Gay marriage in California
- Thread starter Playboypenguin
- Start date
- Status
Playboypenguin
Moderator
Hey, he can't help it...he is from Iowa.
But seriously, if it were not for the problems inter-breeding presents I do not think outlawing close relations marriages would even be necessary. Most people are in-born with a natural aversion to breeding with close relatives so I doubt it would be an issue. Nature did that for a reason by the way.
Shane Tuttle
Staff
Just as I thought:
A valid counterpoint received by a personal attack....nice.
DING....
Playboypenguin
Moderator
I think he might have been joking. he is probably just emoticon illiterate.
Playboypenguin:
The system you are suggesting, in a sense, already exists.
Marriage is unique, in that we allow a religious entity to perform what is essentially a legal process.
It is already possible to have a marriage performed by a judge or other legal official, and there are then no religious connotations at all.
We already allow religious groups to determine who they will marry or won't marry.
For example, many Roman Catholic priests will not perform marriages for anyone except those that are members of the church, and then the individuals often have to go through extensive premarital counseling before a ceremony is granted.
A priest also has to fill out legal paperwork for the marriage to have legal status.
I therefore don't see how granting gay couples full marriage status in any different than giving them civil union status.
And I also don't see any legal proceedings being successful against a religious group for refusing to grant a marriage.
The system you are suggesting, in a sense, already exists.
Marriage is unique, in that we allow a religious entity to perform what is essentially a legal process.
It is already possible to have a marriage performed by a judge or other legal official, and there are then no religious connotations at all.
We already allow religious groups to determine who they will marry or won't marry.
For example, many Roman Catholic priests will not perform marriages for anyone except those that are members of the church, and then the individuals often have to go through extensive premarital counseling before a ceremony is granted.
A priest also has to fill out legal paperwork for the marriage to have legal status.
I therefore don't see how granting gay couples full marriage status in any different than giving them civil union status.
And I also don't see any legal proceedings being successful against a religious group for refusing to grant a marriage.
cool hand luke 22:36
New member
From the "Do They Ever Stop To Read What They Have Written Department":
Fixed:
Most people are in-born with a natural aversion to homosexual relations so I doubt it would be an issue. Nature did that for a reason by the way
Fixed:
Most people are in-born with a natural aversion to homosexual relations so I doubt it would be an issue. Nature did that for a reason by the way
Playboypenguin
Moderator
But that right is still denied most gay people.
Tuttle8 and roy reali, let me see if I understand what you're trying to say. We should deny a certain group of people the same rights as everyone else because if we don't, they'll be subject to the same law as everyone else that is in place for reasons that wouldn't be an issue for them. Have I got that right? So If I am able to safely operate a vehicle with a higher blood alcohol content than someone else, should the legal limit no longer apply to me? Or should we no longer give driver's liscences to large people? The laws against marriage of close relatives are there for valid medical reasons, and while those reasons may not apply homosexual couples, I can't see how it's worse for them to be subject to that law than for them to be denied the right to marry or engage in a civil union.
Originally posted by cool hand luke 22:36
While that may be true, two consenting adults engaging in a homosexual relationship does not harm anyone nor infringe upon anyone else's rights. Two closely related people having a child, however, has the potential to cause significant hardship for their child.
Originally posted by cool hand luke 22:36
While that may be true, two consenting adults engaging in a homosexual relationship does not harm anyone nor infringe upon anyone else's rights. Two closely related people having a child, however, has the potential to cause significant hardship for their child.
Marriage should be totally separated from government involvement or interference. The religious ceremony of marriage should be soley an internal matter for religous groups.
Government grants licenses for personal contractual relationships that entail certain government-recognized privileges and obligations. Whatever that contractual relationship is called (other than marriage), it should be equally available to everyone.
Initially, this exchange bothered me.
I see no reason why government could not license social-only relationships (i.e. government-recognized privileges and obligations for my two great-aunts in their 90s) separate from social-and-sexual relationships.
Government grants licenses for personal contractual relationships that entail certain government-recognized privileges and obligations. Whatever that contractual relationship is called (other than marriage), it should be equally available to everyone.
Initially, this exchange bothered me.
I see no reason why government could not license social-only relationships (i.e. government-recognized privileges and obligations for my two great-aunts in their 90s) separate from social-and-sexual relationships.
- Status