|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,809 Year: 4,066/9,624 Month: 937/974 Week: 264/286 Day: 25/46 Hour: 2/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Homosexuality, the natural choice? (Gay Animals are Common) | |||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
Right back at'cha, ma'am.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
You have "gay pride"? Maybe it's your "pride" that is the problem. Is it anything like "white pride" and the KKK? Pretty much, if you consider saying, "get this frikkin' noose off me" the same as hanging someone. How do you manage to type while masturbating like that? Do you have a special device that leaves your hands free?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
That's not nice! Wasn't meant to be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
Just curious, Dan. If science somehow came up with a pill to make you straight, would you take it? I doubt it. It'd be a bit of a waste of time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
You see, homosexuals CAN be married. Already covered in a thousand Loving v. Virginia post. Either you can't read, or you're trolling. I suppose it's also possible you're a monkey at a keyboard, hitting random keys, and pounding out post after post through sheer chance. But it seems a bit unlikely. Unless you're infinite monkeys. Are you infinite monkeys?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
It was only a hypothetical. It was, unfortunately, a hypothetical that required me to first be hypothetically gay, then hypothetically turned straight, for us to reach a hypothetical non-point. As with the gene therapy nonsense, perhaps you could focus your statements a bit more on reality, than on your curiosity about how valid gay marriage would be in the distant future, or in a parallel universe.
Well, I monkey around a lot with my sailboat Pearl. Does that qualify? This crap was already covered, too. Gosh, it's almost like you are just trolling.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
May I remind the folks here that Dan Carroll called me a "bigot" Tell you what... if you attempt to bait me by referring to me as a tall, American cartoonist, I will not consider it trollish behavior.
Before that he tried to pimp me into going to pornographic sites and performing masturbation over gay sex pictures. Yeah... good times.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
Gosh. When I called you a troll, I didn't realize that you had the intergrity to blindly repeat your opposition to gay marriage, without addressing any of the 18 pages of arguments against it.
Again. Edited by Dan Carroll, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
If you keep soilutioning yourself, you should probably calm down.
The really obvious fact about civil unions, that a separate institution is inherently unequal, has been explained you so many times that my semi-retarded dog has started rolling his eyes every time you fail to get it. It's kind of cute, actually.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
Danny Boy, if you can refer to your semi-retarded dog in these posts I ought get away with a sailboat reference once in a while. Jokes are a privilege, Hoot. First grow some funny.
This "really obvious fact" of yours about civil unions? WHY is a separate institution for gays inherently unequal? Gosh, we already went over that four days ago. But here you are, blindly repeating yourself as though nothing was said. Neat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
I'm remined that DC has passed several brainstones over the FACT that gays CAN get married, if they do it according to tradition. And I also take notice that heterosexual people MAY NOT marry members of the same sex. You don't hear THEM bitching about it. If by "passed brainstones", you mean "pointed out that the US Government already shot down this bullshit line of reasoning, a very long time ago," then yes. Yes I have. And yet you keep repeating it. Odd. Edited by Dan Carroll, : No reason given. Edited by Dan Carroll, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
Other than the perceived "stigma" of "separate but equal" from US racial history, are there other objections to Civil Union as a solution? No. Civil unions are an excellent solution, if you are willing to ignore piddling little perceived stigmas like "segregation" and "institutionalized bigotry". Other than that, they're great. Hooray for that comfy seat in the back of the bus.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
[stealing jokes is still lame] first to ask me to repeat myself So now you're just living in a whacked out fantasy world. I didn't ask you to repeat yourself. I pointed that you were repeating yourself, in a manner I would describe as mindless. You keep living up to the hype. Of course, you know this; you're changing the subject so that a couple hours from now, you can just repeat, "Civil unions are the soilution! A-hyuk!" Edited by Dan Carroll, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
I see no one separating Gays at the water fountain, the back of the bus or in separate schools. Are they being denied those specific rights? No. They are, however, being denied marriage, which is a fundamental right guaranteed to all Americans. This is the moral and legal equivalent of separating them at water fountains, buses, and schools. This is why the same amendment that struck down school segregation also later struck down bans on interracial marriage. They're the same issue; they're both segregation.
Without the stigma of US racial history Civil Union may have been welcome to the US Gay community at least as a step in the right direction. Without prejudice, we wouldn't have to dither about steps in the right direction. We'd just go ahead and treat homosexuals as equals. Making concessions to bigotry by putting something less than equality into place, instead of just enacting equal treatment, is not a good thing.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024