In article
<ba10364c-2de8-49bd-a39a-732fa827a39d@t3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Emerson Wainwright <emersonwainwright@hotmail.com> wrote:

> You said, "Ignore their demands that their perversion be sanctioned."
>
> Now, what you refer to as "perversion", we take to mean their
> homosexuality, or, more to the point, their homosexual sexual
> behavior.
>
> Free Clue: The "perversion" has already been "sanctioned". By the
> U.S. Supreme Court. Lawrence v. Texas. So no discussion here. Done
> deal.
>
> If you're suggesting that their "perversion" is NOT about their
> homosexual sexual behavior, which has already been "sanctioned"
> nationwide, and is instead about their wishing legal recognition of
> their MARRIAGES, then what you are REALLY saying is that the act of
> MARRYING is a perversion... and I'm QUITE sure THAT isn't what you
> meant.
>
> An attempt to back-pedal here will be fun for us to watch. Have at it!

You're very good at twisting words. Lemme guess...a Democrat.

Homosexuality should not be elevated to the same moral plane as
heterosexuality.