Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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)
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 211 of 306 (375987)
01-10-2007 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by New Cat's Eye
01-10-2007 5:52 PM


So let's check it out?
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.
I offered to walk through this step by step once before with you and you just ran away.
Once again, do you want to actually examine the economic impact or are you just trolling?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-10-2007 5:52 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-10-2007 6:10 PM jar has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 212 of 306 (375988)
01-10-2007 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Dan Carroll
01-10-2007 6:01 PM


Re: 14th Amendment
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-10-2007 6:01 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-10-2007 8:25 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 213 of 306 (375989)
01-10-2007 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by jar
01-10-2007 6:02 PM


Re: So let's check it out?
I offered to walk through this step by step once before with you and you just ran away.
I didn't run away. Don't be an ass.
I'd be willing to do it. No time today though.
Once again, do you want to actually examine the economic impact or are you just trolling?
lets just say that I would like to examine the economic impact one day. Until I actuality find out, it will remain my opinion that it is a bad idea. If I learn that it will not be bad, or is an improvement, then I will change my opinion.
Honestly, though, its not at the top of my list of things to get done. Its not like I'm voting against gay marriage or anything, I'm just holding an opinion.
Its going to take time and effort to examine the actual impacts. I wish I had more free time, although, admittedly the time I spent on this thread today could have been spent on that. But this was more fun
or do you consider that running away?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by jar, posted 01-10-2007 6:02 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Fosdick, posted 01-10-2007 7:42 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

docpotato
Member (Idle past 5048 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 214 of 306 (375991)
01-10-2007 6:18 PM


I'm getting dizzy from this merry-go-round.
I think Dan pulls apart Catholic Scientist's argumentation neatly with this little gem:
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.
A lot of time on the potential for fake marriages, but not much spent on the difference in "real" marriages that will result from allowing gay marriage.
But, then, maybe this is all just an example of the no-true-marriage fallacy.

The American Drivel Review

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


Message 215 of 306 (376000)
01-10-2007 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by New Cat's Eye
01-10-2007 4:34 PM


Re: 14th Amendment
We don't have an act that says that gays cannot get married.
What are you smoking? Don't you ever open a newspaper?
In addition to the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, which bars any federal recognition of gay marriage across all 50 states, 30 states have some form of legal prohibition against same-sex marriages, 20 of which include amendments to their constitution.
Seriously, CS. What's the deal? It's amazing to me that you could be this ignorant on this issue, yet still argue about it so adamantly. Did it ever occur to you to find out what you're talking about? Or are you still playing the game where you make up your own facts?
Marriage is between a husband and a wife by default.
No. Only by unconstitutional convention and specific legal acts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-10-2007 4:34 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-10-2007 11:54 PM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 216 of 306 (376005)
01-10-2007 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by crashfrog
01-10-2007 4:26 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
I asked:
You're quoting me here?
crashfrog replied:
Not directly (and my use of quotation marks aren't meant to imply that)...
What? CRASHFROG, YOU'RE OUT OF ORDER! Even amphibians should know better than that.
”Hoot Mon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by crashfrog, posted 01-10-2007 4:26 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by crashfrog, posted 01-10-2007 8:25 PM Fosdick has not replied

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


Message 217 of 306 (376013)
01-10-2007 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by New Cat's Eye
01-10-2007 6:10 PM


Re: So let's check it out?
CS writes:
Lets just say that I would like to examine the economic impact one day. Until I actuality find out, it will remain my opinion that it is a bad idea. If I learn that it will not be bad, or is an improvement, then I will change my opinion.
If gays were legally allowed full civil-union rights in every respect, except for the title "marriage," which I believe should apply only to straights, then I think there would be a positive economic effect all around. There might be a positive social effect, too, if gays were more domesticcally secure to adopt children. I think gays would have more of positive role to play in society by improving their domestic conditions. Nobody loses anything. All this and maybe more could be accomplished with full-on, civil-union opportunities for gays. Whether on not they are entitled to call themselves "married" is a trivial issue when it comes down to the bone (sorry, not pun intended).
”Hoot Mon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-10-2007 6:10 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by crashfrog, posted 01-10-2007 8:27 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 228 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-10-2007 11:58 PM Fosdick has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 218 of 306 (376022)
01-10-2007 8:05 PM


