Homosexuality, the natural choice? (Gay Animals are Common)

If you didn't have any choice about it yourself, why should we believe that anybody else has a choice? Particularly when gay people themselves are so certain that their sexual orientation was not voluntarily established?

That's not true. Many African countries, for instance, have millenia-old traditions of marriage. Of course, you might just as well argue that things like1) Monogamous marriage
2) Marriage for love
3) Marriage that is voluntary for women
4) Marriage between persons of differing race or religionfly in the face of tradition - because that's exactly what they did. The truth of the matter is simple, but apparently you've missed it - the only tradition in marriage is change.I take it you're not married? Why? They don't even have civil unions, yet. I don't think the oppressed are under an obligation to just shut up and take it simply because you find them audacious for asking for the same rights you have.

No, it was originally set up as a means of property exchange. Later it became a tool of statecraft. Still later it became a tool for preserving racial and religious boundaries.You've never been married, have you? Because clearly you don't seem to know much about marriage. No, actually, because our constitution says we should.

What part of the fourteenth amendment are you having trouble reading?In fact, it was well-known to the Framers at the time that the Constitution would have to be applied in ways they couldn't even predict. Jefferson wrote extensively about this, and it's the reason that the fourth amendment requires the police to have a warrant to search not only your property, but also your phone calls.Why do you refuse to take these issues seriously?

If they get all the rights of marriage, and they can even call themselves married if they want, then I don't see what distinction you're drawing between civil unions and marriages.Are you saying you want to be able to call some marriages "civil unions" and others "marriages"? I don't see any reason you're being prevented from doing that. What, exactly, is your issue here, then? Since plenty of gays call themselves married now (like my uncle-in-law, who lives in Arlington), I don't see that the laws have to change, either.But in order for gays to have civil unions, yes, the laws do have to be changed. So when you say "let them have civil unions but don't change the laws", I know you're not taking this at all seriously, because your position is self-contradicting.

Actually, it already is. That's what it said when I filed for a marriage license - "Person 1" and "Person 2." In Minnesota, Nicollete county, anyway.

But that's exactly how it had been defined - between a man and woman of the same race.

Where and when "marriage" was defined? Actually:

quote:

---

Homos were singled out, or not considered, when marriage was created.

---

Since you're the one who was, apparently, there when it happened, you show me.The point of the case was that the law had defined marriage as being between a man and woman of the same race. That definition was ruled unconstitutional. Definitions don't trump the constitution; quite the opposite.

Jesus Christ, CS, use some sense. What got shot down, if not a law explicitly disallowing interracial marriages?We're talking about a law called the "Racial Integrity Act" And you think a ban on interracial marriage was simply implied? From the Racial Integrity Act of 1924: Edited by AdminAsgara, : changed large images to thumbnails

Not directly (and my use of quotation marks aren't meant to imply that), but what is your position if not:1) Civil unions are sufficient;
2) There's no need to change the laws.? Since you've taken both those positions repeatedly (and I can quote you, if you like), what else am I supposed to conclude?And since now you're using transparent and intellectually dishonest dodges to avoid defending your position, what should I conclude from that?

What are you smoking? Don't you ever open a newspaper?In addition to the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, which bars any federal recognition of gay marriage across all 50 states, 30 states have some form of legal prohibition against same-sex marriages, 20 of which include amendments to their constitution.Seriously, CS. What's the deal? It's amazing to me that you could be this ignorant on this issue, yet still argue about it so adamantly. Did it ever occur to you to find out what you're talking about? Or are you still playing the game where you make up your own facts? No. Only by unconstitutional convention and specific legal acts.

I'm sorry, but could you suspend the histronics and address my point?

How are we going to do that without changing the laws, HM? Which you've stated is something you don't want to happen?Isn't it somewhat disingenuous of you to act like you advocate a policy when you refuse to allow it to be enacted?

Let me dumb it down for you, then.Do you understand, Hoot Man, that there are no such things as "civil unions" under any current federal or state statue? That "civil union" is not a legal construct that exists in the United States?Is the question sufficiently clear, now? It's a yes or no question.

Oops, it is "Mon." My apologies. What you've said is that the laws shouldn't be changed.