>> Your objection to same-sex marriage is based on your objection to certain   
   >> sexual practices. You even refer to those who are emotionally attracted to   
   >> people of the same sex as "sodomites" even though a given person may have   
   >> NEVER had sex of ANY kind. I am sorry you cannot see this.   
      
   > You brought this up as a (very poor) strawman to cover your confusion over   
   > what's actually going on in this case.   
      
   You insist on using your objections to a sex act as an objection to marriage.    
   THAT is a classic example of a "strawman" argument.   
      
   I pointed out that the two were very different things, which is not even close   
   to being a "strawman" argument.   
      
   > This is a case of two same-sex sodomites getting `married' in Massechusetts   
   > (where sodomite marriage is legal), wanting to `celebrate' that in Colorado,   
   > and wanting to make a Christian baker participate by baking them a cake that   
   > does so.   
      
   It has nothing to do with sodomy, and it has nothing to do with    
   participating."   
      
   > So far in this case, I don't see anyone claiming this whole thing is `for   
   > immigration purposes' or any claim that they (either one or both) were merely   
   > `emotionally attracted to each other only and no sex was involved', or merely   
   > so `one could take care of the other', or `spousal benefits'...or any of the   
   > other strawmen you've tossed up to try to win your case.   
      
   I made no claims as to why they got married.  I pointed out that you WERE   
   making assumptions, and that your assumptions are only assumptions that have   
   no basis in fact.  I was not tossing up strawmen, I was knocking them down.    
   The term has an actual meaning.   
      
   > By the way...sex between two people of the same sex is `sodomy'. It has been   
   > defined as such since the days of Abraham and Lot, when the two cities Sodom   
   > and Gommorah were destroyed over the practice of homosexuality (among other   
   > things).   
      
   Historically incorrect.  The Supreme Court's majority opinion in Lawrence v   
   Texas goes into the history of sodomy laws.   
      
   http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas/Opinion_of_the_Court   
      
   The term covers different-sex as well as same-sex, as well as a wide variety   
   of specific sex acts.  The application you are making has only been common in   
   the last few decades.  More generally, through history, the term has been used   
   for ANY sex act that is not for the purpose of procreation.  If you really   
   want to   
   use the term "sodomite" to apply to anyone who has given or received oral sex   
   with anyone of either sex, anyone who has engaged in sex where either   
   participant had a vasectomy or tubal ligation, or where a condom or any other   
   contraceptive was involved, well, that would be more historically accurate,   
   but it would not support your argument very well.   
      
      
   --- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1   
    * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)