Missouri bans Gay Marriage

[Timber Loftis]

I did not intend to name drop, just to let you know I've been working on the topic for a while and have some familiarity.

I didn't say the party is really for states' rights on GM, I stated it was more probably for civil unions. States' rights is a middle ground stance taken for political reasons.

ERISA INformation

What you were sugar coating is whether or not the DOMA is a stance against gay marriage. It is.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: 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.

More excuses mixed in with some mild insults.

Amazing, how perspectives I never made are being attacked and words I didn't write are being picked apart. Amusing yet ineffectual. [/QUOTE]Where are the insults? Where are the excuses? What is being attacked is your claims of insult where there is none. The only way you seemingly see insult is by equating sexual orientation with the total being. Since you have said that repeatedly, that is what is being retorted against.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: *singing* Yorick and Chewie, sitting in a tree... Okay, Bad Timber! [img]graemlins/whackya.gif[/img] Sorry, guys, but lately it's taken a little goading to get you guys to simmer down. Once we get into the "inane" and "drivel" sorts of comments, it threatens to turn into a simple "Did to!" "Did not!" argument. Maybe cool heels for a bit?

I have attempted in the last few threads to have a reasoned conversation with Chewbacca. It is he, not I who publicly posts pms, and bandies around words like "inane" up above. I don't see how else I can debate a passioned and heated topic any cooler.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: *singing* Yorick and Chewie, sitting in a tree... Okay, Bad Timber! [img]graemlins/whackya.gif[/img] Sorry, guys, but lately it's taken a little goading to get you guys to simmer down. Once we get into the "inane" and "drivel" sorts of comments, it threatens to turn into a simple "Did to!" "Did not!" argument. Maybe cool heels for a bit?

Your right T.L.

Though its a lame defense, I only used the word inane because Yorick did first. [img]tongue.gif[/img] I wondered if his own opinions could stand the same language he applies to others.

Lame excuses aside, I'll take the chill pill you offer and smile. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: [QB] I dont have to be right, but I have a right to reject the mass guilt trip being perpetuated. I also have a right to believe that a fetus is not a person, is not being murdered and is part of a woman's body, to be removed if a woman chooses. I have the right to define a person, a child, as someone who has been born, breathed air and is no longer part of a woman's body. I have the right to discern the difference between being something, and simply having potential to be that something.

No I don't believe you do. We could all do that. We could all personally decide that a person we want to kill is somehow less than human. That's why we have laws that declare individuals do not have the right to declare who can live and who can't. As it stand now, you have been GIVEN a license to murder babies. You may do it as you see fit, but though this may make it legal, it doesn't make it any less the taking of human life than warfare - another "legal" murder.

The only way abortionists can seemingly get around the horrific moral issue is to call the human something "less than human". An embryo, a foetus. Use whatever makes you feel good about the loss of life Chewbacca. It doesn't change the fact that LIFE IS DESTROYED. No matter your definition, LIFE IS ENDED BY HUMAN INTERVENTION.

As I asked (which you ignored) WHAT IF YOU ARE WRONG? What if they ARE as human as I am suggesting? I asked if you could take even one nanosecond and TRY and see it how I see it, and understand the urgency of preventing even one more child from, being destroyed.

All it took for me, was to see a 2 year old girl walk in with her mother, that was saved from abortion at the LAST minute, to fully comprehend the magnitude of our destruction.

quote: There is equality. Any man can marry any woman, regardless of sexual orientation, religion, race or handicap. There is. Again. Truth. Are you suggesting I'm lying and that certain men are forbidden from marrying women based on their sexual preference?

Nope this is an inane comment.[/QUOTE]Subjective opinion doesn't take away the factual nature of the observation. I am correct.

quote: We are all disadvantaged in one way or another. We all have our pit, our mountain to climb. Some worse than others. No-one is preventing homosexuals from living together, from making life commitments to each other, from enjoying sexual relations.

You make it sound like gay couples should have the same rights as every other couple.[/QUOTE]I'll say it again: No-one is preventing homosexuals from living together, from making life commitments to each other, from enjoying sexual relations.

quote: The line is currently drawn at receiving the financial and social ENCOURAGEMENT reserved for a single man, and single woman who choose to cohabit together in life commitment. But people can exist together outside of that definition without penalty.

