California Court Rules **** Marriage Ok
theclam
Join Date: 2004-08-01 Member: 30290Members
Join Date: 2004-08-01 Member: 30290Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">What do you think?</div> "**** and lesbian couples in California have a constitutional right to marry, a San Francisco Superior Court judge ruled Monday."
<a href='http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/archive/2005/03/14/samesexruling14.TMP' target='_blank'>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...sexruling14.TMP</a>
<a href='http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&u=/ap/20050314/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage&printer=1' target='_blank'>http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=...riage&printer=1</a>
Actual ruling:
<a href='http://www.sftc.org/Docs/marriage.pdf' target='_blank'>http://www.sftc.org/Docs/marriage.pdf</a>
I think this is a good first step in bringing more freedoms and human rights to Americans. Much like the article said, it's akin to legalizing interracial marriage.
So, let's try to discuss this without resorting to trolling.
<a href='http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/archive/2005/03/14/samesexruling14.TMP' target='_blank'>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...sexruling14.TMP</a>
<a href='http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&u=/ap/20050314/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage&printer=1' target='_blank'>http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=...riage&printer=1</a>
Actual ruling:
<a href='http://www.sftc.org/Docs/marriage.pdf' target='_blank'>http://www.sftc.org/Docs/marriage.pdf</a>
I think this is a good first step in bringing more freedoms and human rights to Americans. Much like the article said, it's akin to legalizing interracial marriage.
So, let's try to discuss this without resorting to trolling.
Comments
My only problem with it is this: marriage is a religious cerimony. Most religions abhore *** and lesbians. Marriage, however, is also a government affair; a civil union of two people to share their collective worth and benefits. How about instead of marriage we allow **** and lesbian civil unions, and make everyone happy?
why don't we just clone ourselfs and marry those things to.
good riddens what a waste
why don't we just clone ourselfs and marry those things to.
good riddens what a waste <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
YOU ARE AN IDIOT.
I'm going to get in trouble for saying that, but its kind of worth it.
Cyborgs, should such technology become available, are people. Don't talk about cyborgs.
And there is a BIG difference between homosexuality and bestiality. When a man loves a man, thats two consenting adults. When its a man and a dog, thats a guy with an animal, and animals can't concent, nor can it show love (of the eros variety). A trash can isn't even animate. Inanimate objects can't concent, nor can they love.
Marrying clones is the same problem as incest, assuming the gender was reversed. Inbreeding is bad <span style='font-size:7pt;line-height:100%'>as we can see</span>.
Tell me AvengerX. How does it feel to never learn from your mistakes? In several other threads it was pointed out to you that this sort of argument is not logical, it is called the slippery slope fallacy. Allowing homosexuals to marry has no bearing on wether or not cyborgs will be allowed to marry in the future (though I don't see why they shouldn't be anyways).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->tomorrow.. if a man can love another man and get married why can't he love a dog and get married to it?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because it isn't human? Because it can't consent to be married? Any of a thousand other reasons that have been argued before WHEN YOU'VE SAID THE SAME GODDAMNED THING IN OTHER THREADS!
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->why can't he love a trashcan and hump that in the anus and marry that to?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See above. Theres no law preventing a man from humping a trash can in the anus, assuming that he can find somethig on the trashcan that can be considered an anus.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->why don't we just clone ourselfs and marry those things to.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sure, why not. I mean, cloning humans is perfectly possible now and we can rapidly age clones to the proper marrying age too! </sarcasm>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->good riddens what a waste<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of....?
I guess what I'm trying to say, and I believe I speak for most of us when I say this, is: JESUS TAPDANCING CHRIST! JUST SHUT UP YOU MORON! NOBODY CARES WHAT YOU AHVE TO SAY BECAUSE YOUR OPINION IS COMPLETELY WORTHLESS! YOU REFUSE TO LISTEN TO REASON AND CONTINUE TO MAKE THE SAME, COMPLETELY MORONIC ARGUMENTS IN EVERY GODDAMNED THREAD! JUST SHUT THE **** UP ALREADY!
SHUT UP! Just shut up. He was saying that there is some evidence that dolphins can communicate in a complex fashion.
This isn't hard. Two consenting adults of the same species. There is nothing wrong with that.
You show me how homosexual marriage harms you. You, not society. You, directly.
SHUT UP! Just shut up. He was saying that there is some evidence that dolphins can communicate in a complex fashion.
This isn't hard. Two consenting adults of the same species. There is nothing wrong with that.
You show me how homosexual marriage harms you. You, not society. You, directly. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
show me how Dolphin Man marriges harm you.
Personally, I don't see why not. Of course it couldn't happen with dolphins not being considered as persons under the law (same problem with any animal), but that aside, two intelligent beings who love eachother should be allowed to get married, yes.
Actually, the best solution would be to remove marriage as a legal institution entirely, that way everybody gets what they want. The downside is that it would be a legal nightmare to rebuild laws of possession and spousal privillages and such without a legal definition of marriage.
Thats not my problem. If someone does, and the dolphin understands the consequences of marriage and also wants to, then they should be alowed to.
