Cali Gay Marriage Opinion to be Released Today

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Where do we draw the line? If we allow people to marry same-sex do we next allow siblings to marry?

If we allow opposite-sex couples to marry, do we next allow fathers to marry their daughters?

It's a slippery slope, you know.

[nerd137 0]

> Racial discimination is a totally different subject than a ban on same-sex marriage.

Thus far, you have failed to illustrate how it's different.

> I suspect neither of you have ever been a victim of racial discrimination. I have.

So what? What does that have to do with this discussion?

> Where do we draw the line?

At this point, all we're debating is same sex marriage. If at some future point, other types of marriage are up for legalization, we can debate the merits of such an act.

But personally, as long as no one is being victimized by the relationship, I could care less who married who. However, in most cases of incest or polygamy (since you mentioned both), someone is being victimized.

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

I have something I'd like you to watch from over 30 years ago. It's one of the most profound statements on modern society and apathy ever written.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isSE7ux-W-M

One of the best movies ever made!
And I still can't believe it lost the Academy award to "Rocky".
That makes a statement in it's self.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

Let 'em marry - why should "straights" be the only ones to experience the "joys" of divorce?

Damn! I hadn't thought of that;
That's why LawRocket supports gay marriage; More business!

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Quote

I have something I'd like you to watch from over 30 years ago. It's one of the most profound statements on modern society and apathy ever written.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isSE7ux-W-M

One of the best movies ever made!

I had never even heard of it, but I just added it to my Netflix queue.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

If we allow people to marry same-sex do we next allow siblings to marry? Or Parents marry their children? Or multiple spouses? As long as they don't produce inbred offspring they harm nobody and are no threat to society.

Quite right! Of course some will say that they would be OK with that. I doubt it in actual practice, for instance if you had a good friend (male) that revealed to you that his SO was his sister, I think most would have a very difficult time with that, even if they couldn't conceive. Some will say that the 'slippery slope' argument is not worthy of discussion, but they will bring up such slippery slopes when debating other issues.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[okalb 104]

Quote

No, you are just as wrong as Bill. Racial discrimination is a totally different subject than a ban on same-sex marriage.

How is discriminating against someone based their sexual preference different from discriminating against them based on race?

Quote

Neither of you read my posts enough to know that I am not against gays having a civil union.

I read and understand what you are saying. You clearly didn't do the same for Bill's posts. There are 2 problems with your statement. Number one is that civil unions don't currently give the same legal rights as marriage. Bill has posted the legal differences many times. Number 2 is that you are once again advocating equal yet separate. Let’s just say for a minute that marriage and civil unions gave exactly the same rights (which they don't). If they have the same rights why should it be a separate thing? Either both should be allowed to marry or both should only be allowed civil unions. To call them something different yet give them the same rights somehow makes the homosexual relationship something less than the heterosexual relationship which once again is bigoted no matter how you try to justify it. If it were up to me the government would have nothing to do with any marriages. They would issue civil union certificates to any couple that wants them and people could choose to have a religious ceremony (marriage) if they want. Until that happens there should be no discrimination. If the government recognizes heterosexual marriages it must recognize homosexual marriages.

Quote

What I am against is people thinking it is somehow treating them differently than anyone else. It isn't. NOBODY in California...white, black, red, yellow, gay, straight, deeply in love or emotionless, can marry someone of the same sex. ALL ARE TREATED EQUALLY!

Again you are playing word games. Change it to say that heterosexuals are allowed to marry the person that they WISH to marry and homosexuals are not and it changes the argument. Seeing it any other way is once again ignoring the intent of the argument to defend your discriminatory beliefs.

Quote

Maybe YOU are willing to answer a part of a question i posed Bill and he ignored: Where do we draw the line? If we allow people to marry same-sex do we next allow siblings to marry? Or Parents marry their children? Or multiple spouses? As long as they don't produce inbred offspring they harm nobody and are no threat to society.

Do I find the things that you list to be a bit offensive, yes. Do I think that they should be legally prevented from doing it, no. If all of the parties involved are consenting adults who are responsible enough to enter into the legal institution of marriage then I see no justification to stop them. The only exception to that would be the production of offspring which you excluded from your question. As for multiple spouses, again I don’t like it but I don’t really think there should be any legal basis to restrict it. All I would say is that the financial/tax benefits should not extend out to multiple spouses in a way that would give them a benefit over a traditional marriage of 2 people. In other words the total benefit would have to be the same whether it was a marriage between 2 people or a marriage between 4 people. It should not cost the taxpayers additional money is what I am trying to say.

