|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,767 Year: 4,024/9,624 Month: 895/974 Week: 222/286 Day: 29/109 Hour: 2/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Homosexuality, the natural choice? (Gay Animals are Common) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5526 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
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. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5526 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
TD wrote:
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. You know that you have a gift for avoiding the point? ”Hoot Mon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5526 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
DC wrote:
True. They had too many Indians to worry about. But no... given that the framers owned slaves, I'm guessing they weren't too up on the idea of civil rights in general. ”Hoot Mon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3317 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5526 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
crashfrog writes:
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? Why do you refuse to take these issues seriously? ”Hoot Mon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5526 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
TD wrote:
Yes! All that! And free Angela Davies, too! 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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3317 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes:
What civil union rights? Memory problem? 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. AKA G.A.S.B.Y. George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3317 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
CS writes:
Perhaps interracial couples would have been better off if they didn't seek out "marriage" and simply stayed with "civil union"? 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.
AKA G.A.S.B.Y. George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024