Here are some arguments I feel we should include in our speech:
1) Anyone who applies for coverage under the Living Rights Bill can, and should, share partner benefits regardless of marriage status. One partner at a time, though.
2) Marriage is no longer as sacred as it once was, and it should not receive the privileged economic status it now does. It will still be protected as a God-sanctioned rite.
3) This bill will lessen the burden on the government to support those who live on their own, ultimately lessening the burden on your wallet.
4) Gays who take advantage of this would not be defiling the sanctity of marriage since they would not be receiving the benefits through marriage. They would simply be taking advantage of something that anyone who is willing to enter into a contract would be able to partake in.
- posted by Alex @ 8:55 PM

 
Although I had to leave early, I can sum up our meeting fairly easily. We had the idea that we would avoid that gay rights issue (due to a uncompromising constituency) by turning marriage into a states-rights issue. Gilbie didn't like that because he said it didn't answer any questions about gay marriage at all. It was avoiding to problem. So he came up with the idea to push partner benefits for all, not just gay couples. He suggested using the "two little-old-ladies" argument. This basically says that if two people live together for a long period of time, they should be able to file for "partner" benefits. Sounds good.
- posted by Alex @ 9:14 AM

 
Found two uses of Restictio, but no Rhetorical questions.
- posted by Alex @ 8:20 PM

 
Completely forgot to list my figures.
meiosis: Reference to something with a title less than what it really is worth, an understatement.
membrum:Like a clause, uses a semi-colon or lists different sentences.
mempsis: Express complaint, seek help.
- posted by Alex @ 9:19 PM