Back to inane land. I thought they could what they will? So they can file a joint tax return, and visit their sick loved one in the hospital? No? Why not? Because it would just encourage them? Huh? [/QUOTE]I've never had a problem visiting friends in hospital. Or strangers in intensive care either. Not sure what you're getting at. Sounds like a simple hospital policy issue, not a nationwide redefinition of the word "marriage" is all that's needed to fix this hypothetical problem. Which is easier? As for joint tax returns, why would you want to do that? I was married 7 years, and never filed a joint tax return. What on earth are you jumping up and down about?

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Yorick: The only way you seemingly see insult is by equating sexual orientation with the total being. Since you have said that repeatedly, that is what is being retorted against.

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.

[Timber Loftis]

Yorick, while you keep pointing this out to others, I don't think you take your own advice. Saying something over and over again does not make it true.

And, it is a perfectly arguable stance that a fetus is not a human being. You can't make your opinion on this issue into a universal truth -- sorry, but that's the nature of an opinion.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: The only way you seemingly see insult is by equating sexual orientation with the total being. Since you have said that repeatedly, that is what is being retorted against.

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. [/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

[Magness]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I did not intend to name drop, just to let you know I've been working on the topic for a while and have some familiarity.

And I'm a reasonably well read layman on most public policy issues.

I didn't say the party is really for states' rights on GM, I stated it was more probably for civil unions. States' rights is a middle ground stance taken for political reasons.

And I believe that you need to stand up and be counted. Words mean nothing. If the Dems wants civil unions, then say so and submit legislation to that effect. Kerry's a two faced bastard when he says that he's against GM but wants to take a hands off stance. IMHO, once again, that stance is nothing more than de facto tolerance of the gay activists' agenda.

IMHO, anyone who says that they don't want to change the Constitution is deluding themselves. One way or the other, the Constitution will be changed over this issue, either directly by the will of the people via an Amendment or de facto by the will of the 9 black-robed buffoons. Either way the effect will be the same. The Constitution will be changed.

ERISA INformation

Ahhh. Ok.

What you were sugar coating is whether or not the DOMA is a stance against gay marriage. It is.

I never said that it was anything other than GM. And I never said that I was anything other than anti-GM. But there are gradations of "against-ness" here. Being willing to let each state make up its own mind and not be forced to accept the decisions of other states is less "against" than a full blown federal ban.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Yorick, while you keep pointing this out to others, I don't think you take your own advice. Saying something over and over again does not make it true. And, it is a perfectly arguable stance that a fetus is not a human being. You can't make your opinion on this issue into a universal truth -- sorry, but that's the nature of an opinion.

It doesn't change the fact that a life is destroyed, no matter how you redefine it. I wonder if the human/foetus cares about definitions? Tell me, if it's not human what is it? What part of the animal kingdom does it reside in?

The argument rests on a purely PRESENT perception, rather than wholistic perceptioin. Potential is what defines our race, not actuality. Otherwise any human that falls out of the definition of what it is to be human ceases to be so. Conjoined twins, paraplegics, brain damaged people, children who die young, mutated individuals, hermaphrodites or any other deviencies from "normal" (whatever that is) would cease to be human if POTENTIAL was not the clarifying definition.

Given time and perfect health, every foetus would grow to be 70-75 years old, be bipedal, have eyes, ears, see in colour, create words from mouth and vocal fold shaping, and procreate. For that is "normal."

Any deviency from that, any premature end to life, any loss of attributes, or failure to develop attributes, in no way removes the humanity from the person. A 2 month old foetus is as human as an 8month old foetus, which is as human as a newborn out of the womb, yet still attached to the mother.

Under chewbaccas definition, a baby that has popped out of the womb, yet hasn't has the umbilical cord cut, nor breathed yet, is not human, yet in one minute, suddenly becomes human because of a doctors actions. How is this logical? So if you kill the baby before he cuts the cord, it's legal, but if he cuts the cord and you kill it it's a crime? Where is the logic in that?

It seems to be evidence of a limited western thought - preclusive linear. One cannot be two things at the same time.

However, eastern thought involves paralel truths. The baby is a seperate and individual lifeform, yet is ALSO conjoined and one with the mother.

Biune.

Like a "couple". Or the Trinity of Father/Son/Holy Spirit. Seperate, yet conjoined. Like conjoined twins sharing a liver, or heart.