A few points here.

1. Yes, it's true. However, because DOMA prevents GM couples from getting certain benefits of marriage NO MATTER WHAT THEIR STATE DECIDES, the DOMA complicates the Republican stance. It is certainly a "banning" of at least some benefits of marriage, regardless of what we argue otherwise.

2. Note that this argument flows in 2 directions. Being for states making the decision is less "for" than a full blown federal GM law. ;)

3. You mentioned that Dems are complicit by not taking a stance against the wingnuts in the party. Let's not go there, because Repubs are equally complicit in not taking a stance against the religious wingnuts in their party. President Bush has stated that he is for equal rights for gays, but that he is opposed to gay marriage -- that runs a bit counter to the bible belt's "God hates Fags" point of view. On this issue, both sides are taking a "let the country figure it out" point of view, and I don't see a problem with that. It's similar to Bob Dole's stance on abortion in 1996, and I respected him for being willing to say "I am personally against X, but I realize the majority of Americans don't feel that way, so I will not try to force my view on all of America." -- it was a refreshing change of pace, as best I remember it.

4. Final note: while you may not believe it, I'm not a Democrat. ;)

Nope, not where "is it a human" is concerned. Otherwise, every sperm would be a human life. Sorry, but I'm not Catholic. ;)

This whole "potential defines things, not actuality" is a whole load of bullshit in my view anyway. All that matters is the actualized person. I knew so many people who had so much potential and turned out to be pieces of worthless garbage. You are not a beautiful flower. You are not your f'n khakis. Dig?

Only I never said that. You are retorting an opinion I have not made! You have repeated it enough it may as well be true though. </font>[/QUOTE]What you have said is that I insult homosexuals, or condemn homosexuals when I have never done anything of the sort. You are the one failing to see delineation in this area, hence the conclusion I've articulated </font>[/QUOTE]Lumping homosexuality in with bestiality, peodophila and incests is derisive no matter how you spin it. Whether you meant to do it or not, it is insulting enough that even several heterosexuals have pointed it out. I have no clue what this has to do with the opinions I have never stated, that you have put in my mouth.

This is your misunderstanding of my "defintion" shining clear as a beacon in the night. Another case of taking an opinion and creating something it is not out of it.

Whether or not Yorick has lumped homosexuality in with other "evils" is of no matter.

What he has done is argue that their actions of love are lesser, their unions are lesser, and that they should not be allowed to adopt or rear children. That's enough prejudice for me. Even the current Republican stance would give them equal rights so long as it wasn't called marriage. Yorick wouldn't even go this far.

On the child issue.. recently a Mexican woman who concieved in the states then was deported and was asking US citizenship for the yet to be born child. Yorick is her yet to be born child a US citizen?

Yes, well I went with the most obvious and probably unintentional. ;)

You are going after, perhaps, the less obvious and certainly intentional.


I'm going to try and sit on the sidelines for the rest of this thread, unless more of my opinions get magically transformed into something they are not.

Have fun! [img]smile.gif[/img]

Nope. The nationality of the parents, or the nation where you take your first breathe decides your nationality. None of this takes away from the humanity of a preborn human.

This is your misunderstanding of my "defintion" shining clear as a beacon in the night. Another case of taking an opinion and creating something it is not out of it. </font>[/QUOTE]Did you or did you not declare that the baby being attached to the mother was an indicator of it being somehow less human, and abortable. I will find the quote in a tic.

A few points here.

1. Yes, it's true. However, because DOMA prevents GM couples from getting certain benefits of marriage NO MATTER WHAT THEIR STATE DECIDES, the DOMA complicates the Republican stance. It is certainly a "banning" of at least some benefits of marriage, regardless of what we argue otherwise.</font>[/QUOTE]Tough. Gay Marriage is WRONG. Letting individual states decide to be wrong is one hell of a concession to the forces of darkness and evil. ;)

It took me a few minutes to understand the second sentence. Whatever.

Yes, the argument flows in 2 directions. Right and Wrong.


I disagree with you here. Even though there are essentially 2 lines of thought in the GOP, there's no doubt whatsoever that they are four-sqaure against GM.

I do have a problem with it. I believe that politicians should take a stance and live or die by that stance. I *HATE* mealy-mouthed pols. Say what you mean and mean what you say!!!


So what are you? A RINO? Or a cowardly fence-sitting moderate?