WhiteDove

Just for you Rottie.....

Jeff I never thought we would be best friends......... But when I saw what you wrote I knew piggy would be along to set you straight, really don't sweat it it is no big thing just a long running bit of humor break from the day to day drone of Save Us from the Way..... she is an equal oppertunity Splatter believe me I get my share from that flying pork chop...... It's all good fun sorry you don't appreciate the humor.

No it is about male and female as married not male and male or female and female. You added the stipulation of having sex, it is possible to be married without sex. That can't define marriage as such then. A car is a car and a truck is a truck, but they are both vehicles. You can have a Jewish wedding or a Catholic wedding, you can have a civil ceremony, but afterward, they are all married. Everyone understands what that means, it didn't suddenly define their sex as individuals or their sexuality, it just describes the commitment and the legal contract and benefits you both have. Whether you choose to acknowledge it as such, it is what it is. That's where you are wrong it does not simply just describe the commitment and the legal contract and benefits you both have. Marriage defines male female man woman as perimeters in definition. You missed that part...... By the way Whether you choose to acknowledge it as such, it is what it is. Note your example I think you answered your own question ,all participating in such would be male female. So yes as such as I pointed out they would all be married. Just because I might like my bicycle to be called a car because they are both vehicles does not make it so . Some may say it qualifies as such because it has a horn, some may say it qualifies as such because it has tires, some may say it qualifies as such because it has gears, but we all know that it really is not the same as a car. That's why we have a different word for it . I think you get the picture.......Exactly, why it doesn't communicate to you and others is beyond me. But I think we have all been able to follow this conversation pretty clearly from the start. If you need any clarification, please just ask. So exactly why are you trying so hard to change a word that does not mean what you are trying to add as definition?

Yeah I get it warn the sheep BAAAH....... Do you think that is all shepherd should be doing ? Talking about the wolves day in day out or should he have a plan of action to restore? Do you really think preaching to the choir is warning ? I mean look at your audience I think most got it by now. Periodically we hear someone say I just read so and so thread it took me two days... That's just one of thousands how many days worth of warning is there? , and don't you think after a month or so of reading even if another word is not spoken, most would feel sufficiently warned? So what are we tornado sirens? Is that our lot in life ? Just blow all day, day after day, month after month ,Warn Warn Warn Warn.... And what about Jesus sure he warned people on occasion I don't see where he overdid it and usually it was a point of contrast after which he focused on a relationship with his Father. I don't see Jesus warning of Herod and what he did or did not do in his personal life, every word he said dissected, how he spent the ABS of the day the temple money what he did with the temple girls, I missed where he brought up how many chariots Pilate had. Did Jesus really care? He sure set a poor example of warning by your standards. Speaking of shepherds and warning do you think they just sat around talking about wolves? Yep there is that ole wolf again most likely looking for a sheep...reckin I'll warn the sheep ...Hey fuzzballs look out for the wolf.....yep he is mean and nasty let me tell you about him......Blah Blah Blah...... there that should help them they've been warned no harm will come now. The warner has saved them. I see where the man born blind who came to Jesus was helped, not warned. Bad Jesus ! why you should have warned him about Herod's chariots and how many he had. at least told him about the misuse of temple money, instead you went and helped him, what a silly thing to do Jesus. Verily I say unto thee ,you shall wail like the siren and warn warn warn all the days of your life. There is a time for all things including one for warning, when that is passed no more is needed. You may think talking about others sins benefits others but does it really? Does it help one to believe greater or is it an enemy of believing? Some people believe in aliens too..... does what you believe make it true? I don't think so

All of which has nothing to do with randomly changing word meanings based on someone's idea that they want their sexual lifestyle included in a words meaning. Its pretty simple a car is a car , a bicycle is a bicycle, a van is a van all are vehicles each however has perimeters that define what they are. Just because i want my bicycle to be a car doesn't mean it qualifies or that it should. Marriage has a perimeter that defines it for centuries, male and female, man and woman. man and man or woman and woman has a different perimeter and as such has a different name to describe it.

No it's about not perverting a language for your own selfless point, for a Na Na Na Na Na moment. If everyone changed words because they don't like how they feel we would be in trouble trying to communicate . There is no point to changing a word that communicates. Even today as we discover new things we also add new words to coincide with them we don't change other words as a rule for no point. When computers came along Gee we added a new word we did not call them TV's just because they had a screen. Why because we already had a word for what a TV is. The only point for changing the definition of marriage is so they can have an" in your face moment" against the culture. Getting benefits which I think they deserve as much as the next, and it appears that most here agree, can be accomplished without perverting the language. Marriage can represent man and woman, civil union can represent man and man or woman and woman. animal union can represent animal and human :blink: It explains what each is while passing no judgment on each. By the way ,if you haven't noticed history has not changed the definition for many generations or for many other words for that matter. Wonders never cease.......

