|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Homosexuality, the natural choice? (Gay Animals are Common) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
You don't have to be in love to get married. Well, you're just being pedantic now. You can fake wanting to be married to someone, how's that sound? Gonna condemn straight marriage any time soon, for the same reasons you condemn gay marriage? No, we both know you're not.
That's your opinion. I think it will be opened wider. No, it's math. 100% of the population able to before = 100% of the population able to after.
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. That says a great deal about you personally, none of it flattering. But your opportunity to do so is exactly the same now as it would be with gay marriage. After this, you just keep repeating how much easier it will be. Unfortunately, 100 continues to equal 100.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
But it was an amendment to an already existing law. No, that was simply the Virginia state code. If you want an overview on how the state code was changed since the state was first settled, you're gonna have to do some digging on your own. You asked for the law in question; you got it.
I'm talking about marriage in the U.S. Oh. You're talking about a proud history that extends backward through time, all the way to the bygone age of a few hundred years ago. I can see how that would make sense, when appealing to tradition. Still kinda vague, though. Are we talking about King George's laws for the colonies? The ratifying of the Constitution? The fact that there were married couples on the Mayflower? Either way... black people weren't really considered something other than property in America until a while after that. Gay people weren't considered something you avoid killing with sticks until relatively recently. 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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
Sounds like it doesn't even address the point I made. 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.
Straight marriage is redundant, marriage is for straights. White school is redundant, schools are for whites. Wow, the people who said things almost exactly like what you say sounded just horrible, didn't they?
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!"
No, its not eactly the same. Right now I can't marry one of my male friends. True. You can't do so. Meanwhile, you can enter into a fake marriage with any wiling female. So your ability to enter into a fake marriage is undeterred by the absence of dudes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
How does that turn into opening up something that isn't unconstitutional? You'll have to parse this phrase for me. It honestly makes no sense.
They didn't mention race but they did mention gender. Are we back on the goat-herder's mountain again? Or the constitution? Or the general rule of thumb on the Mayflower? Jeez, it's so hard to keep track. But I'm sure that "they", whoever "they" are, were pretty down on the gays; the act of shitting on minorities has indeed been going on for a very long time. So obviously, we should keep doing it.
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. Sorry, law doesn't work that way. The 14th amendment is in the Bill of Rights. It trumps any laws that aren't in the Constitution. And it quite specifically guarantees all citizens equal treatment. You can look for a definition of marriage as "man and woman" in the Constitution, but you won't find it. It's not there.
I wasn't the one who brought up the 14th amendment to begin with. Is it something you're against? You can admit it, you know. We all have our suspicions, anyway.
We could make a new legal agreement that has no restrictions whatsoever and change the laws according to that. *rubs chin* That would be quite succesful, if our goal was to keep those faggots at the back of the bus.
Thats one of te major problems I have with gay marriage, is that the laws aroung marriage are not prepared for it. Could have sworn we covered this earlier. 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. Edited by Dan Carroll, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
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. Sure it does. If the gauge for whether marriage is good or bad is whether you can tell if the participants are really into it, then marriage, as it stands before the change, is bad. Under your standards, straight marriage does not hold up. But you have no problem with straight marriage.
Yeah, [stealing jokes is lame] Hey, you're the one using segregationist arguments. If you don't like that, you might wanna look to yourself for the problem.
How so? 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.
False. It would be easier for me to enter a fake marriage if same sex marriages were allowed. Well, you said "false", and then repeated yourself. That sure showed me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
And all citezens are allowed to get married. Segregationist argument, that has already been shot down by the courts. And hey, you know what the reason was for calling bullshit on it? The 14th amendment. Crazy, huh?
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. Edited by Dan Carroll, : spelling Edited by Dan Carroll, : to add some swearing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
The ability is there but not a lot of action is taken, IMHO. I think the new avenue will cause more action. 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. Meanwhile, back in reality, the actual ability to commit this act has not risen one iota.
And I don't mean the gays entering fake ones, I mean the straights. Interesting. If straight people might do something bad, gay people should be punished.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
The laws I'm refering to can be found here. Great. And the problems?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024