On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 01:42:57PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: > Right, the problem would be that Jim would be uncomfortable. That is > a problem, because she is his sister.
And if he has a problem with his sister, who he has just said (or strongly implied) that he has good feelings for, one must at least wonder, if not conclude, that it would be a bigger problem for someone who he wasn't biased to be in favor of. Apparently, your interpretation was it would be a problem because it was his sister, but it wouldn't be a problem for someone he was unrelated to. From his later clarification, this appears to be close to what he meant. If that was your original interpretation (I mean before the clarification), then I concede that you read his meaning more accurately than I did. In either interpretation, though, it is not a rational position, so this was really a choice between two (or more) irrational thought processes -- a queer ;-) thing to have a rational argument about. And I wonder whether his position clarified a little bit in his mind as the discussion proceeded. > I think it would be useful in this regard to consider what the > difference between a civil union and a marriage is. I proposed one > possibility that I have yet to see contradicted. I didn't think it was so useful. I think it would be more useful to discuss whether the word marriage should be used legally at all. For legal purposes, why not call all unions as "civil unions" and then people can call it marriage (or not) "off the record". -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
