California Gay Marriage Ban Lifted

[Matt_LRR]

With everyones conscent, I would like to spin this topical tangent your way.

Given:that same sex mariage is legal and accepted
Given:that arguements for tradional mariage (male/female) are void

What forms of mariage would not be permissible?

I'm not tring to flame bait but provoke a conversation. I'm using the "group mariage" from the book "Friday" as my reference point.

Any kind that cause harm, or infringe on rights. So child marriages are out, as are animals. I would consider arranged marriages problematic, but they're probably defended under religious fredom. Marrying inanimates violates the basest legal requirements to even be considered actually marriage. marrying Relatives has potential health consequenses for offspring, so that's a no-go. Bigamy and polygamy have consequenses that harm family cohesion, and which circumvent the economic intent of stat regulated marriage.

So pretty much 'marriage between two consenting adults' is about as far as the need to allow marriages extends.

-m

 

[ALuckyChance]

(first post, so here goes!)

I believe the only marriages that should not be permitted would be the ones that are extremely unacceptable by modern social norms and morals. I doubt anybody would want a necrophiliac to marry his/her dead partner for example, or someone to marry his/her pet goldfish. Gay Marriages aren't necessarily morally abhorrent, which is why some people are more acceptive of them.


EDIT: What Matt_LRR said, as many socially unacceptable actions cause harm anyway.

 

[Giantcain]

Westborough Baptist church start making signs about Canada in..

5...
4...

 

[Blueruler182]

Snip

Snip

Snip

snip

Snipe

Snip

Nice to meet all the Canadians with one comment. Oh, and nice to meet the Australian...

It's about damn time. Canada welcomes you to the future.

Do you have a free-future-pass? Because Australia really needs to get its arse into gear with that whole 'natural progression through time' thing, what with our massive temporal failures.

OT: Good for them

To which I respond: yes, but you're not getting any. We need the jokes.

And the political guy.

It's about damn time. Canada welcomes you to the future.

Not if stephen Harper gets his way. Canada is becoming more like teh states during the bush era, than the states is now, probably has something to do with the fact that mr. Harper has hired a lot of Bush's old advisors to help him out. The Conservatives are poisoning this country, and it is still getting worse.

And on topic, I'm not impressed. Yay, the states has entered the 2oth century, big fucking woop they still have a long way to go to undo all the theocratic damage they have been doing to themeselves for decades now andcontinue to do to themselves. I am glad that civil rights seems to have been victorious this time, but to me, the fact that we even have to discuss wether or not it is a civil right is just sad.

Way to look at every possible negative angle you could on this one. I'm a Canadian Native, I know about governments having to make up for shit they've done in the past, and I'm just happy they're trying to move forward.

And the "poisoned country" comment just makes me laugh. Canada isn't any more like the states because of Harper than it was before, we've been pretty similar since either the first or second world war. It comes with being so dependent on each other and sharing a media. This "poisoned country" is pretty damn good, especially compared to the conditions so much of the world is living in.

 

[brainfreeze215]

The bad news is that the opponents will appeal this all the way to the supreme court. But for now, this is a great victory for civil rights and I hope more states follow the example that they've set.

 

[Danman1]

Thoughts?.

Good for them I guess? I fail to see the fuzz.

What I carnt understand is how this is such an issue that it warrants almost 600 posts on a gaming forum.
Yeah, the US seem like an ass backwards strange country in some regards. "In God we Trust" and so on.
But, the diff between marriage and not in this case, it's just wording, aint it?
Cohabitation, partnership etc... that's basically the same thing, innit?

Or have I misunderstanded?

From what I understand (and being on a gaming forum, I'm an expert) in theory it's supposed to be the same. But same sex couples receive very little of the benefits married couples do.

 

[LordVyreth]

The bad news is that the opponents will appeal this all the way to the supreme court. But for now, this is a great victory for civil rights and I hope more states follow the example that they've set.

That's not necessarily going to be bad news, either. Some people think it stands a chance this time. Most people assume the issue will come down to Kennedy's ruling, and not only has he been typically very friendly on gay rights (I believe he wrote the decision on Lawrence, for example,) but this decision referenced his positions repeatedly and could basically be titled, "Mr. Kennedy, here's why you should support gay marriage."

And if SCOTUS rules in favor, that's it. We could have our generation's Loving decision. It's all a little overwhelming.

 

[MongoBaer]

With everyones conscent, I would like to spin this topical tangent your way.

Given:that same sex mariage is legal and accepted
Given:that arguements for tradional mariage (male/female) are void

What forms of mariage would not be permissible?

I'm not tring to flame bait but provoke a conversation. I'm using the "group mariage" from the book "Friday" as my reference point.

Any kind that cause harm, or infringe on rights. So child marriages are out, as are animals. I would consider arranged marriages problematic, but they're probably defended under religious fredom. Marrying inanimates violates the basest legal requirements to even be considered actually marriage. marrying Relatives has potential health consequenses for offspring, so that's a no-go. Bigamy and polygamy have consequenses that harm family cohesion, and which circumvent the economic intent of stat regulated marriage.

