Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8960 total)
142 online now:
AZPaul3, frako, jar, kjsimons, PaulK, Tangle, Theodoric (7 members, 135 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,697 Year: 1,445/23,288 Month: 1,445/1,851 Week: 85/484 Day: 8/77 Hour: 1/1


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 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 responded

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

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 responded

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

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 yet responded

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 2498 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 229 of 306 (376127)
01-11-2007 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by New Cat's Eye
01-10-2007 11:55 PM


Re: 14th Amendment
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.

thats because no gays were allowed to marry, heck it was a horrible thing to be for thousands of years, well in some places
as for america, why would we have laws built for a group that doesn't care?
this a pretty weak argument CS, i'm confused how changing the rights of people will effect the laws? do you really have an argument for this or is this just begging the question and fearmongering?

I think using a new term is a better solution than changing the definition of a well established term.

why? words change all the time, why should marriage not be changed to fit how our world works? this doesn't seem like anything more than a fear of losing a word that didn't mean what you think it does
i could list the different marrages that the world has known, in anthropology marriage is a religious or secluar bond between two or more persons of both sexes

the only reason it works the way it does is to cut down on confusion between people over wealth and property, nothing more, only since gays wanted to get married has it been about love or procration and god and crap like that


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-10-2007 11:55 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Jaderis
Member (Idle past 1813 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 230 of 306 (376128)
01-11-2007 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Fosdick
01-09-2007 8:46 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
It is the gays and not the straights who are wrong-minded on this issue. If they had any grace at all they'd give it a break.

I hope not to seem too overly-emotional in this exclamation, but how DARE you speak of grace when you compare the actions of gay people wanting the right to love the person they love and the actions of "Christians" who throw the specter of hell (along with beer bottles and other hurlable objects) in our faces as we respectfully ask for a right which should be a natural right under our Constitution!? How DARE you say that we do no have the right to show our faces and our hearts to the nation (and I know you have not personally said this as yet on this thread, but you may as well have with the above statement) and say we are "shoving our 'lifestyle' down your throats when we do!?

So grace to you is bowing down to the powers that be and saying thank you for not killing us or beating us or jailing us? That we should back down now that we have gained some nominal "rights" and call it even? Just so you can feel more comfortable? Just so your fucking internal dictionary isn't altered?

I don't think so.

Don't speak to me of grace when I have walked with my head held high with blood running down my forehead and beer soaking my shirt trying not to cry because some asshole thought he had the right to hurt me for holding hands with another woman. Don't speak to me of grace when I had to hold my boiling temper when the cops in my neighborhood told my friend who had just been beaten nearly senseless (and after I had to help drag her from underneath a car where she had fled to escape the blows) that she should be "more careful next time." Don't speak to me of grace when you saw the protesters/supporters of the killers lining up at Matthew Shepherd's killers trial and the "angels" who chose to line up in front of them to shield the family from the hatred of those people.

I/we wouldn't have to burst your precious little bubble if only we could live our lives the way we wish without the "permission" of the likes of you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Fosdick, posted 01-09-2007 8:46 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by crashfrog, posted 01-11-2007 10:40 AM Jaderis has not yet responded

Jaderis
Member (Idle past 1813 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 231 of 306 (376129)
01-11-2007 5:25 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Fosdick
01-10-2007 12:20 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
"You people?" You mean the ones with ordinary principles and biological predispositions? You know, when the lawmakers sit down to make laws in any state I would hope they have priority lists to work from. The item "gay marriage" is not nearly as urgent as things like public education, highway maintenance, gun control, corporate crime, environmental protection, port security, and a bazillion other matters. I look forward to the day when mittens for homeless children and birth control for feral cats reach the top of any state's priority list

Yes, yes, I look forward to that day, too, believe me, but the side that opposes gay unions and/or marriages keeps getting in the way.

