Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 11:36:05 -0800 (PST)
From: Michael Rooney <rooney-AT-tiger.cc.oxy.edu>
Subject: Re: just




On Fri, 22 Jan 1999 Unleesh-AT-aol.com wrote:

> The simple fact is that Rooney WAS
> ignorant in this regard, 

Woe betide us when unleesh invokes a "simple
fact" -- how positivist!  

That aside, unleesh is as usual wrong.  I was
and am perfectly familiar with "non-traditional"
marriages; my point is that, apart from being
an oxymoron, they contradict the clear semantic 
and pragmatic import of marriage.  Calling the 
cases unleesh raised marriages makes as much 
sense as calling a whale a fish, or an immaterial 
lie perjury.


> and wasn't really making any attempt to respond to my suggestions, 

More arrant nonsense.  You wondered why people
don't marry beloved pets.  I pointed out that
most people don't want to fuck their pets.  You
replied that marriage needn't involve sex.  I,
in turn, noted that such vows abuse the notion
of marriage, and that the desire to extend said
notion to such relationships implicitly affirms
its privilege.  Then you threw a Tourette's tantrum.

What you mean in the above quote is: I wasn't 
responding to your suggestions in a way you like.


> which he is perfectly welcome to ignore.  

Tough luck, toodles.



Cordially,

M.