Gay marriage in California

Status
Not open for further replies.
Marriage is a religious institution between a man and a woman. A sexual relationship is assumed.

IMHO, any two adults, not already hitched to someone else, should be able to form a civil contract with equivalent legal privileges and responsibilities, and no sexual relationship should be assumed between them. (Right to privacy, and all that)

The legal rights and responsibilities should flow from the civil union, and the state recognizes a marriage as a de facto civil union.

A marriage should be performed by a priest (or equivalent.) Always. And a civil union should be performed by a judge (or equivalent.) It'd be the perfect example of "seperate but equal".

Maybe one day when I'm the King of the World, I can fix all this :D
 
I agree with the penguin. Stuff like that is no ones business but your own. Not the government's or some random guy you don't even know who was taught to believe that gayness ( I like that word better than homosexuality for some reason) is bad. Heterosexual marrage? That's what this country was founded on? Please. This country was founded on freedom. For white people. Hahaha, but seriously, think before you talk and you can make a lot better sounding argument than some rhetoric you heard on talk radio.
 
I agree with the penguin. Stuff like that is no ones business but your own. Not the government's or some random guy you don't even know who was taught to believe that gayness ( I like that word better than homosexuality for some reason) is bad. Heterosexual marrage? That's what this country was founded on? Please. This country was founded on freedom. For white people. Hahaha, but seriously, think before you talk and you can make a lot better sounding argument than some rhetoric you heard on talk radio.
 
Still No Answer?

Well, should gay, close blood relatives be allowed to get married now. I am not trying to be a smart alec, but I just wonder how far we are going to take things.
 
Gay marriage has no bearing on my life or freedoms. I have personal beliefs concerning morality of the lifestyle, as I have beliefs about the morality of others behaviors. But politically, I have no comment on this. Whatever happens, happens.
 
Well, should gay, close blood relatives be allowed to get married now.
Click to expand...
Are you able to marry a close relative? Even if you are infertile? No, you are not...and neither should gays be allowed. In fact, I do not think I have ever heard a single gay couple suggesting that. These types of arguments are heard from one type of person and one type only...right wing fanatics who have no valid arguments but want to create a false controversy.
 
I don't even mind polygamous relationships (I couldn't do it, I have a hard enough time keeping one other person happy in a relationship) what two or more consenting adults of any gender do with their relationships matters not to me. I also agree with Jaun Carlos in that, as an issue that really affects peoples lives, gay marraige is much more relevant than flag burning/ school prayer (I have no issue with those either as long as I am not forced to participate).
 
Well, should gay, close blood relatives be allowed to get married now. I am not trying to be a smart alec, but I just wonder how far we are going to take things.
Click to expand...


PlayboyPenguin answered this on page 2...
Because both civil unions and marriage imply a sexual relationship and there are legitimate medical reasons to ban such pairings.
Click to expand...


I agree with PbP.....My neighbor was telling me about his aunt. She married her cousin and had two kids with him. The kids are both in their 20s now, but all through their lives they have had various medical and psychological problems as well as severe learning disabilites, all attributed to the genes being to "close".
 
Marriage is a religious institution between a man and a woman. A sexual relationship is assumed.

IMHO, any two adults, not already hitched to someone else, should be able to form a civil contract with equivalent legal privileges and responsibilities, and no sexual relationship should be assumed between them. (Right to privacy, and all that)

The legal rights and responsibilities should flow from the civil union, and the state recognizes a marriage as a de facto civil union.

A marriage should be performed by a priest (or equivalent.) Always. And a civil union should be performed by a judge (or equivalent.) It'd be the perfect example of "seperate but equal".

Maybe one day when I'm the King of the World, I can fix all this
Click to expand...

Well, the question (from a legal/Constitutional standpoint) is what happens when any given church is willing to recognize homosexual marriages? Will those marriages also be recognized as de facto civil unions as well? Basically, you're running under the assumption that no religion will recognize gay marriages, which is mistaken.

Though I do like the idea of separating the legal aspect of marriage into a simple and neutral contract that any two parties can enter into.
 
Re: playboypenguin

Why are close blood relatives not allowed to marry, gay or not. Is this due to some scientific or religious reason? Why are there laws forbiding this practice?
 
roy reali said:
Why are close blood relatives not allowed to marry, gay or not. Is this due to some scientific or religious reason? Why are there laws forbiding this practice?
Click to expand...
Medical reasons of both a physiological and psychological nature. :)
Crashm1 said:
I don't even mind polygamous relationships
Click to expand...
To be honest, I do not personally mind them either as long as all parties are of age, willing, and not related (no skin off my back)...but once again, no one asked me before setting the law. However, as long as the policy is enforced in a fair an unbiased manner, I am okay with it being forbidden.
 
Well, the question (from a legal/Constitutional standpoint) is what happens when any given church is willing to recognize homosexual marriages? Will those marriages also be recognized as de facto civil unions as well? Basically, you're running under the assumption that no religion will recognize gay marriages, which is mistaken.
Click to expand...

I'm making no such assumption. I don't see any conflict. It's doubtful that the Catholic church or the Southern Baptists would recognize, say, a Unitarian marriage between two men or two women, but what would that matter? The Catholics and the Baptists are not the arbiters of civil rights or family law. The state would recognize the marriage as a civil union, just as if a Justice of the Peace had performed the ceremony instead of a... whatever the UU's call their ordained leaders (I honestly don't know what they are called)
 
Why are close blood relatives not allowed to marry, gay or not. Is this due to some scientific or religious reason? Why are there laws forbiding this practice?
Click to expand...