The same way I say I don’t like it but I would not restrict it with regard to those other types of marriages you mention, is how it should be with regards to homosexual marriages. Just because I don’t like something that someone does or I disagree with it, doesn’t mean that I think they should not be legally allowed to do it. If it doesn’t hurt others or negatively affect the general population, then there should be no reason to restrict it.

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Some will say that the 'slippery slope' argument is not worthy of discussion, but they will bring up such slippery slopes when debating other issues.

I'm pretty sure I don't bring up slippery slopes when debating any issues. It's a stupid and useless argument technique that only prevents people from focusing on the actual issue at hand.

(And if I do ever go off on the slippery slope thing, I hope that someone will point out my mistake to me, because it probably means that I am being irrational without realizing it. That does happen sometimes. )

[LongWayToFall 0]

I am against same sex marriage but only because of the name, in my mind marriage is only between a man and woman. What I think should happen, is that the state should only issue civil unions, to both hetero and homo couples, and everything will be perfectly fair. It would be up to the couples to assign themselves the word "married" and not the state. If a same sex couple said they were "married" I would disagree, but technically nobody would be married according to the state. Let the individuals decide what they want to call themselves, not the state.

Anyways, I think this is as fair as it will every get, while satisfying the greatest majority.

[nerd137 0]

Quote

Quote

If we allow people to marry same-sex do we next allow siblings to marry? Or Parents marry their children? Or multiple spouses? As long as they don't produce inbred offspring they harm nobody and are no threat to society.

Quite right! Of course some will say that they would be OK with that. I doubt it in actual practice, for instance if you had a good friend (male) that revealed to you that his SO was his sister, I think most would have a very difficult time with that, even if they couldn't conceive. Some will say that the 'slippery slope' argument is not worthy of discussion, but they will bring up such slippery slopes when debating other issues.

Soooooo.... if the law defined marriage as a being between any two individuals, regardless of gender, but specifically excluded polygamy, incest, bestiality, etc.... you'd be okay with that?

Not that I think this is realistic or relevant, but I'm curious.

[okalb 104]

Quote

Anyways, I think this is as fair as it will every get, while satisfying the greatest majority.

While I completely agree with you, from a practical standpoint that probably will never happen. So the question then becomes, if the ideal solution that you stated doesn't happen what is an acceptable alternative. Do you condone discriminating against homosexuals because your "perfect" solution is not a viable option?

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Quote

Some will say that the 'slippery slope' argument is not worthy of discussion, but they will bring up such slippery slopes when debating other issues.

I'm pretty sure I don't bring up slippery slopes when debating any issues. It's a stupid and useless argument technique that only prevents people from focusing on the actual issue at hand.

(And if I do ever go off on the slippery slope thing, I hope that someone will point out my mistake to me, because it probably means that I am being irrational without realizing it. That does happen sometimes. )

If the slippery slope is applicable, if it really is likely that one thing will lead to another, then I think it absolutely appropriate to consider the longer-term consequences. I think it absolutely certain that polygamists will seek marriage rights if same sex marriage is allowed across the country, and I think there will be no basis to deny it. I am OK with that, but same sex marriage advocates know that the general public isn't OK with it, so they want to deflect any effort to associate the issues because it hurts their cause.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If we allow people to marry same-sex do we next allow siblings to marry? Or Parents marry their children? Or multiple spouses? As long as they don't produce inbred offspring they harm nobody and are no threat to society.

Quite right! Of course some will say that they would be OK with that. I doubt it in actual practice, for instance if you had a good friend (male) that revealed to you that his SO was his sister, I think most would have a very difficult time with that, even if they couldn't conceive. Some will say that the 'slippery slope' argument is not worthy of discussion, but they will bring up such slippery slopes when debating other issues.

Soooooo.... if the law defined marriage as a being between any two individuals, regardless of gender, but specifically excluded polygamy, incest, bestiality, etc.... you'd be okay with that?

Not that I think this is realistic or relevant, but I'm curious.

I think you've misread my position, which isn't surprising as you might have assumed I'm bigoted by the thorny, inconvenient issues I raise in regard to this issue. In fact I am OK with same sex marriage, but think any redefinition of marriage will inevitably allow polygamy and incest (I'm OK with that also, for adults). Same sex marriage advocates know this, but don't want to admit it because they know it damages their effort to get same sex marriage.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[quade 4]

Quote

In fact I am OK with same sex marriage, but think any redefinition of marriage will inevitably allow polygamy and incest.

