And the interchangeability would infer that both marriage and civil unions are made illegal by this legislation, otherwise it would have been made explicit. I agree that the Navajo Nation has every right to make their own decisions concerning their people. But you presented this as an example that our national or state legislatures should follow and I asked why. Now it's clear that the Navajo law and what you "have no problem with" are two different things.<br><br>-- Charlie Alpha Roger Yankee Whiskey<br>
Infer anything and everything you want. For starters, you should realize that the source of the article is fondly referred to by Flagstaff residents as the "Arizon Daily Scum". Their reporting is often sub-standard.<br><br> I don't know what is explicit and what is implied. I think a fair reading of the article makes it obvious that the subject was formal marriage.<br><br>Once again, and for the last time, my view is that gay marriage is wrong and extending benefits to live-in partners is not for me to decide. I don't plan to waste any more time in an extended semantical farce just for the sake of argument.<br><br>Now go outside and play.<br><br>[color:red]Bibo, ergo sum</font color=red>
_________________________ [red]Bibo, ergo sum[/red]
It's fine if you don't want to respond, I won't push anything on you. You may want to take your own advice though before dishing on things you would rather not talk about.<br><br>I think I misspoke when I said that the ban on civil unions was inferred since it's a logically acceptable conclusion from the text provided. That's an over-explanation of: it's right there in the article. You're right about the quality of reporting done by the Arizona paper. The wire story that most papers picked up (and I didn't think to look up until now) made explicit that the bill was one on gay marriage. So I suppose this is all moot.<br><br>-- Charlie Alpha Roger Yankee Whiskey<br>
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>but to demand that a large percentage of the population has to redefine the sacrament (if you will) of marriage to accommodate a small number of militant in-your-face homosexuals is just wrong.<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>A large percentage of the population already redefined the "sacrament" of marriage when they allowed marriage outside of the church. Nobody is fighting to ban marriages performed by a justice of the peace at city hall. Some just say "well, according to my religion, I don't consider them married" and let them be. All I'm saying is that they should treat homosexual marriages the same way. People who are against it can go on believing "I don't consider them married according to my beliefs" and let them be.<br><br><br>
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.