Dang Roy!!! Try reading some posts once in awhile!!!! You keep asking and its already been answered several times...:rolleyes:

Are you able to marry a close relative? Even if you are infertile? No, you are not...and neither should gays be allowed. In fact, I do not think I have ever heard a single gay couple suggesting that. These types of arguments are heard from one type of person and one type only...right wing fanatics who have no valid arguments but want to create a false controversy.
Click to expand...

Because both civil unions and marriage imply a sexual relationship and there are legitimate medical reasons to ban such pairings.
Click to expand...


agree with PbP.....My neighbor was telling me about his aunt. She married her cousin and had two kids with him. The kids are both in their 20s now, but all through their lives they have had various medical and psychological problems as well as severe learning disabilites, all attributed to the genes being to "close".
Click to expand...
 
As for states recognizing civil unions for homosexuals and marriages for heterosexuals, in theory that could probably work. I'm not a huge fan of "separate but equal," but with a legal arrangement (like civil union/marriage) it is possible to make actually make them perfectly equal (aside from social stigma, of course). If they provide the exact same rights and responsibilities, it's something that might not be entirely unacceptable. At least from a utilitarian standpoint.
Click to expand...

Its the idea of "seperate but equal" that I'm afraid of. We all saw how well that worked prior to the 1960's.

I would settle for a civil union if had 100% of the rights of a regular, legal marriage. I just fear that it wont, that there will be some loophole or some important legal issue left out that will only cause headaches in the future.

I find it sadly humorous how many people are actually against gay marriage. Folks seem to get the most upset about issues that have no effect on them at all, when important issues like taxation and foreign policy get swept under the rug.
 
I find it sadly humorous how many people are actually against gay marriage. Folks seem to get the most upset about issues that have no effect on them at all,
Click to expand...

There is an underlying reason RedneckFur...unfortunaltey its a topic not welcome at these forums, but it (gay marriage) is offensive to them because it opposes their world view and they dont like that.
 
I didn't read all the responses.

My opinion:

Civil unions are a joke. If they are to be treated the same as marriage, why aren't they called the same?

A religious marriage holds no grounds and is not recognized by any government in the US. Marriage is a legal act. It should be treated as such.

I fully support a marriage of a man and a woman or a man and a man or and a woman and a woman. The government does not have the authority to tell consenting adults how to conduct their lives. You do not have the authority to tell consenting adults how to conduct their lives. It's up to them. If they want to get married, then it is up to us to support their choice and it is up to the government to recognize it and see that their rights are not violated.

The "separate but equal" notion doesn't make sense to me. If they are separate, they are not equal.
 
Folks seem to get the most upset about issues that have no effect on them at all, when important issues like taxation and foreign policy get swept under the rug.
Click to expand...
Welcome to the foundation of American politics. How do you think people like Bush get elected??? It is not by appealing to his base...the "have's and have more's" as he said himself.

This is a red herring issue in many ways, but it is also an important issue that affects the lives of so many people. Turning them into political targets by manipulating hatred and prejudice among voters is not fair.
 
This is my quote:
Look at it this way. Where can you tell me by support of federal law that should allow homosexuals to be married, yet a pair of adult sisters can't?
Click to expand...


Quoted by Darren007:
Dang Roy!!! Try reading some posts once in awhile!!!! You keep asking and its already been answered several times...
Click to expand...

No, Darren, I don't think they have. Nowhere does it say by law that it should be only a gay COUPLE that's UNRELATED is the only type of "marriage" allowed along with heterosexual COUPLES but NOT couples that are related...

Medical reasons of both a physiological and psychological nature.
Click to expand...

I can very well state this for the case of heterosexual marriages only too, then.:)

My neighbor was telling me about his aunt. She married her cousin and had two kids with him. The kids are both in their 20s now, but all through their lives they have had various medical and psychological problems as well as severe learning disabilites, all attributed to the genes being to "close".
Click to expand...

You can post stories of how relatives shouldn't have conceived, but is an empty argument if you don't also ban traditional couples that are knowingly at risk to give birth to children with genetic disorders such as Downs Syndrome. Both sets of described couples yield a high risk of birthing children with medical disadvantages. You can't have your cake and eat it, too...

Quoted by RedneckFur:
I find it sadly humorous how many people are actually against gay marriage. Folks seem to get the most upset about issues that have no effect on them at all,
Click to expand...

Can't comment on this. I don't get upset over it. I just find it do be a hot topic and am always up for a lively healthy discussion...

when important issues like taxation and foreign policy get swept under the rug.
Click to expand...

I guess you don't read P&L here very often then...
 
PBP, you do me a disservice. You are the only one mentioning bestiality. As far as the human relationships I mentioned, why can't they involve loving relationships just as between a man and a woman, or two of the same? That is a legitimate question.
It seems to me you do not want to allow them. How can you discriminate against them? The honest answer is you can't, without closing the same door that was just opened for homosexuals. And that would be hypocritical.
 
PBP, you do me a disservice. You are the only one mentioning bestiality. As far as the human relationships I mentioned, why can't they involve loving relationships just as between a man and a woman, or two of the same? That is a legitimate question.
It seems to me you do not want to allow them. How can you discriminate against them? The honest answer is you can't, without closing the same door that was just opened for homosexuals. And that would be hypocritical.
Click to expand...
I was not saying you used that argument, but it is one that is always hand in hand with the polygamy and other false arguments. Just look at Santorum.

I have no problems denying unions that have definite negative physical and psychological impacts on the persons involved as long as said reasons are valid and verifiable and that the rules apply to everyone. If you read the posts you will notice I have no particular issue with polygamy. Denying equal legal protection to same sex couple does not fall under equal treatment. It is discrimination.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top