Same-Sex Marriage To Be Legalized In California

Seinfeld26 · **Posted:** Thu May 29, 2008 2:27 pm

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me ... 2317.story

Thoughts?

Azrael · **Posted:** Thu May 29, 2008 2:29 pm

completely in favour, and i hope they do the same in Portugal soon.

Goat · **Posted:** Thu May 29, 2008 2:47 pm

There's really no non-mental reason why they shouldn't be allowed to marry, or have civil partnerships or whatever they're calling it.

Quote:

Justice Marvin R. Baxter, joined by Justice Ming W. Chin, said the ruling "creates the opportunity for further judicial extension of this perceived constitutional right into dangerous territory."

"Who can say that in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority's analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?" Baxter wrote.

Bullshit, you idiot. Comparing homosexuality and incest is just plain bananas. You could use the same 'slippery slope' argument to justify not giving women the vote, because in ten years an activist court might give it to children!

Metalhead_Bastard · **Posted:** Thu May 29, 2008 2:56 pm

It all seems fair play to me.

noodles · **Posted:** Thu May 29, 2008 5:00 pm

tbh i can't think of a non-"that's icky!" reason why polygamous and incestuous marriages are banned :\

Goat · **Posted:** Thu May 29, 2008 5:09 pm

noodles wrote:

tbh i can't think of a non-"that's icky!" reason why polygamous and incestuous marriages are banned :\

Perhaps?

Seinfeld26 · **Posted:** Thu May 29, 2008 7:47 pm

noodles wrote:

tbh i can't think of a non-"that's icky!" reason why polygamous and incestuous marriages are banned :\

Polygamy I can see, since love is ultimately at its deepest and most compassionate when it's strictly between two people. You can't love two people (in a non-platonic sense) without loving one person less than the other. Incest, meanwhile, is a bit more tricky, but I guess it does limit reproduction. And if you're in a family and, say, your mother molests you; it really (probably permanently) screws up both your perception of her and her perception of you.

Sorry if that sounded a little awkward, but these are probably the most logical reasons I can think of right now.

Astaroth · **Posted:** Thu May 29, 2008 8:49 pm

If we allow gay marriages the terrorists have won. That's exactly what they want, to destroy our family values and law system.

Allowing gay marriages is the same as legalizing murder and rape - cuz that's the next logical step.

Faffel · **Posted:** Thu May 29, 2008 9:12 pm

ITT the downfall of western civilization.

Stefan · **Posted:** Thu May 29, 2008 9:16 pm

Astaroth wrote:

If we allow gay marriages the terrorists have won. That's exactly what they want, to destroy our family values and law system.

Allowing gay marriages is the same as legalizing murder and rape - cuz that's the next logical step.

Now you're just being silly Kimmy... All that because your boyfriend's proposed...

Carnifex Umbris · **Posted:** Thu May 29, 2008 9:32 pm

For it, of course. Now there's outposts of sanity on both coasts...hopefully it will spread inward. Much like the railroads back in the day.

Incest is bad because inbreeding is bad. Child molestation is another question entirely, and belongs firmly in the "kill it with fire" category.

Seinfeld26 · **Posted:** Fri May 30, 2008 1:52 am

As for my opinion, while I'm more against homosexuality than for it, I don't really see any reason for homosexual partnership to be outlawed. I am, however, skeptical about whether it should be called "marriage", since marriage is (by definition) supposed to be between a man and a woman.

Stefan · **Posted:** Fri May 30, 2008 1:56 am

Says who? The bible? :rolleyes:

Seinfeld26 · **Posted:** Fri May 30, 2008 2:03 am

Stefan wrote:

Says who? The bible? :rolleyes:

From Webster's Dictionary:

Marriage - N. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

Recently, however, the dictionary added this "extra" definition:

a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.

I don't want to get into my whole religious opinion of the issue, since (like any mention of religion in issues like abortion and homosexuality) it will probably just stir up an all-out flame war.

Goat · **Posted:** Fri May 30, 2008 2:09 am

Seinfeld26 wrote:

Stefan wrote:

Says who? The bible? :rolleyes:

From Webster's Dictionary:

Marriage - N. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

Recently, however, the dictionary added this "extra" definition:

a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.

I don't want to get into my whole religious opinion of the issue, since (like any mention of religion in issues like abortion and homosexuality) it will probably just stir up an all-out flame war and battle over who's "right" and who's "wrong."

You take your life views from what Webster's Dictionary says? :huh:

Seinfeld26 · **Posted:** Fri May 30, 2008 2:12 am

Zad wrote:

Seinfeld26 wrote:

Stefan wrote:

Says who? The bible? :rolleyes:

From Webster's Dictionary:

Marriage - N. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

Recently, however, the dictionary added this "extra" definition:

a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.

I don't want to get into my whole religious opinion of the issue, since (like any mention of religion in issues like abortion and homosexuality) it will probably just stir up an all-out flame war and battle over who's "right" and who's "wrong."

You take your life views from what Webster's Dictionary says? :huh:

Of course. Marriam Webster = My Hero.

Stefan · **Posted:** Fri May 30, 2008 2:16 am

What Webster's Dictionnary proves is how deep conservatism on such issues is rooted in society... That doesn't make it right.

But, if the word "marriage" is the issue, lets call it a "life commitment" or a "love union" or whatever people want to call it... As long as people are free to join under the law, I don't see any objection.

Seinfeld26 · **Posted:** Fri May 30, 2008 2:23 am

Stefan wrote:

But, if the word "marriage" is the issue, lets call it a "life commitment" or a "love union" or whatever people want to call it... As long as people are free to join under the law, I don't see any objection.

That's precisely how I feel. Although, again, I do believe there should be some distance between "straight marriage" and "gay marriage."

I find debating homosexuality in general useless because there's so much evidence both for and against it that we'll probably never have a firm answer of whether or not it's ultimately a choice (let alone whether or not it's morally wrong).

noodles · **Posted:** Fri May 30, 2008 2:49 am

there's evidence that it's a choice? o.O

also i've never heard a convincing argument as to why it's morally wrong. also i find the "omg it's the definition of marriage" to be kind of a weak argument

grandbazaar · **Posted:** Fri May 30, 2008 3:17 am

A marriage between man and wife gives legal advantages and
I'm all for same sex unions they should be allowed to get the same constitutional rights.

It's not much of a problem anymore in Canada most provinces have allowed same sex unions for a while now.

Metal Reviews

Same-Sex Marriage To Be Legalized In California

Who is online