Homosexuality, the natural choice? (Gay Animals are Common)

I don't know that anybody tried.

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.

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.

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?

Oh, poor you.Could you respond to our arguments now, please?

What Dan said. You haven't responded to any arguments; you've simply repeated yourself.

Anyplace in the last 18 pages would be a good start.

Not well. How about addressing 18 pages of argument that civil unions aren't an acceptable solution, particularly since they don't fucking exist?

Do you see what I mean about you not taking this seriously?

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?

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. 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?)

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?

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.

Since they aren't enforced, not even in Vermont, what does that do to your argument?Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

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.