Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Homosexuality, the natural choice? (Gay Animals are Common)
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 181 of 306 (375945)
01-10-2007 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by crashfrog
01-10-2007 3:54 PM


Re: 14th Amendment
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.
It differes from state to state. A few that they had pdf's of online that I saw said husband and wife.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by crashfrog, posted 01-10-2007 3:54 PM crashfrog has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 182 of 306 (375946)
01-10-2007 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by crashfrog
01-10-2007 3:55 PM


Re: 14th Amendment
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.
On paper or in people's minds?
Show me.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by crashfrog, posted 01-10-2007 3:55 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by crashfrog, posted 01-10-2007 4:06 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 183 of 306 (375947)
01-10-2007 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by New Cat's Eye
01-10-2007 4:03 PM


Re: 14th Amendment
Show me.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-10-2007 4:03 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-10-2007 4:11 PM crashfrog has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 184 of 306 (375948)
01-10-2007 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by New Cat's Eye
01-10-2007 3:52 PM


Re: 14th Amendment
But marriage is not defined as being between two people of the same race.
See Crash's reply; it was then, but now it's changed.
What law with regards to marriage are you talking about?
The 20 anti-marriage amendments that have been passed on a state level are a good start.
The racial stuff doesn't even apply.
I have a million dollars!
We are playing, "I say it; that makes it so", right?
Homos were singled out, or not considered, when marriage was created.
Oh, gay people have been getting shit on for a very long time. Well, I guess that makes it okay to keep doing so.
There would be no benefit to faking being straight as marriage is already for that, its the default, faking it addsnothing.
Marriage is for faking being straight?
Hunh.
Regardless, an obvious benefit of faking heterosexuality: citizenship. Gay guy wants to stay in the country, marries a female friend.
I expect your resounding condemnation of straight marriage any second now. Assuming you're not just looking to single out the homosexuals.
Which, of course, you are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-10-2007 3:52 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-10-2007 4:18 PM Dan Carroll has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 185 of 306 (375950)
01-10-2007 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by crashfrog
01-10-2007 4:06 PM


Re: 14th Amendment
Show me.
Where and when "marriage" was defined?
No, that marriage was for people of the same race. I don't think that was explicitly stated, just that people said it was implied. I mean, it did get shot down.
Marriage liscenses that I have seen have been explicitly for a husband and a wife, but I didn't see any racial requirements.
The point of the case was that the law had defined marriage as being between a man and woman of the same race.
That's what I wanted to see. Where the law says of the same race. I thought it was just implied and not written in there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by crashfrog, posted 01-10-2007 4:06 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-10-2007 4:21 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 189 by crashfrog, posted 01-10-2007 4:24 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

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


Message 186 of 306 (375951)
01-10-2007 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by crashfrog
01-10-2007 3:52 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
crashfrog wrote:
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.
You're quoting me here? Please show me where I said that. If you are putting words in my mouth then your credibility just took a dive.
”Hoot Mon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by crashfrog, posted 01-10-2007 3:52 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by crashfrog, posted 01-10-2007 4:26 PM Fosdick has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 187 of 306 (375952)
01-10-2007 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Dan Carroll
01-10-2007 4:06 PM


Re: 14th Amendment
The 20 anti-marriage amendments that have been passed on a state level are a good start.
Oh, yeah, I don't agree with those. We can't actively discriminate against gay people.
I have a million dollars!
We are playing, "I say it; that makes it so", right?
That's the only game I see you play.
There would be no benefit to faking being straight as marriage is already for that, its the default, faking it addsnothing.
Marriage is for faking being straight?
Hunh.
There would be no benefit to faking being straight as marriage is already for being straight. There could be a benefit for faking being gay if marriage is changed to include gays as marriage is not already for being gay.
Regardless, an obvious benefit of faking heterosexuality: citizenship. Gay guy wants to stay in the country, marries a female friend.
Right, and opening up marriage to include same sex ones, will make it all the more easier to have a fake marriage for peronal benefit. I don't think that is a good idea.
I expect your resounding condemnation of straight marriage any second now. Assuming you're not just looking to single out the homosexuals.
I'd single out any group of people that wanted to exploit the laws, their sexuality has nothing to do with it.
But I forgot that you play that game where things are true because you say them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-10-2007 4:06 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-10-2007 4:30 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 188 of 306 (375953)
01-10-2007 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by New Cat's Eye
01-10-2007 4:11 PM


Re: 14th Amendment
That's what I wanted to see. Where the law says of the same race. I thought it was just implied and not written in there.
Section 20-59 of the Virginia code, as of 1967:
quote:
Punishment for marriage. If any white person intermarry with a colored person, or any colored person intermarry with a white person, he shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than five years."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-10-2007 4:11 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-10-2007 4:32 PM Dan Carroll has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 189 of 306 (375954)
01-10-2007 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by New Cat's Eye
01-10-2007 4:11 PM