I don't think anyone is making a case for either. I have never in my entire life seen ANYONE try to even suggest legalizing either. Never. Not once.

I ONLY see it being used as a straw-man argument being made by anti-gay marriage forces.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

as long as no one is being victimized by the relationship, I could care less who married who. However, in most cases of incest or polygamy (since you mentioned both), someone is being victimized.

Quite right! That victimization is usually in the form of underage marriage. That is an argument to limit the ability of minors to marry even if they have parental consent, not necessarily relevant to this discussion.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Change it to say that heterosexuals are allowed to marry the person that they WISH to marry and homosexuals are not and it changes the argument.

The reason I have not shown the difference between racial discrimination and sexual-preference discrimination is simple...there IS no sexual-preference discrimination. Neither heterosexuals nor gays are allowed, in California, to marry a person of the same sex. It's actually a very simple concept.
Now, if you can show me anyplace in the marriage laws that specifically denies a person the right to marry the person of their choice based on their sexual preference, by all means post it. All the law does is define marriage as being between a man and a woman. What part of that don't you understand?

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[quade 4]

Quote

Now, if you can show me anyplace in the marriage laws that specifically denies a person the right to marry the person of their choice based on their sexual preference, by all means post it. All the law does is define marriage as being between a man and a woman. What part of that don't you understand?

The part where you don't think you're contradicting yourself.

Welcome to Crazytown folks!

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

I don't think anyone is making a case for either. I have never in my entire life seen ANYONE try to even suggest legalizing either. Never. Not once.

I ONLY see it being used as a straw-man argument being made by anti-gay marriage forces.

You really think polygamists wouldn't sue for their right to marry? Really? The groups that do it in secret have significant resources to pursue a legal fight for that right.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Neither heterosexuals nor gays are allowed, in California, to marry a person of the opposite sex. It's actually a very simple concept.

apparently.

so simple you couldn't even keep it straight.

But rejoice in knowing that when the gays succeed, you will now have the right to marry a man if you ever get over your commitment issues.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

If the slippery slope is applicable, if it really is likely that one thing will lead to another, then I think it absolutely appropriate to consider the longer-term consequences.

Perhaps, but I think that is rarely the case.

Quote

I think it absolutely certain that polygamists will seek marriage rights if same sex marriage is allowed across the country, and I think there will be no basis to deny it.

Why? What does polygamy have to do with same-sex marriage? Aside from the marriage part, which polygamy also has in common with opposite-sex marriage.

There is nothing right now to prevent polygamists from seeking marriage rights, and some probably are. However, it's a separate issue, and in the same-sex marriage debate, I think it only serves to cloud the argument.

[LongWayToFall 0]

Well I still believe the word marriage should be reserved for a man and woman. I doubt my feelings about this will change, and it is unfortunate that that means others will be treated unequally because of it. This is why I advocate making all weddings=civil union.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

You really think polygamists wouldn't sue for their right to marry? Really? The groups that do it in secret have significant resources to pursue a legal fight for that right.

They might. But who cares? Since most (all?) polygamists are heterosexual, gay marriage seems quite irrelevant.

The issue of rights needs to focus on the question at hand, not what else might happen. The fear of polygamist Mormons is not a valid reason to deny gays the right to marry their partner.

[okalb 104]

Quote

What part of that don't you understand?

What part of heterosexuals are allowed to marry the person the WISH to marry and heterosexuals are not don't you understand. Once again you are resorting to a completely disingenuous argument to defend an undefendable position.

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[nerd137 0]

Quote

I think you've misread my position, which isn't surprising as you might have assumed I'm bigoted by the thorny, inconvenient issues I raise in regard to this issue. In fact I am OK with same sex marriage, but think any redefinition of marriage will inevitably allow polygamy and incest (I'm OK with that also, for adults). Same sex marriage advocates know this, but don't want to admit it because they know it damages their effort to get same sex marriage.

Oh.

Yes, I did misread you. My bad.

But I don't totally agree with your last statement: I don't think there is a clear path from legalizing same sex marriage to the legalization of other types of marriage. I tend to think that most gay rights activists aren't too concerned about it either.

[okalb 104]

Quote

Well I still believe the word marriage should be reserved for a man and woman. I doubt my feelings about this will change, and it is unfortunate that that means others will be treated unequally because of it. This is why I advocate making all weddings=civil union.

While I think what you just said is sad and downright mean, I respect the fact that at least you openly admit that you would rather see others denied rights that you have just because you don't agree with them. It would be nice if others here had the balls to do the same.

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana