This has been bugging me for a long time now. I get it that most people believe that being gay or homosexual is an abomination, but they should be able to marry whoever they want to. Right? I don't know if it's just me who feels this way, but please share your opinion.
I would have just labelled them as small, joint ownership businesses and let everyone work out their own contract terms. civil union might be easier.
If you are going to open a joint business, may I recommend Colorado?
Is that one of the states that recently legalized personal use?
We did that here in BC as well... except we forgot to tell our legislators it was happening. They seem to think it's still illegal.
I like that idea too. But I may have a better one.
The Supreme Court just agreed to rule on the issue of gay marriage. One possible outcome: the court could rule that the marriage rights of a minority group are subject to majority vote.
If that happens, let's start a campaign to ban Republican marriage. Or perhaps we could restrict Republicans to civil unions only. (They're just as good after all.) This would be on grounds that Republicans are living an immoral lifestyle and seeking to legitimize it.
I know how controversial that sounds. But if the Supreme Court rules it's legal, then it's legal. Let's put it to a vote. Let the states decide.
@ Gallup's Mirror,
In the comments section of the first of those links, somebody has posted that since there is no gene for homosexuality, it must be a choice, not an orientation. How can anyone exhibit such idiocy, yet still be able to string together a structurally coherent sentence? I'm baffled.
1. If homosexuality is a choice, so what? Are rights tethered to what's beyond our control? There's no gene for gun ownership. But owning a gun is a right.
2. Genes are one of many factors beyond anyone's control that determine sexuality.
And that's assuming there's such a thing as free will which, as you know, is difficult to prove.
Exactly, Blaine. That is one of the two parts to the double-stupid. The other, is that bearing in mind the very nature of homosexuality, it doesn't generate offspring - except in a few circumstances, so if it was genetic, it would pretty much have died out as soon as it got started. What a twerp!
If it is genetic, it could be passed on in families by reproducing heterosexuals as a dormant gene. I heard a theory that male homosexuality may have been advantageous to a gay man's nieces and nephews, providing them with another childless adult who becomes a supporting care-taker/bread-winner for the family. Those children would be healthier and wealthier--able to produce more of their own fit offspring. No theories about lesbianism from this source, so I take this interesting but unprovable idea with a grain of salt. ::rolls eyes:: Personally, if their were a gay gene, I would thank scientists to not publish that information, since designer children are not far off in humanity's future.
such a theory is overly adaptationist. Not everything has to have an evolutionary purpose. After all, the theory of evolution requires that sometimes, genetic (or even non-genetic) mutations result in non-reproductive individuals.
I mean, it's like saying "A lot of people get hit by cars. What is the evolutionary purpose of getting hit by a car?" There simply is none. Getting hit by a car is always an accident. And even though evolution "should" weed it out, it's still going to happen; in fact, if it stopped happening, evolution would lose the mechanism by which it works!
I'm no geneticist, but even if we were to know something about every gene and what it does, do we know everything about how genes interact?
Have to agree here. If civil unions are just as good as marriage, why do we even need to use a seperate institution for a specific group of people? If, CU=M, then substitute M for CU and call it a day. I mean, I'm no history professor, but I recall "Seperate But Equal" not working out so well for a certain other minority.
Also, I have to wonder if lgbt-rights strategists didn't go after marriage equality (rather than employment or housing protections) because of the respectability and inclusion into mainstream society that marriage confers. You just don't get that if you create a special civil-unions-for-lgbts-exception.