Received: by 10.66.89.163 with SMTP id bp3mr1187112pab.6.1344848280224;
        Mon, 13 Aug 2012 01:58:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Path: p10ni48093485pbh.1!nntp.google.com!npeer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news-in-01.newsfeed.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!novia!newsfeed.yul.equant.net!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-ng0.de.kpn-eurorings.net!news-feed.eu.lambdanet.net!news.bcc.de!newsfeeder.ewetel.de!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed5.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!news2.euro.net!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Pooh" <pa...@bigots.lie>
Newsgroups: nz.general
Subject: Re: Gay marriage and democracy
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 23:13:05 +1200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 97
Message-ID: <jvo8qr$9di$1@dont-email.me>
References: <gZSdnXmlA5oi1YXNnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@giganews.com> <jv9ntf$ijl$1@dont-email.me> <ZLmdnQl7xNf6_oXNnZ2dnUVZ_qCdnZ2d@giganews.com> <jv9o9u$ijl$3@dont-email.me> <u58h185tflenq603piovl8c7gvg8hu56a7@4ax.com> <jvk26o$p3t$1@dont-email.me> <k95r18t1u45kl2hetvhf8c9qkkd68ndnps@4ax.com> <jvk4qg$78m$1@dont-email.me> <vh7r181ppjv3267jh9nau90br848gafo11@4ax.com> <jvmqf9$alf$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 11:12:28 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="30ff2a852090b4d2bf9d087f436af0a6";
	logging-data="9650"; mail-complaints-to="ab...@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+tiqUYNbQFRfuHHYZgP2vH"
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
Cancel-Lock: sha1:W0usGosO0l3Mg94pAIQkpyPa/Q0=
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Received-Bytes: 5619


"Fred" <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:jvmqf9$alf$1@dont-email.me...
> On 5/08/2012 10:13 a.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 09:40:00 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/08/2012 9:34 a.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 08:55:20 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/08/2012 3:26 p.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 11:04:56 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/08/2012 11:00 a.m., Allistar wrote:
>>>>>>>> Fred wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 1/08/2012 9:07 a.m., Allistar wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> The Gay Marriage bill highlights the very worst of democracy. 
>>>>>>>>>> Winston
>>>>>>>>>> Peter's epitomises all that is wrong with a democratic system.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The state should not regulate personal relationships. It should 
>>>>>>>>>> not be up
>>>>>>>>>> to Bob whether Amy and Anne want to get married. It's none of his
>>>>>>>>>> business. having a referundum make it his business, and that's 
>>>>>>>>>> just plain
>>>>>>>>>> wrong on so many levels.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The whole thing reeks of big government and the removal of 
>>>>>>>>>> personal
>>>>>>>>>> liberties. It's a tragedy that such a bill is even required. The 
>>>>>>>>>> bill
>>>>>>>>>> should be changed to "The state can no longer regulate personal
>>>>>>>>>> relationships".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If this nonsense is given legal status,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What nonsense? The point is that it should be no-one else's 
>>>>>>>> business but the
>>>>>>>> couple getting married. Definitely not the state's business and 
>>>>>>>> definitely
>>>>>>>> not the business of other people via a referendum.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's nonsense because marriage is defined as the bringing together 
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> opposites; especially man and woman. Bringing common things together 
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> uniting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Opposites? You're kidding, "Right"? Most marriages are between two
>>>>>> people with some common interests, and importantly a common love for
>>>>>> each other. Just because they may have different (or the same) 
>>>>>> colour,
>>>>>> religion, gener, sexual preference, preference for tea or coffee,
>>>>>> ginger hair, etc, etc, makes no difference. A marriage is a 
>>>>>> commitment
>>>>>> between two people to each other, with legal implications, freely
>>>>>> chosen by those two people. Some restrictions are reasonable (age,
>>>>>> common parents), but sexual preference is not a reasonable
>>>>>> restriction. You really do want "Daddu State" to tell you want to do,
>>>>>> don't you Fred.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't give two hoots what people do. I simply do not see it as the
>>>>> State's role to redefine words.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> People will use the words they want to describe different things,
>>>> Fred, regardless of any individual feelings. Feeling gay today, Fred?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> They will, and if homosexual couples are allowed to 'marry' it will not
>>> take long for new terms to develop to distinguish between homo and hetro
>>> 'marriages' which is why i think it's silly to redefine the word.
>>
>> So you think laws should be based on your use of a particular word?
>> Its further than "Daddy State" you are looking for - its Dictionary
>> State!
>>
>
> i think marriage is understood by all but the very thick, to involve two 
> people, one male, one female. If we change that definition, will we also 
> extend marriage to a group of people who 'love' each other? Seems logical 
> to me that if we don't continue to hold with convention over gender, then 
> the number of participants should be open also. That is why new terms will 
> evolve to describe the various forms of marriage we are likely to see in a 
> decade or so.

More to the point will the local cat lady be able to marry one of the many 
cats she loves???

Pooh