home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
- Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun.tamu.edu!zeus.tamu.edu!rlc1028
- From: rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu
- Subject: Re: Gay Marriages?
- Message-ID: <19NOV199218591805@zeus.tamu.edu>
- Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
- Keywords: marriage, 14th Amendment, gays, lesbians
- Sender: news@tamsun.tamu.edu (Read News)
- Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
- References: <19375@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> <19377@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>
- Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 00:59:00 GMT
- Lines: 32
-
- In article <19377@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>, watnik@fisher.ucdavis.edu (Mitchell Watnik) writes...
- |
- |For example: My friend argues that the 14th Amendment provides that all
- |citizens should have the same rights and privileges. He says that gays'
- |14th Amendment rights are violated since they do not enjoy the privilege
- |of marrying the person of their choice. I've argued against this point 3
- |ways.
-
- It would seem the the current definition of marraige, as involving
- two persons of different genders, is discrimination on the basis of gender.
-
-
-
- |that you have the right to get married to whomever you want?") since I am
- |not entitled to marry, say, "that pretty woman over there" (he talks about
- |mutual consent, to which I respond (admittedly feebly) that then we could
- |address inter-species marriage).
-
- You could argue over interspecies marriage if you wanted to, but it
- would do nothing to defend the position of keeping marraige open to only
- members of the opposite sex.
-
- ____ _
- / ) /
- / / /
- (____/ ___ ___ / ___, ___ ,___
- __ / ____) / / (__ / ) / )
- / / / / / / ) / / / /
- (___/ (___(_ (___(_ (___/ (___/ / (__
-
- rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu
-
-