So pretty much 'marriage between two consenting adults' is about as far as the need to allow marriages extends.

-m

This. We don't need anyone posting the batshit retarded generalization first mentioned by Mr. Brown (the loser in this court case, the President of the group Equal Rights For White Straight Christian Republican Land Owning Males From Macon Georgia) that "What would stop me from marrying my goat?"

Besides the obvious "Becuase that goat doesn't love you" doesn't get the message across well enough.

Two (NOT THREE, NOT FOUR, TWO) Consenting (Teaching your pet to nod is NOT CONSENT) Adults (FOR THE LAST MOTHER FUCKING TIME, HOMOSEXUALS ARE NOT PEDOPHILES!)

First: where is peodphilia equated with Homosexuality? Specfically in mine or matt's post.

Second: Why are you discriminating against the Polyamrous community? Don't they deserve the same rights and everyone else?

Third: If you don't agree with something, fine. But you don't advance any thing by shutting down discussion by throwing out ad homind attacks. You don't "cure" ignorance with shouting "YOU'RE SO F**&(NG STUPID!!!"

Fourth: We are talking about a person acting on a moral belief asking what could be seen as a commen sense quesion. What is normal and what devates(used in the clinical sense) from the norm if you dont have a standard.

 

[Dorian6]

California finally did the right thing, and it only took 1 1/2 years.

Baby steps America

 

[Bourne]

I am against the entire institution of marriage being in any way, shape or form related to government. It is a religious institution... If someone wants to be jointed through a court, which makes ZERO SENSE to me (why in the hell does the law need to be involved in a relationship?), it should be a Union... Other than that, marriage should be controlled by churches.

That being said, I know none of that will ever happen, so I am glad that homosexuals can now officially be married, although why they would want to is beyond me.

 

[ALuckyChance]

With everyones conscent, I would like to spin this topical tangent your way.

Given:that same sex mariage is legal and accepted
Given:that arguements for tradional mariage (male/female) are void

What forms of mariage would not be permissible?

I'm not tring to flame bait but provoke a conversation. I'm using the "group mariage" from the book "Friday" as my reference point.

Any kind that cause harm, or infringe on rights. So child marriages are out, as are animals. I would consider arranged marriages problematic, but they're probably defended under religious fredom. Marrying inanimates violates the basest legal requirements to even be considered actually marriage. marrying Relatives has potential health consequenses for offspring, so that's a no-go. Bigamy and polygamy have consequenses that harm family cohesion, and which circumvent the economic intent of stat regulated marriage.

So pretty much 'marriage between two consenting adults' is about as far as the need to allow marriages extends.

-m

This. We don't need anyone posting the batshit retarded generalization first mentioned by Mr. Brown (the loser in this court case, the President of the group Equal Rights For White Straight Christian Republican Land Owning Males From Macon Georgia) that "What would stop me from marrying my goat?"

Besides the obvious "Becuase that goat doesn't love you" doesn't get the message across well enough.

Two (NOT THREE, NOT FOUR, TWO) Consenting (Teaching your pet to nod is NOT CONSENT) Adults (FOR THE LAST MOTHER FUCKING TIME, HOMOSEXUALS ARE NOT PEDOPHILES!)

First: where is peodphilia equated with Homosexuality? Specfically in mine or matt's post.

I might be wrong on this, but I don't think he was targeting you with that statement. Rather, he was venting with frustration about stereotypes by using BOLD WORDS and impolite language.

EDIT: Bourne - I think it has been stated several times in this thread that marriage was a political and economical maneuver long before it was made to be a sign of religion. Thus, it's not entirely unplausible for it to be occasionally a government affair, especially when gay marriage is a rather touchy subject to many people.

 

[zehydra]

Is unconstitutional.

So? Perhaps the constitution should be changed? Just throwing that out there.

A victory for human rights! Hurrah!

But what of the human rights of the majority that voted to live in a state without gay marriage?

But what of the human rights of the people whose rights are taken away? Does the majority have the right to take rights away from the minority? I think not. If it doesn't affect you then you have no right to have a saying on the matter.

I'm not entirely sure, but I don't think anything in the UDHR gives the majority the ability to oppress a minority. In fact, I think it's actually specifically mentioned as such. Lemme check.

Yeah, as I thought, the UDHR actually supports gay marriage. So there you have it.

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Which has been recently worsened by society. Just because they are gay they should not receive any spotlight or special attention. They should be as good members of society as everyone else is.

What about the far more obvious sexuality expressed by the ancient civilisations like the Greeks? Perhaps it has not been worsened, just allowed to return to its normal level?

And on the second point- yes, they shouldn't receive special treatment. Surely that should encompass negativity as well as positivity, and so advocate gay marriage? It's not special treatment, it's equal treatment, no?

just a note: I was expressing that definitions of marriage were unconstitutional, not prop 8. Regardless, I have been proven wrong on that matter.