Most homosexuals (contrary to popular belief) are quite content with civil unions as long as the benefits conferred match letter for letter the benefits conferred upon heterosexual unions. For some, marriage is a sacred word that they want to use to define their relationship, on both sides. I have an easy solution for that. Call it whatever you want. If I was married (hehe) to the term marriage I would call my relationship a marriage no matter what the government chose to call it. If you do not accept the term marriage applying to homosexual relationships, DON"T CALL IT THAT no matter what the government chooses to do. Since when does the governement dictate the definitions you use (excepting "imminent" and "threat" and "is" ;) )?

Until you can convince your state legislatures and your fellow citizens to support gay civil unions and or/ marriages, we won't see alot of mittens for homeless kids because so many supposed "Christians" are swayed by the fear-mongering people in the pulpits and become single issue voters dedicated to opposition of rights instead of aligning themselves with those who would actually support money for homeless kids and kittens.

Nice imagery by the way...way to pit gay people against needy kids and kittens (I send money and volunteer time for Habitat for Humanity, the ASPCA and Housing Works in NYC...just as a side note).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Fosdick, posted 01-10-2007 12:20 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

Jaderis
Member (Idle past 1813 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 232 of 306 (376132)
01-11-2007 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by New Cat's Eye
01-10-2007 2:37 PM


Re: 14th Amendment
I can't fake being black like I could fake being gay.

Sure you could. It's kinda like that skit by Eddie Murphy on SNL, but in reverse.

But, seriously. That brings up an experiment.

Why don't you try acting gay (not sexually, mind you, but whatever you might perceive as "acting" gay) for a week. Try to gauge the different looks and attitudes people give you. Maybe come June go to a gay pride parade, too, but on the "side" of the gays and try to experience it as we do. I know it's not an election year or if legislation might be upcoming in your area/state, but maybe next time there is, try going to the capitol and stand with the homosexuals (even for a brief time) just to see the "other side" from our point of view. You may feel that your opinions are quite indifferent to the whole affair and see this whole thing as no big deal, but when you see the hatred and malevolence that we see, you may stop to consider why we fight the way we do. Or maybe not. I cannot predict such things, but if you think it so easy to pretend to be gay...please be my guest. Try it out. See how it feels to actually be me (instead of worrying about getting your BMX buddy health insurance).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-10-2007 2:37 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Fosdick, posted 01-11-2007 11:40 AM Jaderis has not yet responded

Jaderis
Member (Idle past 1813 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 233 of 306 (376135)
01-11-2007 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by Dan Carroll
01-10-2007 8:25 PM


Dan Carroll
Will you marry me?

J/K

Just thanks for your wit on this and other threads. I always get excited - hey...hey!! - when I see your avatar. I know that much laughter and gaiety (if you will excuse the pun) will ensue and it makes me happy and brings my heat down a notch.

In other words, you rock! :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-10-2007 8:25 PM Dan Carroll has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-11-2007 10:20 AM Jaderis has not yet responded

Jaderis
Member (Idle past 1813 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 234 of 306 (376139)
01-11-2007 6:50 AM
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. Thats why it got shot down, IIRC. It is, however, defined as between a husband and a wife. It is not the exact same argument. Try again

Marriage to you is only defined as between a man and a woman, but, aparently, to the judge in the original case of Loving v. Virginia, marriage was defined by a matter of race.

Your dictionary may define marriage in a certain way, but do you get offended by waiters in a restaurant saying that they are "marrying" ketchup bottles or salt shakers? Are you up making the signs right now to oppose the use of the word "marriage" (or a variant of) in front of "TGI Friday's?"

Marriage has many varying definitions which change as the language changes.

So, can I expect you at my niece's restaurant tomorrow protesting the use of "marriage" as it pertains to condiments?


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 not yet responded

Jaderis
Member (Idle past 1813 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 235 of 306 (376140)
01-11-2007 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by New Cat's Eye
01-10-2007 3:58 PM


Re: 14th Amendment
Marriage is by definition for heteros, there's nothing to change. Homos were singled out, or not considered, when marriage was created. There would be no benefit to faking being straight as marriage is already for that, its the default, faking it addsnothing. Opening marriage up for gays is changing it to where faking would have a benefit, it is totally different.

