|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 1/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Homosexuality, the natural choice? (Gay Animals are Common) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
I can't fake being black like I could fake being gay. I could have sworn that this was just a minor point, and not really your reasoning for prefering a different name for the agreement. But okay, let's head back to it. People can fake being straight. So according to this logic, heterosexuals shouldn't get married. But you're not against heterosexual marriage, you're just singling out homosexuals.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3312 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
CS writes:
Different words but same line of excuse made back in the old days. I can't fake being black like I could fake being gay.
If I am prejudiced against, say, people with no wisdom teeth, I'm sure I can come up with some excuse like the one you came up with to prevent them from getting dental insurance. AKA G.A.S.B.Y. George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5520 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
CS writes:
Now this is philosophically rich! I hope it means something to TD, DC, crashfrog, et al. 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. ”Hoot Mon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5520 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
TD writes:
Maybe we need special laws for people with no wisdom teeth. If I am prejudiced against, say, people with no wisdom teeth, I'm sure I can come up with some excuse like the one you came up with to prevent them from getting dental insurance. ”Hoot Mon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
Now this is philosophically rich! I guess we know which side Hoot Mon would have rooted for in Loving v. Virginia. I astounds me when people bring up (or in this case, cheer on) the exact same arguments that were used by the pro-segregation side in the civil rights movement, and then follow it up with, "how is that bigoted?" Edited by Dan Carroll, : for more snark
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3312 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Of course. The fact that he completely avoided the quote I provided regarding a judge's decision in interracial marriage should be telling enough. You know how sometimes you believe in something but you know people are going to jump all over you for it so you just try to change the subject or ignore it everytime it comes up?
AKA G.A.S.B.Y. George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
You know how sometimes you believe in something but you know people are going to jump all over you for it so you just try to change the subject or ignore it everytime it comes up? No, I'm pretty much universally lovable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5520 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Of course. The fact that he completely avoided the quote I provided regarding a judge's decision in interracial marriage should be telling enough
Interesting how he confates race with sexual orientation. That's quite a mixture of contexts and principles. That's stretchin' it! ”Hoot Mon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
Interesting how he confates race with sexual orientation. There's a very easy way to avoid comparison with the civil rights movement... stop using the same arguments used by segregationists. Actually, you should probably also stop advocating modern segregation. But, y'know... baby steps.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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. 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?
But I don't think the lawmakers need pass special laws protecting their rights to call themselves whatever the want to. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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. But marriage is not defined as being between two people of the same race. Thats why it got shot down, IIRC. It is, however, defined as between a husband and a wife. It is not the exact same argument. Try again.
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. What law with regards to marriage are you talking about?
So, in other words, give them a special, assigned seat elsewhere in the same bus. The racial stuff doesn't even apply. You might as well replied with a Beck review.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
In order for two men to get married, marriage would have to be changed to be between a person and a person. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
But marriage is not defined as being between two people of the same race. But that's exactly how it had been defined - between a man and woman of the same race.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
People can fake being straight. So according to this logic, heterosexuals shouldn't get married. But you're not against heterosexual marriage, you're just singling out homosexuals.
Marriage is by definition for heteros, there's nothing to change. Homos were singled out, or not considered, when marriage was created. There would be no benefit to faking being straight as marriage is already for that, its the default, faking it addsnothing. Opening marriage up for gays is changing it to where faking would have a benefit, it is totally different. You're looking at it backwards.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
CS writes:
Different words but same line of excuse made back in the old days. I can't fake being black like I could fake being gay.
Like how?
If I am prejudiced against, say, people with no wisdom teeth, I'm sure I can come up with some excuse like the one you came up with to prevent them from getting dental insurance.
Let's have it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024