> > On Nov 4, 9:00 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:

> > > J.C. Watts Enslin wrote:
> > > > On Nov 4, 6:57 am, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > >> On Nov 4, 6:28 am, Google Beta User <wanyik...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > >>> Tough.
> > > >>> I'm agnostic on the issue.  I don't get why their fighting toot and
> > > >>> nail for the "label", provided they're getting rights (tax breaks,
> > > >>> medical coverage, household recognitions, etc) it shouldn't be a
> > > >>> problem.
> > > >>> On the other hand, for most (not all) like Maggie Gallagher's marriage
> > > >>> organization, I'm not buying the "we're just trying to protect
> > > >>> traditional marriage" meme, more like they just don't like gays and
> > > >>> would like to marginalize them.  
> > > >> I don't trust gays who say things like this:

> > > >> "Our relationship is between us," said Carla Hopkins, 38, of Mount
> > > >> Vernon, with partner Victoria Eleftherio, 38, sitting on her lap
> > > >> outside a hotel ballroom where gay marriage supporters had been hoping
> > > >> for a victory party. "How does that affect anybody else? It's a
> > > >> personal thing."

> > > >> .. when everyone knows that marriage has a public dimension, and makes
> > > >> claims/demands on government, employers, etc.

> > > > Why are you opposed to it?  Are you opposed to it because of the
> > > > increased claims on government, employers, etc.?

> > > Nope. E.g., if it was 1964 in Virginia, i'd be in favor of repealing the
> > > law against interracial marriage, even though that would result in
> > > increased claims in those domains.

> > You didn't answer my first question.

> I oppose it for the same reason i oppose 'marriage' between a man and
> a cow or a man and a sofa - those, and 'gay marriage' , are all
> inconsistent with our cultural heritage that defines "marriage" as a
> relationship between a man and a woman who are not closely related to
> each other. Buttressing that is my personal religious belief which
> condemns gay marriage as well.