to go. The
childs rights are paramount, the couples rights are irrelevant.

We are in agreement on this one.

Except to say one cannot imagine the tsuris more than one wife would
bring. *And, as for more than one mother-in-law, oivey.

You might want to ditch the faux jewish nonsense.

Faux? I do not speak Yidish (and very, very little Hebrew). I have
been in Synagogue, and in other's homes, enough to know the more
common Yidish expressions. Frankly I like them because they are so
expressive.

On Jul 5, 1:45*pm, wrote:

What no one seems to give a toss about and which I think is far more
important is gay adoption. Many kids don't get a proper upbringing for whatever
reason but if the state has a choice of who to give a child to then its
IMO beholden to put them in a normal family - ie man & women. A child needs a
mother and a father, not 2 of one and zero of the other. Gay adopters should
be a last resort if there is simply nowhere else for the child to go. The
childs rights are paramount, the couples rights are irrelevant.

My understanding is that, in the UK, there is a shortage of adoptive
parents at the moment (ie a surplus of children). The choice, then,
isn't between a stable home where a man and a woman live together to
raise the child or a stable home where two men or two women live
together to raise the child, but between a stable home where two men
or two women live together to raise the child or some institutional
care home (with a long etsablished history of not providing a
particularly good environment for children, often from difficult
backgrounds). Studies of homosexual couples who have adopted have
suggested that, from a child welfare perspective, the environment they
provide their children is signficiantly better than that provided by a
care home.

Robin