Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 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 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

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 226 of 306 (376094)
01-10-2007 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by crashfrog
01-10-2007 6:40 PM


Re: 14th Amendment
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.
...and before those, gays could get married?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by crashfrog, posted 01-10-2007 6:40 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by crashfrog, posted 01-11-2007 10:35 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 227 of 306 (376095)
01-10-2007 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Dan Carroll
01-10-2007 6:02 PM


Re: 14th Amendment
The laws I'm refering to can be found here.
Great. And the problems?
There's 1000+ laws in there written under the impresion that marriage was heterosexual. To change the definition of that word to include homosexual marriages could result in problems, what problems? I don't know specifically (as opposed to generally). The issue, for me, is that it seems a little irresposible to just change the definition and see what happens.
I think using a new term is a better solution than changing the definition of a well established term.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-10-2007 6:02 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by ReverendDG, posted 01-11-2007 4:31 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 237 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-11-2007 10:17 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 228 of 306 (376098)
01-10-2007 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Fosdick
01-10-2007 7:42 PM


Re: So let's check it out?
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).
Whats the difference? Why not just call it marriage? If everything is the same, or better, except for the title, what is changing the title going to hurt?

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