|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Homosexuality, the natural choice? (Gay Animals are Common) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
We don't have an act that says that gays cannot get married. Marriage is between a husband and a wife by default.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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.
But it was an amendment to an already existing law. What did the law say before it was changed?
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.
I'm talking about marriage in the U.S. When did the U.S. start recognizing marriages and what were they recognized as. I don't think they were originally recognized as between members of the same race. That was added in the 1920's and then in the 1960's it got shot down.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Well, you're just being pedantic now. You can fake wanting to be married to someone, how's that sound? Sounds like it doesn't even address the point I made. It might as well have been a Beck review.
Gonna condemn straight marriage any time soon, for the same reasons you condemn gay marriage? No, we both know you're not. Straight marriage is redundant, marriage is for straights. The reasons for condemning gay marriage don't apply to regular marriage.
No, it's math. 100% of the population able to before = 100% of the population able to after. But ability isn't the problem. Its if they actually do it. Opening up marriage won't give a higher percentage the ability to get fake marriages, it will just open another avenue for people to actually do it.
But your opportunity to do so is exactly the same now as it would be with gay marriage. No, its not eactly the same. Right now I can't marry one of my male friends.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
No, that was simply the Virginia state code. It looks like an addition in the 1920's to me. An unconsitutional amendment to the state law that got shot down like 40 years later. How does that turn into opening up something that isn't unconstitutional?
So it's very doubtful that any GRAND, 300-YEAR-OLD TRADITION OF MARRIAGE (somewhat less dramatic music) even bothered to mention race or gender.
They didn't mention race but they did mention gender. Thats why adding in race is unconstitutional according to the 14th amendment. But leaving it the way it is, is not against the 14th amendment.
So, as reasoning humans, we might be stuck having to sort these issues out for ourselves, rather than relying on someone who's been dead for lord only knows how long.
I wasn't the one who brought up the 14th amendment to begin with. I say we should sort them out ourselves too. We could make a new legal agreement that has no restrictions whatsoever and change the laws according to that. But to simply just insert gay into marriage can have adverse effects on the laws that are already revolving around marriage that assume the marriage will be between a man and a women in the first place. Thats one of te major problems I have with gay marriage, is that the laws aroung marriage are not prepared for it. We could just do it and deal with the problems as they come up. Or we could make a new form of marriage and then write those in as they come up, knowing that it might be between two poeple of the same sex.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Your point was that gay marriage is bad because we can't tell if people are really gay. So obviously, straight marriage is bad. Because we can't tell if they even really want to be married! But, you're all for straight marriage, and against gay marriage. Difference? Gays.
You keep saying this over and over and i'm wondering when that will make it true. Marriage already exists as striaght. Changing it to include gays is bad, partly, because we can't tell if they're gay. That doesn't have anything to do with marriage before the change.
White school is redundant, schools are for whites. Yeah, Beck's new image IS a lot different than his older one.
Opening up marriage won't give a higher percentage the ability to get fake marriages, it will just open another avenue for people to actually do it. What you're saying here is comparable to walking up to a guy in a swimming pool and saying, "you may be underwater, but if I turn the hose on you, you'll really be wet!"
How so?
So your ability to enter into a fake marriage is undeterred by the absence of dudes. False. It would be easier for me to enter a fake marriage if same sex marriages were allowed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
It trumps any laws that aren't in the Constitution. And it quite specifically guarantees all citizens equal treatment. And all citezens are allowed to get married.
You two guys? You're married. I can see how that would be an earth-shattering nightmare, for which the law is just not prepared.
And I already covered that. Saying they can get married is the easy part. I'm talking about all the laws that revolve around marriage, not marriage by itself BUt lets go over it a few more time just for fun, eh?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The ease of a fake marriage is already ludicrously high. Throwing on one more avenue? Okay. Turn the hose on that submerged fella, there. Why not? It makes absolutely no difference... he's underwater. The ability is there but not a lot of action is taken, IMHO. I think the new avenue will cause more action. More fake marriages, not just the potential for more. And I don't mean the gays entering fake ones, I mean the straights.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
And I already covered that. Saying they can get married is the easy part. I'm talking about all the laws that revolve around marriage, not marriage by itself Neat. Feel free to tell us, whenever you feel like it, to which laws you're referring, and what the problems are.
The laws I'm refering to can be found here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The "O" in that acronym is the most important part of your post. Opinion, unsupported by anything resembling a fact. The only place this idea comes from is your noggin. Whats wrong with having an opinion? Its my opinion that the whole gay marriage thing is a bad idea. So what?
Meanwhile, back in reality, the actual ability to commit this act has not risen one iota. But I wasn't talking about ability. I was talking about exercising those abilities, which, will increase, IMH opinion. We can't know until it happens.
If straight people might do something bad, gay people should be punished. But gay people aren't being punished.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024