Gay Marriage: Who Cares?
In article ,
flipper wrote:
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 18:49:38 -0700, Jenn
wrote:
In article ,
flipper wrote:
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 06:49:43 -0700 (PDT), Clyde Slick
wrote:
On Aug 28, 1:28*am, flipper wrote:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 09:33:23 -0700 (PDT), "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to
Reason!" wrote:
On Aug 26, 10:38*pm, Jenn wrote:
On Aug 26, 8:21*pm, flipper wrote:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 19:11:00 -0700, Jenn
wrote:
In article ,
flipper wrote:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:59:07 -0700, Jenn
wrote:
In article ,
flipper wrote:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:26:35 -0700, Jenn
wrote:
In article ,
flipper wrote:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:41:47 -0700, Jenn
wrote:
In article
,
(Don Pearce) wrote:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:47:42 +0100, Eeyore
m
wrote:
Soundhaspriority ( the real one ? )wrote:
Even worse, we shouldn't have a system where people
with
defective
genes
(the homos) are reproducing using these defective
genes by
artificial
means,
or otherwise.
I know there's a 'redhead gene' but one for
homosexuality ? How
about
bisexuals too ? False argument methinks.
Graham
A gene for homosexuality would disappear from the pool
pretty
quickly,
one would imagine. A bit like a gene for infertility.
d
That might be true if gay people never parented
children.
Not really because it could be recessive.
True.
There's also experimental evidence to suggest it's
environmental or,
if genetic, environmentally triggered as you can alter the
incidence
in rats by manipulating population density.
Humans are, of course, more complex but that would indicate
it,
assuming genetic, could propagate 'the common way', absent
environmental triggers, even if dominate.
That also suggests if population density is a consistent
trigger it
could be a 'natural' population control mechanism. Or not.
No
one
really knows.
The oxymoron "gay marriage" is an altogether different
issue,
though.
As opposed to the moronic (without the oxy) legal argument
against it.
;-)
So far, the only thing 'moronic' is your suggestion that any
differing
opinion is, without even having heard it, 'moronic'.
Oh, I've heard the legal arguments. *Why would you jump to the
conclusion that I consider any opinion different than mine to be
moronic?
Because you said as much.
I said "oxymoron." a figure of speech that combines
normally-contradictory terms,
I know the word. *I was doing a "play" on the word.
because it is.
Marriage is, and has been for thousands of years, defined as a
heterosexual relationship with "gay," by definition,
'monosexual',
so
the term, substituting definitions, claims a "monosexual
heterosexual
relationship."
Have you looked up the definition of monosexual? *I happen to be
monosexual, and I presume that you are as well, since most people
are.
I used it as an adjective to relationship and you know darn good
and
well what was meant by it.
Kind of like you knew darn good and well that the onymoron/moron
thing
was a play on words, right?
Bottom line: *definitions change. *There is no logical reason to not
legalize same-sex marriage. *The Prop. 8 decision states it
perfectly.
I think the easier route would be for there to be no "marriage
licenses" issued by the government. If boneheads like Flipper want to
argue definitions they would recognize that "marriage" has been a
religious term for the same thousands of years he argues.
You'd have a hard time proving that in prehistory but, setting that
aside, just which religion do you propose 'invented' it and how did
they force it upon all the others?
Have the government issue civil union licenses and let each church
determine who they will marry or not marry.
I'll go ya one better. Why is government making laws or issuing
anything about 'unions'?-
property rights, inheritance, living wills, etc.
I'm not sure what you mean by property rights, unless you mean it as
embodied in the other two, as I can buy a car, house, land, or
anything else without being 'married', in a 'civil union', or anything
else.
You can leave anything to anything in a living will including, as at
least one famous person did, a dog. No 'union' required.
Absent direction there are some inheritance assumptions but that half
way begs the question because how is it we talk about inheritances?
The answer, of course, is limited life span, procreation, and
children, without which there would be no 'next generation' to inherit
from the previous. Of course, the species would cease to exist without
them too.
I don't understand the point of your last paragraph.
Sorry but what's to not understand? The previous poster brought up
inheritance as a 'government interest' and I pointed out that without
procreation the matter, as well as the species, is moot in short
order.
I'm simply not sure what that has to do with anything under discussion.
Is this somehow
related to same-sex marriage?
I'm not sure how anything relates to an oxymoron.
Oh that's right; definitions never change.
|