|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Homosexuality, the natural choice? (Gay Animals are Common) | |||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
...and before those, gays could get married? I don't know that anybody tried.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Pride doesn't seem to be the topic of this thread. I do have a number of thoughts on pride, so if you want to talk about pride, you could open a new thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Is a "troll" anyone who disagrees with you? No, a troll would be you, who's repeating the same old arguments over and over again, apparently not having read the responses to them the first time. We've covered why a homosexual's right to enter a straight marriage isn't sufficient, morally or legally. We've covered why it doesn't matter if gay people chose to be gay or not. We've covered why your sailboat is irrelevant to the debate. Yet, your posts continue to feature these "arguments" as though you're bringing them up for the first time. Why is that? Profound memory issues on your part? I mean, did you notice that we're at nearly 300 posts so far? What did you think we were doing that whole time?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Oh, poor you.
Could you respond to our arguments now, please?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
OK, now what did I say that trolled your agenda or flamed you personally? What Dan said. You haven't responded to any arguments; you've simply repeated yourself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Give me something substantial enough to respond to and I'll respond to it. Anyplace in the last 18 pages would be a good start.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
How am I doing so far? Not well. How about addressing 18 pages of argument that civil unions aren't an acceptable solution, particularly since they don't fucking exist?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Well, if they don't fucking exists then how do you know they are not the fucking solution? Do you see what I mean about you not taking this seriously?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
What are you talking about? It's good question. Asking why a solution that relies on something that doesn't exist isn't a good solution is a good question, to you? Not to play the question game, here, but what exactly is your problem? And when are you going to address the rebuttals of your position?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Civil Unions are real and available, at least in Vermont. Civil unions with the exact same rights as marriage aren't real, not even in Vermont. The Federal government has no recognition of such unions, and thus, more than 1000 rights avaliable to married couples are unavailable to Vermont's civil-unioned pairs.
Is this appropriate in the case of Gay Rights? Sure. Why wouldn't it be? At any rate it seems a little ridiculous to me to fault gay people for refusing to settle for a solution that, at this point, is completely theoretical. (Can you imagine the "lack of grace"? I mean, really - what's next? Starving people complaining even after we've imagined all this food for them to eat?)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
And I also take notice that heterosexual people MAY NOT marry members of the same sex. You don't hear THEM bitching about it. Uh, actually, you may have noticed that a large number of us heterosexuals are bitching about it, right in front of you. Reading problems? What, exactly, did you think we were doing for the past 300 posts? Or did you think everybody who disagreed with you was gay?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Why wouldn't a civil union for same sexes work? Asked and answered. Civil unions that provide all the same rights of marriage don't exist under US law. What you're asking is - why can't we preserve just this one little piece of discrimination? Because it's discrimination. That's why.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Assuming that all applicable "rights" such as confidence, inheritance, etc. are legally enforced as in Vermont, does an issue still exist? Since they aren't enforced, not even in Vermont, what does that do to your argument? Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
My research into Vermont Civil Union and the reading of their statute does extend the same rights as marriage to Civil Union. Since the state of Vermont is not the sole entity responsible for extending the rights of marriage to anybody, Vermont's civil union statutes can't extend the same rights as marriage to those in civil unions. There's over a thousand federal rights associated with marriage that Vermont doesn't have the authority to extend, and are denied to civil union partners because civil unions aren't recognized by the federal government. So, civil unions offered by the states can't be the solution, because the states don't have the authority to make civil unions equivalent to marriage.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024