Blacks were also not considered in the original laws of the constitution. Neither were non-property holders (at least in regards to voting) or women.

The original laws were and are open to revision as is said in the Constitution. No society is static.

BTW, how is faking a heterosexual marriage any different?

I think I have told this story before, but I have a straight uncle and a lesbian aunt who loved each other so much as friends that they decided to get "married" in order to grant benefits to their kids (yes they did have sex to have kids...this was before the advent of test tube babies) because he had a job building Boeing jets and wonderful benefits. They both have outside relationships (the uncle straight and the aunt lesbian in case you were confused) and a strong friendship, but they "duped" the system. Should that make all heterosexual relationships invalid?

Of course not...for you it would have to be one (probably yourself trying to fake it for your bike pal) person faking it enough to invalidate the whole prospect of gays wanting to have a real lifetime commitment with the one that they love. That's bullshit.

PS...speaking of "faking it," You might want to read about "passing" in the African-American community. Did you know that Lena Horne, Jennifer Beals, et al, were "black?" Passing was (and I suppose in some circles, still is) a huge factor in "making it" whether it be in show-biz, marriage, politics or whatever.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-10-2007 3:58 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Taz, posted 01-11-2007 1:00 PM Jaderis has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20484
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 236 of 306 (376141)
01-11-2007 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by New Cat's Eye
01-10-2007 2:28 PM


Re: 14th Amendment - the OTHER option
Why not create a type of legal agreement that marriage would be a subset of and then let gays enjoy the benefits of the newly created type of legal agreement?

Instead of that why don't we give married folks the same benefits that non-married folk have?

We already have "common-law marriages" where the legal constraints of property etc are extended even though the people are NOT married, so ... the fact of marriage does not matter to what the laws cover.

Lets remove this bit of an archaic past that no longer applies to modern society and move into the 20th century (at least) and put everyone one the same level - relationship recognized for legal purposes based on how you live.

LEGALLY it doesn't matter if you have a piece of paper from a church or whatever, the issue is how you live, so we no longer need to refer to the piece of paper in any legislation.

Only once you have removed the bias against "marriage" (= ownership anyway) from all legal documents will couples be free to enjoy the benefits of the rest of society.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-10-2007 2:28 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 237 of 306 (376170)
01-11-2007 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by New Cat's Eye
01-10-2007 11:55 PM


Re: 14th Amendment
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).

So, even with all those laws right there in front of you, you can't think of any problems that you can actually type out and discuss.

In other words, your opinion is equivalent to the leprauchan threat.

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.

You know, even if civil unions happen, every single one of those laws will have to be slightly re-written anyway, and then put in place as an extra set of new laws. Which makes civil unions, in addition to being institutionalized segregation, an unnecessary extra level of government bureaucracy.

Of course, we all know things go much smoother with extra government bureaucracy. So that's okay.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-10-2007 11:55 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 238 of 306 (376171)
01-11-2007 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by Jaderis
01-11-2007 6:26 AM


Re: Dan Carroll
Right back at'cha, ma'am.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Jaderis, posted 01-11-2007 6:26 AM Jaderis has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 239 of 306 (376175)
01-11-2007 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by New Cat's Eye
01-10-2007 11:54 PM


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

I don't know that anybody tried.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-10-2007 11:54 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 240 of 306 (376179)
01-11-2007 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by Jaderis
01-11-2007 4:52 AM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
Thank you, Jaderis, for making this into a discussion that isn't about hypothetical people.

I don't think for a minute that people like CS and HM ever stop to consider the consequences of their words on the people they would affect. I don't think they take the discussion seriously enough to remember that real people's lives and families are at stake. I think that they'd rather be glib than give a moment's thought to what it's like for two people to be forced to try to build a family together absent the protections of marriage.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Jaderis, posted 01-11-2007 4:52 AM Jaderis has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020