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

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.

Different words but same line of excuse made back in the old days.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

Now this is philosophically rich! I hope it means something to TD, DC, crashfrog, et al.”Hoot Mon

Maybe we need special laws for people with no wisdom teeth.”Hoot Mon

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

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

No, I'm pretty much universally lovable.

Interesting how he confates race with sexual orientation. That's quite a mixture of contexts and principles. That's stretchin' it!”Hoot Mon

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.

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.

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. What law with regards to marriage are you talking about? The racial stuff doesn't even apply.You might as well replied with a Beck review.

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.

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.

Like how? Let's have it.