No...
You're whole arguement was that, should dolphins ever become intelligent enough to be intellectually indistinguishable from an adult human, that they could marry an adult human.
And 8 year old is not an adult of a sentient species.
And, just for the record, as far as we know, dolphins aren't sentient. So you can't marry a dolphin.
Like I said, there are certain legal qualifiers to marriage that would prevent animal marriages in the first place. My argument that such a marriage should be allowed to take place is based on those laws being revised to legally recognize a dolphin as a person, which would require the setting of appropriate minimum age laws for dolphins (actually, dolphins live long enough that the human age limits might work anyway).
But to answer your question: I think so, yes. If an 8 year old can be proved to be as competent as an 18 year old human, then yes they should be allowed to marry.
It doesn't matter which one is smarter than the other. All that matters is that they have full comprehension of marriage and consent to it.
My only problem with it is this: marriage is a religious cerimony. Most religions abhore *** and lesbians. Marriage, however, is also a government affair; a civil union of two people to share their collective worth and benefits. How about instead of marriage we allow **** and lesbian civil unions, and make everyone happy? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem is that civil unions currently do not enjoy the same status as marriages according to the government (for example, purposes of taxation or insurance from your employer are different under civil unions than under marriages).
Personally, I think that the best situation is to bring civil unions up to the same status as marriage and only allow the government to grant civil unions. When two people get married by a pastor, then they would have both a marriage (recognized by a church) and a civil union (recognized by the government). When two people get married by a judge (or other official with that power), then they would just have a civil union.
SLIPPERY F'ING SLOPE, AVENGERX. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?
READ THIS IF YOU DON'T:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> there use to be legal qualifiers about having to be oposit races to but you got rid of those. why not gid rid of all the rules if your only going threw life for the expierence and death is the end, why not live it up now? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, we shouldn't get rid of rules that prevent people (or animals) from being harmed.
Other rules that are based on ancient morality and that doesn't prevent any actual harm should be done away with.
And you STILL haven't told me how **** marriage hurts you.
Maybe you aren't paying attention (surprise surprise! AvengerX disregarding the content of someone elses post so he can troll!), my arguments have assumed that unnessesary legal qualifiers are eliminated. So, its not like I'm being inconsistent.
Well, we shouldn't get rid of rules that prevent people (or animals) from being harmed.
Other rules that are based on ancient morality and that doesn't prevent any actual harm should be done away with.
And you STILL haven't told me how **** marriage hurts you. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
having Anal sex does a person harm.. but you'll let them do that
Thats exactly my feeling. If the government stayed out of marriage completely, things would be fine.
Make marriage a religious institution, and civil unions a state institution.
Well, we shouldn't get rid of rules that prevent people (or animals) from being harmed.
Other rules that are based on ancient morality and that doesn't prevent any actual harm should be done away with.
And you STILL haven't told me how **** marriage hurts you. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
having Anal sex does a person harm.. but you'll let them do that <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If they want to have anal sex and understand the harm involved, yes. I mean, theres alot of harm in going outside and talking to people on the internet, but your parents let you do that (though we wish they wouldn't! BURN!)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Personally, I think that the best situation is to bring civil unions up to the same status as marriage and only allow the government to grant civil unions. When two people get married by a pastor, then they would have both a marriage (recognized by a church) and a civil union (recognized by the government). When two people get married by a judge (or other official with that power), then they would just have a civil union.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That would work, except that polygamists still wouldn't be happy. I see no reason why a woman can't have more then one husband if she wants, or a man (obviously crazy) have more then one wife. Or any other combination.
Well, not if you do it right...
Sure, if you do it wrong, there can be tears, infections, and hemorrages. But if you drive a car wrong you could run down several people and kill yourself.
Well, not if you do it right...
Sure, if you do it wrong, there can be tears, infections, and hemorrages. But if you drive a car wrong you could run down several people and kill yourself. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even if you do it right, there's still a possibility of harm, although it's not that much higher than vanilla sex.
I bet AvengerX thinks that Anal Sex gives you AIDS and teh ***.
Well, not if you do it right...
Sure, if you do it wrong, there can be tears, infections, and hemorrages. But if you drive a car wrong you could run down several people and kill yourself. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even if you do it right, there's still a possibility of harm, although it's not that much higher than vanilla sex.
I bet AvengerX thinks that Anal Sex gives you AIDS and teh ***. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I bet you clam boy has anal sex so he'd be the one to fill us in on the details
look. you all believe in evolution , but you all suport homosexuality even tho it goes agaisnt evolution
Mentioning the term "vanilla sex" made me wonder something.
AvengerX: What is your stance on BDSM activities, between two consenting adults, and, just for the hell of it, we'll say its between a man and a woman.
Well, not if you do it right...
Sure, if you do it wrong, there can be tears, infections, and hemorrages. But if you drive a car wrong you could run down several people and kill yourself. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even if you do it right, there's still a possibility of harm, although it's not that much higher than vanilla sex.
I bet AvengerX thinks that Anal Sex gives you AIDS and teh ***. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
AvengerX isn't sure about what part goes where.