A taxpayer can generally express who they wish to favor (unless it has to do with employment, housing, providing service, and other basic rights), but in America they can't actually favor who they wish based on conditions like gender, race, religion, handicap, without facing the penalty of law. Go read the text of the Civil Rights Act I posted in this topic.

Of course one can always deny the gay issue has anything to do with civil rights. This viewpoint in turn ignores the guidelines and laws of the Federal government and many juridstictions that gaurantee equal rights regardless of a persons legal adult consentual romantic sexual orientation.

*Prophetic SOAPBOX*
One day, barring the slim chance of a federal Constitutional Amendment, the Gay marriage issue will land in the SCOTUS and based on precedents the SCOTUS will probably strike down the MO amendment and all similiar laws. When this day inevitably arrives opponents of Gay marriage will be stuck merely expressing who they wish to favor while Gays across the land will enjoy the equal rights to marry and care for children that they earn and deserve as taxpaying citizens.
*/SOAPBOX*

[ 08-10-2004, 01:50 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

Illumina- I wouldn't blame you one bit if you choose not to respond to this flamebait. Yorick knows some folks here have taken issue with the overt and subtle derision of homosexuals and I think he is simply trolling for flames.

Unless of course abortion does not actually kill children. Last time I checked an abortion removes an embryo or fetus that is part of a woman's body.

Children have been born, taken breath and are no longer part of a woman's body.

Aint semantics fun. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

Illumina- I wouldn't blame you one bit if you choose not to respond to this flamebait. Yorick knows some folks here have taken issue with the overt and subtle derision of homosexuals and I think he is simply trolling for flames. </font>[/QUOTE]The action not the person. People who practice homosexual sex can be some of the most beautiful, caring, creative and friendly people I've known. People are not defined and limited by their sexual relations as you so willingly seem to do. There is a huge difference between deriding an ACTION, and deriding a PERSON. You seem to think a persons sexuality is the be-all and end-all or else you wouldn't keep making the same inane and mistaken comments that I am in any way deriding homosexual people.

I don't see sexuality when I converse with a homosexual person. I see a human being. You on the other hand seem to think that a persons sexuality is their total being.

[ 08-10-2004, 02:19 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

Unless of course abortion does not actually kill children. Last time I checked an abortion removes an embryo or fetus that is part of a woman's body.

Children have been born, taken breath and are no longer part of a woman's body.

Aint semantics fun. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]Children are formed in the womb. They have brains, blood, a heart, limbs, can move, hear, feel and grow. Yes, children are killed during abortion. Any suggestion otherwise is denial meant to cover over the guilt we collectively face due to the millions of children we have killed.

A taxpayer can generally express who they wish to favor (unless it has to do with employment, housing, providing service, and other basic rights), but in America they can't actually favor who they wish based on conditions like gender, race, religion, handicap, without facing the penalty of law. Go read the text of the Civil Rights Act I posted in this topic.</font>[/QUOTE]So a person can't stipulate who benefits from their will? Last I checked they could. Last I checked they could also VOTE for the candidate that will do the most preferable things with the taxpayers money.

Quote:

Of course one can always deny the gay issue has anything to do with civil rights. This viewpoint in turn ignores the guidelines and laws of the Federal government and many juridstictions that gaurantee equal rights regardless of a persons legal adult consentual romantic sexual orientation.

There is equality. Any man can marry any woman, regardless of sexual orientation, religion, race or handicap.

Marriage is not love. Love and marriage are two totally different things.

Quote:

*Prophetic SOAPBOX* One day, barring the slim chance of a federal Constitutional Amendment, the Gay marriage issue will land in the SCOTUS and based on precedents the SCOTUS will probably strike down the MO amendment and all similiar laws. When this day inevitably arrives opponents of Gay marriage will be stuck merely expressing who they wish to favor while Gays across the land will enjoy the equal rights to marry and care for children that they earn and deserve as taxpaying citizens. */SOAPBOX*

What the SCOTUS does is interpret the will of the people as reflected in the constitution and the laws. The will of the people Chewbacca. If Americans do not wish to give same sex couples the same encouragement as heterosexual couples, then it will not happen. Laws will change. Constitutions will change.

At the end of the day, a same sex couple is DISADVANTAGED as they can never have children naturally, no matter what law or SCOTUS declaration is made. There is INEQUALITY. Nature has deemed it so. No ranting and raving and getting "equal rights" removes that very simple fact. They do not EARN the right to raise children, they are GIVEN children from OTHERS. Heterosexual couples EARN children. (Namely the mother during her pain in labour.) They conceive, grow and birth them.

Speaking of inane and/or mistaken comments...

edit to add one-
[ 08-10-2004, 02:47 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

Excuses, excuses...

Conversely:

There was equality when any many could mary any woman of the same race and religion, regardles of his sexual orientation, religion, race or handicap. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

Nice Midnight Oil song -- sometimes I like it, sometimes I don't.

You sure did lay a whole lot on my and John Harris's shoulders. Apparently, we're personally responsible for the demise of the buffalo.

Look, I haven't got anything against Native Americans, and sure as hell don't appreciate the implication that I do. I'm sure John D. feels the same way. What we (presuming he doesn't mind me putting words in his mouth) were trying to point out is that the myth of what the Native Americans were is not always accurate -- and history has been very kind in overlooking their faults and highlighting more of their virtues. We're just trying to make sure this very warlike culture which had many shortcomings, as all cultures do, is not incorrectly viewed as some sort of "perfect society."

I don't know that you'll find a perfect human society that can truly live sustainably. Now, Dolphins on the other hand, they've got something figured out that we don't. :D

Excuses, excuses... </font>[/QUOTE]Excuses? You define, limit, restrict and label a person purely on their sexual preference. Making them :them". An "other". Pile of horsemanure if you ask me. People are more than their sexual preference. Sexual preferences CHANGE bucko, in a VAST VAST number of cases. The homo becomes bi. The hetero becomes homo, the bi becomes hetero. Maybe you live in a sheltered coocoon where the media is all you reference, I don't know, but I've known too many who've moved around, changed, experimented and decided aspects of their sexuality to either have a generalisation about people who practice homosexuality, a prejudice, or the kind of limiting labelling you seem to vehemently perpetuate.

Again. The action is not the person. The action is something I have every right to decide against in my own life, in my spouses life, or in what I wish to encourage socially, religiously, economically or anything else. The PERSON, who is so much MORE than a sexual object, is not the object of that derision. Any further attempts to qualify my words as being derisive of people perperpuates the limitations I have described in this post.

People are more than their gender, or their orientation. Try and see it a little that way.