 

[Orcus The Ultimate]

you know what's the best answer about that topic: " BAH! as long as they don't mess with my mind or my children's mind, cause i want my family to procreate! become a Legacy ! (like in The Guild 2 lol) "

 

[awol360]

Y'know, here's my thoughts on gay marriage.
1) If you're gay, you should have the right to marry the person that you love.
2) If you're not gay, WHY THE HELL DO YOU CARE? It's not like they're asking to marry you . . .

 

[Digikid]

I believe gay marriage is wrong, that is just my opinion, Its just sounds like an oxymoron to me

I agree. Marriage is man and WOMAN.

But I digress....it IS wrong...but whatever makes you happy.

 

[blindthrall]

With everyones conscent, I would like to spin this topical tangent your way.

Given:that same sex mariage is legal and accepted
Given:that arguements for tradional mariage (male/female) are void

What forms of mariage would not be permissible?

I'm not tring to flame bait but provoke a conversation. I'm using the "group mariage" from the book "Friday" as my reference point.

Any kind that cause harm, or infringe on rights. So child marriages are out, as are animals. I would consider arranged marriages problematic, but they're probably defended under religious fredom. Marrying inanimates violates the basest legal requirements to even be considered actually marriage. marrying Relatives has potential health consequenses for offspring, so that's a no-go. Bigamy and polygamy have consequenses that harm family cohesion, and which circumvent the economic intent of stat regulated marriage.

So pretty much 'marriage between two consenting adults' is about as far as the need to allow marriages extends.

-m

I'll play Devil's Advocate. How does marrying an animal cause harm or infringe on rights? Unless you're fucking a small animal which would be animal cruelty. I also fail to see how polgamy would mess with the economy, it worked for the Mormons and some Arab cultures for quite some time.

I can see the fundie's point, that the only reason we don't allow those two kinds of unions is because we find them icky. Well, gay marriage grates against their moral compass in the same way. To which I say, mind your business. How would it actually affect society if people were open about their goatfucking? The Romans were into all kinds of bestiality, and they lasted for quite some time. Furries gross me out(as does bestiality), but I don't want them to be outlawed. How do I deal with it? I ignore it.

And before anyone asks, the only animal I fuck is your mom.

EDIT: That is all discounting disease, since sheepfucking is where syphilis came from, and there are those 'green monkey' rumors about AIDS.

 

[Decabo]

A victory for human rights! Hurrah!

But what of the human rights of the majority that voted to live in a state without gay marriage?


Anyways, I really don't care about the so called "Gay Marriage" or any marriage really. The government should keep their nose out of marriage and simply have people sign Civil Partnership Licenses, to provide legal protection and tax brakes.

Whether or not to oppress a large group of people isn't something to be voted on in the first place.

Oppression you say? Was there a clause that would allow the police to arrest homosexuals for being homosexual? Or to force them to wearing identifying badges on the fronts of their shirts? You know, I think we have laws that punish people for attacking or harassing homosexuals (or other minorities).
So you believe in denying millions of Americans the right to marry the person they love simply because it's not tradition... Forgive me for being so blunt, but go fuck yourself. If you were to sympathize with the millions of gay Americans who want equal rights for just one minute, you'd embrace the idea of ending such bigotry.
No what I think we have here is a population which does not want to change the definition of a legal institution (first from church law to civil law) that has existed for thousands of years. This change could be good or bad but the population does not want it.

You know, I hear a lot of people complain about gay marriage "changing the definition" of marriage. Why exactly is that a problem? Because we'll have to teach our children new things? Considering 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, it's not that holy of a union to begin with. Oh, and the definition of marriage has already been changed. Other states and other countries allow same sex marriage, and the number is rising. Stop clinging to tradition and come to the 21st century. Get with the times. And yes, denying homosexuals the right to marry the person they love because of their sexuality is certainly oppression, just as it would be if someone was denied marriage over their race.

Indeed, let us throw out all the traditions of the past.

The United States of America seems to have a tradition of voting for leaders and representatives in the government, this should be stopped.

Many families seem to have a tradition of holding large gatherings, called family reunions, where the far flung branches get to meet and mingle, this should be stopped.

Couples that love each other seem to have this tradition of getting married, we've seen it since before recorded history began. It must be the most antediluvian or archaic tradition of them all, it should be stopped.



As you yourself said, the definition of marriage has changed in other states and countries but the population (that being the people of California) doesn't wish to change it in their home area and that is their right.

Like I said before, the government should keep it's nose out of marriage and issue Civil Partnership Licenses that would provide the same legal protection to a couple (any couple) and tax breaks that that current marriage license does.

So you believe in denying millions of Americans the right to marry the person they love simply because it's not tradition... Forgive me for being so blunt, but go fuck yourself. If you were to sympathize with the millions of gay Americans who want equal rights for just one minute, you'd embrace the idea of ending such bigotry in a heartbeat.

 

[ALuckyChance]

Would you care to elaborate? It's nice to see the other side's arguments once in a while.

Edit: Er, referring to Digikid.