Re: 14th Amendment
I don't think that was explicitly stated, just that people said it was implied. I mean, it did get shot down.
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?
Where the law says of the same race. I thought it was just implied and not written in there.
From the Racial Integrity Act of 1924:
Edited by AdminAsgara, : changed large images to thumbnails

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-10-2007 4:11 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-10-2007 4:34 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 190 of 306 (375955)
01-10-2007 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Fosdick
01-10-2007 4:17 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
You're quoting me here?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Fosdick, posted 01-10-2007 4:17 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Fosdick, posted 01-10-2007 7:03 PM crashfrog has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 191 of 306 (375956)
01-10-2007 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by New Cat's Eye
01-10-2007 4:18 PM


Re: 14th Amendment
That's the only game I see you play.
Oh no! He knows I am, but what is he?
*clutches chest, falls backward*
There would be no benefit to faking being straight as marriage is already for being straight. There could be a benefit for faking being gay if marriage is changed to include gays as marriage is not already for being gay.
A straight person can already fake being in love with someone. Hey, hang on... we can't really tell if two people are in love!
Wow, you really should condemn the crap out straight marriage. It just keeps getting harder and harder to tell if it's really valid.
Right, and opening up marriage to include same sex ones, will make it all the more easier to have a fake marriage for peronal benefit. I don't think that is a good idea.
There is no appreciable difference in how easy it will be. Anyone, gay or straight, can already enter into a fake marriage. Offering up more options for valid marriages does not increase the number of fake ones, when the opportunity for fake marriage is already as wide open as it can be.
That paragraph got a little convoluted, so let's make it real simple. Right now? 100% of the people can enter fake marriages, but only 90% can enter real ones.
With gay marriage? 100% of the people can still enter fake marriages, but 100% can also enter real ones.
Really simple math. Same opportunity for fake, greater opportunity for real.
I'd single out any group of people that wanted to exploit the laws, their sexuality has nothing to do with it.
Gay people want to get married so they can exploit the law? That's a new one.
After all, gay people are the ones you're singling out, here... not the straight people who will commit this matrimonial crime spree, when they realize they can suddenly do something they've been able to do all along.
Edited by Dan Carroll, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-10-2007 4:18 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-10-2007 4:42 PM Dan Carroll has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 192 of 306 (375957)
01-10-2007 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Dan Carroll
01-10-2007 4:21 PM


Re: 14th Amendment
That was added to the definition of marraige, correct? It wasn't there to begin with?
I don't think we should add anything to marriage to exclude gays, but it is already in there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-10-2007 4:21 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-10-2007 4:35 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 193 of 306 (375958)
01-10-2007 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by crashfrog
01-10-2007 4:24 PM


Re: 14th Amendment
We don't have an act that says that gays cannot get married. Marriage is between a husband and a wife by default.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by crashfrog, posted 01-10-2007 4:24 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by crashfrog, posted 01-10-2007 6:40 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 194 of 306 (375959)
01-10-2007 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by New Cat's Eye
01-10-2007 4:32 PM


Re: 14th Amendment
That was added to the definition of marraige, correct? It wasn't there to begin with?
This was the law... you know, what you asked for.
If there's some monolithic DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE (cue dramatic music) that was carved into a mountain by goat herders in 25,000 BC or something to which you can point, feel free to do so. We'll be sure to check if it was there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-10-2007 4:32 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-10-2007 4:45 PM Dan Carroll has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 195 of 306 (375960)
01-10-2007 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Dan Carroll
01-10-2007 4:30 PM


Re: 14th Amendment
A straight person can already fake being in love with someone.
You don't have to be in love to get married.
There is no appreciable difference in how easy it will be. Anyone, gay or straight, can already enter into a fake marriage. Offering up more options for valid marriages does not increase the number of fake ones, when the opportunity for fake marriage is already as wide open as it can be.
That's your opinion. I think it will be opened wider.
After all, gay people are the ones you're singling out, here... not the straight people who will commit this matrimonial crime spree, when they realize they can suddenly do something they've been able to do all along.
I, personally, never considered entering a fake marriage before the whole gay marriage thing came up. Now, it seems like it could be fairly beneficial. I also think it would be easier if it was between a male friend of mine versus a female.
Gay people want to get married so they can exploit the law? That's a new one.
Some might, I dunno. But certainly there are people, in general, who do want to exploit the law and opening marriage up to same sexes will make that exploitation easier.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-10-2007 4:30 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-10-2007 4:47 PM New Cat's Eye 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