Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Homosexuality, the natural choice? (Gay Animals are Common)
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 151 of 306 (375872)
01-10-2007 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by crashfrog
01-10-2007 12:34 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
Hoot Mon wrote:
And now we are suppose to change that because "gay pride" says we should?
crashfrog replied:
No, actually, because our constitution says we should.
Please! I am having avery hard time imagining that the framers of our Consitution were out to protect "the rights" of gays to get married. Did John Hancock know about this?
You've never been married, have you? Because clearly you don't seem to know much about marriage.
Wrong on the first point, right on the second.
”Hoot Mon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by crashfrog, posted 01-10-2007 12:34 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-10-2007 12:57 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 155 by crashfrog, posted 01-10-2007 1:16 PM Fosdick has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 152 of 306 (375874)
01-10-2007 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Fosdick
01-10-2007 12:53 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
Please! I am having avery hard time imagining that the framers of our Consitution were out to protect "the rights" of gays to get married.
Actually, the amendment in question wasn't written by the framers of the constitution. You don't seem to know too much about US law, either.
But no... given that the framers owned slaves, I'm guessing they weren't too up on the idea of civil rights in general.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Fosdick, posted 01-10-2007 12:53 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Fosdick, posted 01-10-2007 1:11 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 153 of 306 (375875)
01-10-2007 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Taz
01-10-2007 12:40 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
TD wrote:
You know that you have a gift for avoiding the point?
How so? I believe I've made a perfect fool of myself for insisting that tradition has meaning in America. And I'm not even a holier-than-thou Christian anything. I'm only a wannabe evolutionary biologist who needs to ask a few touchy questions.
”Hoot Mon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Taz, posted 01-10-2007 12:40 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Taz, posted 01-10-2007 1:30 PM Fosdick has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 154 of 306 (375876)
01-10-2007 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Dan Carroll
01-10-2007 12:57 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
DC wrote:
But no... given that the framers owned slaves, I'm guessing they weren't too up on the idea of civil rights in general.
True. They had too many Indians to worry about.
”Hoot Mon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-10-2007 12:57 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 155 of 306 (375879)
01-10-2007 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Fosdick
01-10-2007 12:53 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
I am having avery hard time imagining that the framers of our Consitution were out to protect "the rights" of gays to get married.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Fosdick, posted 01-10-2007 12:53 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Fosdick, posted 01-10-2007 1:36 PM crashfrog has replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 156 of 306 (375881)
01-10-2007 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Fosdick
01-10-2007 1:03 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
The reason I said you have a gift for avoiding the point is because the point is you have no real reason why you don't want gays to be married. You even showed us early on that you thought homosexuality could be treated like a disease and that "curing" homosexuality would solve everything.
You never had any valid reason why you don't like gays. You never had any valid reason why you don't want them to get married. You then proceeded with your bigotry (yes, just don't argue, it is bigotry) and tried to come up with one reason after another to justify your bigotry. You admitted that we shot you down with your tradition argument. You, then, proceeded to use the so-called "original intentions of the framers of the constitution" which we've shot down also. If we continue in this vein, I'm pretty sure we're going to start seeing things like "gays can't reproduce... gays have gay-pride parades... gays don't like women..."
If you simply say "I don't know why but I simply don't want them to get married..." I would have left you to your bigotry. My aunt used this same line and I haven't bothered her since.

AKA G.A.S.B.Y.
George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Fosdick, posted 01-10-2007 1:03 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Fosdick, posted 01-10-2007 2:08 PM Taz has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 157 of 306 (375883)
01-10-2007 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by crashfrog
01-10-2007 1:16 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
crashfrog writes:
Why do you refuse to take these issues seriously?
But I support civil-union rights for gays. Didn't I say that somewhere several times? All I'm saying is that the word "marriage" should not apply to them. Let them be "civilly united" and go gayly on their way with every single right bestowed upon the officially married heterosexuals. If they want to call themselves "married," let 'em do it. They have the right to call themselves anything. I have no problem with that. But I don't think the lawmakers need pass special laws protecting their rights to call themselves whatever the want to. Do you?
”Hoot Mon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by crashfrog, posted 01-10-2007 1:16 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-10-2007 2:00 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 175 by crashfrog, posted 01-10-2007 3:52 PM Fosdick has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 158 of 306 (375889)
01-10-2007 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Fosdick
01-10-2007 1:36 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
But I support civil-union rights for gays.
I occasionally wonder if people hung around Selma in the fifties, and said, "What? I think we should let them sit at the back of the bus! It has nothing to do with racism, it's not like I wanna make them walk or anything."
But I don't think the lawmakers need pass special laws protecting their rights to call themselves whatever the want to. Do you?
Actually, we already have that law. It's called the first amendment. But that's okay, because we're not talking about the right to call yourself something.
We're talking about recognition of a marriage, which the Supreme Court has already identified as a fundamental right of all Americans. You are recommending a course of action in which we continue to deny a minority that fundamental right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Fosdick, posted 01-10-2007 1:36 PM Fosdick has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 159 of 306 (375892)
01-10-2007 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Taz
01-10-2007 1:30 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
TD wrote:
The reason I said you have a gift for avoiding the point is because the point is you have no real reason why you don't want gays to be married. You even showed us early on that you thought homosexuality could be treated like a disease and that "curing" homosexuality would solve everything.
You never had any valid reason why you don't like gays. You never had any valid reason why you don't want them to get married. You then proceeded with your bigotry (yes, just don't argue, it is bigotry) and tried to come up with one reason after another to justify your bigotry. You admitted that we shot you down with your tradition argument. You, then, proceeded to use the so-called "original intentions of the framers of the constitution" which we've shot down also. If we continue in this vein, I'm pretty sure we're going to start seeing things like "gays can't reproduce... gays have gay-pride parades... gays don't like women..."
If you simply say "I don't know why but I simply don't want them to get married..." I would have left you to your bigotry. My aunt used this same line and I haven't bothered her since.
Yes! All that! And free Angela Davies, too!
I think you are philosophically shallow on this issue of "bigotry." Why is it "bigotry" to question the touchy details that differentiate nature from nurture”from genetic predisposition to choice? I am almost certain that being gay, eventually, will be ENTIRELY a matter of choice by way of gene therapy. What then? When that happens bigots will say to gays "Go get it fixed." I won't be saying that. I'll be saying, along with the gays, that they deserve to have a choice in their own sexuality. Maybe they don't want to "get it fixed." And maybe heterosexuals will choose to get reverse gene therapy to make them gay. I would defend their rights to do that, too. How does that make me a bigot?
Again, if the gays want to call themselves "married," that's OK with me. However, I don't think there needs to be laws for that, especially if civil-union rights are available to them.
”Hoot Mon
Edited by Hoot Mon, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Taz, posted 01-10-2007 1:30 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Taz, posted 01-10-2007 2:31 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 163 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-10-2007 2:37 PM Fosdick has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 160 of 306 (375894)
01-10-2007 2:28 PM