Consistent rights for all?
This is an excerpt from an excellent article. I only ask that you consider what is said as food for thought...
'On one occasion I ran up against this very question from a news reporter. I had just finished lecturing at a university, and she had very graciously stayed through the entire lecture even though she had other pressing engagements. After the lecture was over, she was walking beside me and said, “Can I ask you a question that really troubles me about the Christian?”
I was glad to oblige. “Why,” she asked, “are Christians openly against racial discrimination but at the same time discriminate against certain types of sexual behavior?” (She made more specific references to the types of behavior she felt we discriminated against.)
I said this to her: “We are against racial discrimination because one’s ethnicity is sacred. You cannot violate the sacredness of one’s race. For the same reason we are against the altering of God’s pattern and purpose for sexuality. Sex is sacred in the eyes of God and ought not to be violated. What you have to explain is why you treat race as sacred and desacralize sexuality. The question is really yours, not mine. In other words, our reasoning in both cases stems from the same foundational basis. You in effect switch the basis of reasoning, and that is why you are living in contradiction.”
source-and For the whole article: Oops, something lost
Edited by scottness, : No reason given.

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


Message 219 of 306 (376029)
01-10-2007 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Fosdick
01-10-2007 7:03 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
I'm sorry, but could you suspend the histronics and address my point?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Fosdick, posted 01-10-2007 7:03 PM Fosdick has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 220 of 306 (376030)
01-10-2007 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by New Cat's Eye
01-10-2007 6:05 PM


Re: 14th Amendment
Whats wrong with having an opinion? Its my opinion that the whole gay marriage thing is a bad idea. So what?
Nothing wrong with having an opinion. But having an opinion that's not based on facts is less than useless. For instance, it can be your opinion that the queen of the leprauchan people will come to Earth and smite the eastern seaboard if gays are allowed to marry.
But if you talk about it in public, be prepared for people to respond by asking, "what are you, fucking high?"
But gay people aren't being punished.
Except for the part where they're denied a fundamental right, sure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-10-2007 6:05 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Jaderis, posted 01-11-2007 6:26 AM Dan Carroll has replied

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


Message 221 of 306 (376031)
01-10-2007 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Fosdick
01-10-2007 7:42 PM


Re: So let's check it out?
How are we going to do that without changing the laws, HM? Which you've stated is something you don't want to happen?
Isn't it somewhat disingenuous of you to act like you advocate a policy when you refuse to allow it to be enacted?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Fosdick, posted 01-10-2007 7:42 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Fosdick, posted 01-10-2007 8:36 PM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 222 of 306 (376032)
01-10-2007 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by crashfrog
01-10-2007 8:27 PM


Re: So let's check it out?
crashfrog wrote;
How are we going to do that without changing the laws, HM? Which you've stated is something you don't want to happen?
Isn't it somewhat disingenuous of you to act like you advocate a policy when you refuse to allow it to be enacted?
Sorry, I don't get it. Crashfrog, you might be too abstract for my pre-fossilized mind.
”Hoot Mon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by crashfrog, posted 01-10-2007 8:27 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by crashfrog, posted 01-10-2007 8:38 PM Fosdick has replied

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


Message 223 of 306 (376033)
01-10-2007 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Fosdick
01-10-2007 8:36 PM


Re: So let's check it out?
Sorry, I don't get it. Crashfrog, you might be too abstract for my pre-fossilized mind.
Let me dumb it down for you, then.
Do you understand, Hoot Man, that there are no such things as "civil unions" under any current federal or state statue? That "civil union" is not a legal construct that exists in the United States?
Is the question sufficiently clear, now? It's a yes or no question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Fosdick, posted 01-10-2007 8:36 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Fosdick, posted 01-10-2007 8:50 PM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 224 of 306 (376038)
01-10-2007 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by crashfrog
01-10-2007 8:38 PM


Re: So let's check it out?
crashfrog wrote:
Let me dumb it down for you, then.
Do you understand, Hoot Man, that there are no such things as "civil unions" under any current federal or state statue? That "civil union" is not a legal construct that exists in the United States?
Well, let's vote 'em in then. Haven't I already said that?
And, btw, it's "Hoot Mon," like in "Hoot Mon!"
”Hoot Mon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by crashfrog, posted 01-10-2007 8:38 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by crashfrog, posted 01-10-2007 8:52 PM Fosdick has not replied

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


Message 225 of 306 (376039)
01-10-2007 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Fosdick
01-10-2007 8:50 PM


Re: So let's check it out?
Oops, it is "Mon." My apologies.
Well, let's vote 'em in then. Haven't I already said that?
What you've said is that the laws shouldn't be changed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Fosdick, posted 01-10-2007 8:50 PM Fosdick has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024