So then do the Shepard's watch the dead wolf and spend their attention on it? ,or do they wisely move on to new cubs as their point of concern. I'd say they do if they are smart, a dead wolf is no more a threat it just sorta lays there and decomposes. I don't see a lot of attention being expended on new cubs, only kicking a dead wolf over and over and over. Meanwhile the new cubs are eating happily. Looks like the Shepard's are falling asleep on the watch to me.

Speaking of Straw Man arguments the whole black analogy is ridicules. Blacks wanted the use of same thing that others had use of period, to vote, to use drinking fountains, to ride in the same seats on the bus. They wanted to use things as they were by definition, they never asked to change the meaning of anything, they did not want us to call a bus a dump truck now. I have no problem with equal rights and benefits for everyone, in cases where that is not the case it can be changed by amending laws to accept a civil union or another choice of words. But that's not good enough for some they want to change the historic meaning of a word. Why? They have the same right to marry a man or a woman of the opposite sex as everyone else, they don't want to, their choice. That's not unequal rights it is refused rights, their choice. If Gays want a union of some sort for legal purposes , make a new word for it call it civil union or whatever other word they want, fine with me, Marriage is traditionally man and wife, it has not been until the last years that the definition has been corrupted by sympathetic liberals. as Kimberly pointed out it is the way nature works, even in cards a marriage is a king and queen. It's not about equal rights it's about making everyone else change existing language to their point of view, it's a turf war we made you change your meaning of marriage. The legal system could easily be amended to accept the marriage and or civil union equally to honor benefits. Even the ”Chief Justice George conceded that “as an historical matter in this state marriage has always been restricted to a union between a man and a woman.”

Not everything is a conspiracy Jeno I guess you missed that Paw brought up the spin doctors album. While I realize that for some "everything" must be a serious lecture on the Evil Way Empire , some others don't have the same life mission.

Hey Piggie, I think waysider just ordered a blue plate special with custom delivery of course........ And send one of your pigs that can hit the target this time!!!!! Sheees I look like an oreo....

Dear Dove, Who or what is Psalmie? Do I seem concerned? The answer is NO I assure you. But you should be...... Poor soul he has no idea , Jeff since your new around these parts perhaps she will cut you some slack, Then again NAW......... I hope you like pie.

No, Spin is what you'll be doing as soon as Psalmie reads this.......... Incoming...........

Her name was Sandi and she loved those smiley's Now here is an example of what David was talking about. I found this old Dovey email. God Bless Her.... Sheech I'm trying to take up the space so there's no blank spaces spaces between my smiley's and the message and I can't seem to do it. Well I'll try a couple more and see what happens but please don't forget to scroll down to the message K? K.

So Groucho does the logic still fail to pass the test now that you can't attribute the quote to me ? Just wondering enquiring minds want to know.

Had you read the post you would see it was not my logic but my northern neighbor Oakspear who offered that , I simply agreed with his option. You would have to ask him your questions He's a big boy and very articulate I bet he will answer for himself.

Thomas I have no quarrel with you , as long as you don't speak about things you don't know about me. You can ignore me if you like ,if that is how you deal with things that challenge your belief system. Personally I don't ignore anyone I like to consider their ideas . I may end up discarding them but at least I do consider them. I haven't forgot about your CD's I'll send them along shortly. If you don't read this I suppose you'll figure it out when they arrive at your door.

Not any longer he is grown and married , but he did go through the Family Corps and was not nor did he remember anyone else out of his group that were beaten almost to unconsciousnes. By the way he returned to stay for many summers after graduation didn't see that then either.

It's a fine line between emphasis and blame, actually though as I read your quote it appears you are talking about responsibility It is also my position that this kind of discussion gets pushed into a false dilemma: TWI and its leaders are totally responsible for our problems or we are totally responsible for our problems. A third alternative is that although we decided to stick with a group that was in many cases abusive, the leaders of TWI were wrong to take advantage of the position that we put ourselves in. Not that I'm one to point out what words mean or anything But since you brought it up....... re·spon·si·bil·i·ty –noun, plural -ties. 1. the state or fact of being responsible. 2. an instance of being responsible: The responsibility for this mess is yours! 3. a particular burden of obligation upon one who is responsible: the responsibilities of authority. 4. a person or thing for which one is responsible: A child is a responsibility to its parents. 5. reliability or dependability, esp. in meeting debts or payments. —Idiom6. on one's own responsibility, on one's own initiative or authority: He changed the order on his own responsibility I'll revise my quote accordingly So if one is pointing out the "responsibility for the mess" then lets include all responsible parties.I can live with your third option