<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.11" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Gay-marriage reporting: biased in its exclusive focus on lifestyle issues.</title>
	<link>http://www.andrewhagen.com/archives/2004/01/20/598/</link>
	<description>Resolution, Duty, Inquiry</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 11:23:14 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.11</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: basketball shoes</title>
		<link>http://www.andrewhagen.com/archives/2004/01/20/598/#comment-3145</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Oct 2005 03:51:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.andrewhagen.com/archives/2004/01/20/598/#comment-3145</guid>
					<description>&lt;strong&gt;basketball shoes&lt;/strong&gt;

basketball shoes We stand at the nearer residunt of the bensi, the Tipstaff Orientals at the other. She spent the new-smel</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>basketball shoes</strong></p>
<p>basketball shoes We stand at the nearer residunt of the bensi, the Tipstaff Orientals at the other. She spent the new-smel
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Andrew Hagen</title>
		<link>http://www.andrewhagen.com/archives/2004/01/20/598/#comment-746</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Nov 2004 02:42:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.andrewhagen.com/archives/2004/01/20/598/#comment-746</guid>
					<description>Equality is justified when we treat like cases alike. For example, marriage of a man and a woman of one race is like that of a man and a woman of different races, because both involve the marriage of a man and a woman. Thus, interracial marriage is justifed.

Classical marriage is not like gay marriage. Classical marriage involves the marriage of sexual opposites, male and female. Gay marriage would involve the "marriage" of two individuals who are already of the same mold. Classical marriage is thus not like gay marriage and two should not be treated equally.

Indeed, the dictionary definition of "marriage" is the bringing together of two different things into harmony. One might speak of "the marriage of milk and chocolate chip cookies," or "the marriage of power and grace." One could not speak rationally, however, of "the marriage of milk and milk," or "the marriage of power and power." It wouldn't make sense.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Equality is justified when we treat like cases alike. For example, marriage of a man and a woman of one race is like that of a man and a woman of different races, because both involve the marriage of a man and a woman. Thus, interracial marriage is justifed.</p>
<p>Classical marriage is not like gay marriage. Classical marriage involves the marriage of sexual opposites, male and female. Gay marriage would involve the &#8220;marriage&#8221; of two individuals who are already of the same mold. Classical marriage is thus not like gay marriage and two should not be treated equally.</p>
<p>Indeed, the dictionary definition of &#8220;marriage&#8221; is the bringing together of two different things into harmony. One might speak of &#8220;the marriage of milk and chocolate chip cookies,&#8221; or &#8220;the marriage of power and grace.&#8221; One could not speak rationally, however, of &#8220;the marriage of milk and milk,&#8221; or &#8220;the marriage of power and power.&#8221; It wouldn&#8217;t make sense.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Kristin Buda</title>
		<link>http://www.andrewhagen.com/archives/2004/01/20/598/#comment-744</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Nov 2004 00:26:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.andrewhagen.com/archives/2004/01/20/598/#comment-744</guid>
					<description>"Pursuit of Happiness" may not be, but I believe there is something along the lines of an equal protection clause, that thing you know we put in there a while back to prevent further discrimination of citizens.  You are also correct that marriage is a public institution and it is illegal to discriminate against anyone on the basis of sexual orientation, especially to deprive those individuals of the benefits of marriage just because of sexual orientation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Pursuit of Happiness&#8221; may not be, but I believe there is something along the lines of an equal protection clause, that thing you know we put in there a while back to prevent further discrimination of citizens.  You are also correct that marriage is a public institution and it is illegal to discriminate against anyone on the basis of sexual orientation, especially to deprive those individuals of the benefits of marriage just because of sexual orientation.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Andrew Hagen</title>
		<link>http://www.andrewhagen.com/archives/2004/01/20/598/#comment-724</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Oct 2004 23:41:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.andrewhagen.com/archives/2004/01/20/598/#comment-724</guid>
					<description>"Pursuit of happiness" is not in the Constitution. 

An unrestricted right to "pursue happiness" would allow homicidal maniacs to pursue their happiness, which is killing people indiscriminately.

As for the "don't look" issue, I don't disapprove of the existence of gay people. I disapprove of the existence of &lt;i&gt;gay marriage&lt;/i&gt;. Marriage is a public institution, and is far more important than bedroom activity.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Pursuit of happiness&#8221; is not in the Constitution. </p>
<p>An unrestricted right to &#8220;pursue happiness&#8221; would allow homicidal maniacs to pursue their happiness, which is killing people indiscriminately.</p>
<p>As for the &#8220;don&#8217;t look&#8221; issue, I don&#8217;t disapprove of the existence of gay people. I disapprove of the existence of <i>gay marriage</i>. Marriage is a public institution, and is far more important than bedroom activity.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Bell Dandy</title>
		<link>http://www.andrewhagen.com/archives/2004/01/20/598/#comment-722</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Oct 2004 16:24:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.andrewhagen.com/archives/2004/01/20/598/#comment-722</guid>
					<description>Society should not and can not deny gay marriage. It may not be specified, but it is a constitutional right. ...life liberty, and the THE PERSUIT OF HAPPINESS... Just because some people think it is wrong or gross does not mean they have the right to take away their happiness. Besides, if you do not want to see two gay people together, do not look. It is not like you will see everything they do or you will not run into twenty of them in a day. Quit the s*** and let EVERYONE have their happiness wether they be gay, bisexual, whatever. It is all the same.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Society should not and can not deny gay marriage. It may not be specified, but it is a constitutional right. &#8230;life liberty, and the THE PERSUIT OF HAPPINESS&#8230; Just because some people think it is wrong or gross does not mean they have the right to take away their happiness. Besides, if you do not want to see two gay people together, do not look. It is not like you will see everything they do or you will not run into twenty of them in a day. Quit the s*** and let EVERYONE have their happiness wether they be gay, bisexual, whatever. It is all the same.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