14th Amendment
Gays do have the right to get married. Its just that marriage in the US is between a man and a women. The 14th amendment is not being violated.
In order for two men to get married, marriage would have to be changed to be between a person and a person. The 14th amendment doesn't give gays the right to change what marriage is.
Why not create a type of legal agreement that marriage would be a subset of and then let gays enjoy the benefits of the newly created type of legal agreement? This wouldn't be seperate from marriage as marriage would be a part of it (marriage would be one type of the agrement), and it also wouldn't change what marriage is.

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Taz, posted 01-10-2007 2:32 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 165 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-10-2007 2:42 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 168 by Fosdick, posted 01-10-2007 2:50 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 177 by crashfrog, posted 01-10-2007 3:54 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 236 by RAZD, posted 01-11-2007 7:39 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 161 of 306 (375895)
01-10-2007 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Fosdick
01-10-2007 2:08 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
Hoot Mon writes:
Again, if the gays want to call themselves "married," that's OK with me. However, I don't think there needs to be laws for that, especially if civil-union rights are available to them.
What civil union rights? Memory problem?

AKA G.A.S.B.Y.
George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Fosdick, posted 01-10-2007 2:08 PM Fosdick has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 162 of 306 (375898)
01-10-2007 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by New Cat's Eye
01-10-2007 2:28 PM


Re: 14th Amendment
CS writes:
Why not create a type of legal agreement that marriage would be a subset of and then let gays enjoy the benefits of the newly created type of legal agreement? This wouldn't be seperate from marriage as marriage would be a part of it (marriage would be one type of the agrement), and it also wouldn't change what marriage is.
Perhaps interracial couples would have been better off if they didn't seek out "marriage" and simply stayed with "civil union"?

AKA G.A.S.B.Y.
George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-10-2007 2:28 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-10-2007 2:37 PM Taz has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 163 of 306 (375900)
01-10-2007 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Fosdick
01-10-2007 2:08 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
Why is it "bigotry" to question the touchy details that differentiate nature from nurture”from genetic predisposition to choice?
It's interesting how, every time you get boxed into a corner on choice, you say, "No, no, I think it's probably genetic." Then, a few hours later, you pipe up again with choice.
I am almost certain that being gay, eventually, will be ENTIRELY a matter of choice by way of gene therapy.
I am almost certain that, eventually, Hari Seldon's plan for the galaxy will ensure that we don't have to worry about any of this. But in the meantime, perhaps we could focus less on sci-fi futures, and discuss the here and now?
How does that make me a bigot?
That doesn't. Neither does what you ate for breakfast this morning. Your desire to maintain institutionalized discrimination does.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Fosdick, posted 01-10-2007 2:08 PM Fosdick has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 164 of 306 (375901)
01-10-2007 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Taz
01-10-2007 2:32 PM


Re: 14th Amendment
Perhaps interracial couples would have been better off if they didn't seek out "marriage" and simply stayed with "civil union"?
Thats different as race and sexual preference are different. Race is something concrete, something testable. Sexual preference is not. Gays are not a group of people like blacks are.
I can't fake being black like I could fake being gay.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Taz, posted 01-10-2007 2:32 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-10-2007 2:47 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 167 by Taz, posted 01-10-2007 2:49 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 232 by Jaderis, posted 01-11-2007 5:45 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 165 of 306 (375902)
01-10-2007 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by New Cat's Eye
01-10-2007 2:28 PM


Re: 14th Amendment
Gays do have the right to get married. Its just that marriage in the US is between a man and a women. The 14th amendment is not being violated.
This exact same argument got shot down in Loving v. Virginia, when it was argued that everyone had the same right to get married, but that marriage was between two members of the same race. Try again.
Everything about this argument is shit that got settled half a century ago.
The 14th amendment doesn't give gays the right to change what marriage is.
If existing laws (such as what the government will and will not recognize as marriage) violate the constitution, the laws have to be re-written. That's how the system works.
Why not create a type of legal agreement that marriage would be a subset of and then let gays enjoy the benefits of the newly created type of legal agreement?
So, in other words, give them a special, assigned seat elsewhere in the same bus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-10-2007 2:28 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-10-2007 3:52 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024