response 84 of 293:

Dec 8 17:29 UTC 2003

re # 74:  Ooops... It appears Ms. keesan made a boo-boo - like leaving 
out the most relevant part of the definition, which follows.  (We 
suppose we would have no moral objections to a painting marrying a 
poem, if that makes you feel any better.)  

Marriage
1 a : the state of being  married b : the mutual relation of husband 
and wife : c : the institution whereby men and women are joined in a 
special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding 
and maintaining a family
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is 
effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities 
or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry>

(Was it the Chesire cat who stated that words mean only what he says 
they mean?  Clearly, that was illogical to Mr. Carroll - and it is 
illogical today.)


re:  "#79 (gull): Re resp:56: You're confused.. . ."

Which is not unsual for Mr. richard.

"Actually, I don't know anyone who favors it because they
want to "weaken the bonds" of marriage."

Perhaps you do not.  But, then again, there is the law of unintended 
consequences.


re:  "#81 of 82 by Joe (gelinas) on Mon Dec 8 12:06:52 2003: 

As I understand things, gays ar looking to marriage for the ancillaries:
next-of-kin, inheritance, joint tax returns."

All of which can be arranged in the absence of marriage.

"polyandry and polygyny have both been practiced, with success."

Really?!?!?!?!