On Nov 23, 10:03*am, "Mr. Strat" <r...@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
> In article
> <ba10364c-2de8-49bd-a39a-732fa827a...@t3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> Emerson Wainwright <emersonwainwri...@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.

Unfortunately for you, I didn't twist words. Your illogical argument
had holes in it. I simply pointed those holes out to you.

> Lemme guess...a Democrat.

Your genius is astounding. Now we'll await how being a Democrat
precludes one from presenting a logical argument. This, too, shall
provide us with much amusement.

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

Just stating it doesn't make it so.

You don't appear to have any REASONS, but here again you use that
wonderful word "should".