Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ironhide wrote:Some of the people wanting these unions are not even gay. They have just been living with the same person for so long, that they want the same entitlements that married people have. Such as, claiming married filing jointly on taxes. Not all marriages/unions are about love.

Heck yeah! I hear some of them are about pain and suffering

Is it weird that I'm Christian and honestly don't care XD. I swear I feel like the odd guy out in every ideology I subscribe too

Ironhide wrote:Some of the people wanting these unions are not even gay. They have just been living with the same person for so long, that they want the same entitlements that married people have. Such as, claiming married filing jointly on taxes. Not all marriages/unions are about love.

And how is that different from hetero couples already doing the exact same thing?

LordofHats wrote:

Ironhide wrote:Some of the people wanting these unions are not even gay. They have just been living with the same person for so long, that they want the same entitlements that married people have. Such as, claiming married filing jointly on taxes. Not all marriages/unions are about love.

Heck yeah! I hear some of them are about pain and suffering

Is it weird that I'm Christian and honestly don't care XD. I swear I feel like the odd guy out in every ideology I subscribe too

You're not alone there LordofHats.

I'll step out now and do some fishing.

I'm against gay marriage and always will be. End of.

If Paul wants to pork Peter in the ass, fine by me. They shouldn't need to get married though. I mean, what's next? Allowing people to have more than a single wife? Allowing adults to marry kids?

I mean, I love not being stuck with the same woman so by the logic of many here I should be legally allowed to have multiple wives so I need not bury the snake in the same hole every night (not to mention the tax breaks I'd get with 3 or 4 wives).

@Fallen668: The fact that they can't claim married filing jointly on their taxes. Married couples get far more tax credits than single people.

Frazzled wrote:

Golden Eyed Scout wrote:

youbedead wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:Gays should not be allowed to marry. End of.

If you want to be gay that is your prerogative. Don't expect churches and God fearing institutions to agree with your decision and get upset when they won't marry you.

Religious views should have absolutely zero influence on politics and law making, you know that whole separation of church and state thing.

Hit the nail on the head before I could even bring out my hammer.

Also: Gay isn't someone's perogative, it's who they are. A gay person can't choose to be gay.
I would've believed that arguement would've been thrown out as the rubbish it is.

Forgive me if my understanding of perogative is mistaken in this context.

Actually its the State itself that should but out. Keep the state out of religion (or non religion). The State can sanction the legal rights of couples, but let couples/religions/cult determine what "married" is.

Except marriage is a legal financial institution and not a religious one in U.S. law. Which is all anyone cares about since even with the overturn churches still don't have to marry gays.

Fateweaver wrote:

If Paul wants to pork Peter in the ass, fine by me. They shouldn't need to get married though. I mean, what's next? Allowing people to have more than a single wife? Allowing adults to marry kids?

How exactly would allowing same sex couples to marry lead to polygamy and people marrying children? What is the bizarre, twisted reasoning behind that line of thought?

Fateweaver wrote:I'll step out now and do some fishing.

I'm against gay marriage and always will be. End of.

If Paul wants to pork Peter in the ass, fine by me. They shouldn't need to get married though. I mean, what's next? Allowing people to have more than a single wife? Allowing adults to marry kids?

I mean, I love not being stuck with the same woman so by the logic of many here I should be legally allowed to have multiple wives so I need not bury the snake in the same hole every night (not to mention the tax breaks I'd get with 3 or 4 wives).

How are all of the other situations you present linked to this law? Do you think that legal precedence will really lead to all of those things being legal as well? I am not so convinced that our legal system is as flexible as you suggest.

I don't follow how allowing gay couples to marry equates to allowing people to marry children, horses, or how it links itself automatically to polygamy. Where is the connection, and why do you assume that anyone who supports the right for gay marriage, also supports the slippery slope you have laid out.

On the other hand... WHEEE! I'M OFF TO MARRY A PIG AND 2 CHICKENS!

That is correct, Shuma. However, the Justice of the Peace/Magistrate is legally bound to conduct them. At least in California.

Okay. 2 excuses I see for allowing SSM.

1) It's natural (apparently). Okay, I guess at times in nature males copulate with males. Cool.

2) If 2 people are in love it shouldn't matter their sexual preference.

Now, apply that to humans. It's also natural in the animal kingdom for every species to have several mates so why can't human males have more than one wife? If I want 5 mates I should be able to marry all 5 women.

To the second point? Who's to say I don't love all 5 the same and want to be with JUST those 5 for the rest of my life? Shouldn't I be allowed to marry all 5?

See where I'm going with this? A lot of things in nature are "natural" (mates killing their partner after sex) but we can't apply "natural" argument to every reason for marriage in human society or we'd have one fethed up society.

Fateweaver wrote:Okay. 2 excuses I see for allowing SSM.

1) It's natural (apparently). Okay, I guess at times in nature males copulate with males. Cool.

2) If 2 people are in love it shouldn't matter their sexual preference.

Now, apply that to humans. It's also natural in the animal kingdom for every species to have several mates so why can't human males have more than one wife? If I want 5 mates I should be able to marry all 5 women.

To the second point? Who's to say I don't love all 5 the same and want to be with JUST those 5 for the rest of my life? Shouldn't I be allowed to marry all 5?

See where I'm going with this? A lot of things in nature are "natural" (mates killing their partner after sex) but we can't apply "natural" argument to every reason for marriage in human society or we'd have one fethed up society.

Or you could be like Gene Simmons and live with the same woman forever (not married btw), yet have all the sex you want.

Ironhide wrote:That is correct, Shuma. However, the Justice of the Peace/Magistrate is legally bound to conduct them. At least in California.

ANd a justice of the peace is not a religious position is it, its a legal/governmental position

Fateweaver wrote:
I mean, I love not being stuck with the same woman so by the logic of many here I should be legally allowed to have multiple wives so I need not bury the snake in the same hole every night (not to mention the tax breaks I'd get with 3 or 4 wives).

No, that's not the same logic. The rationale behind permitting homosexual marriage is that we should not dictate to people who they will marry. Whereas the rationale behind the prohibition against polygamy is that there is a socially compelling reason to prohibit marriages between multiple people; namely the apparent tendency for that sort of relationship to be open to victimization.

That said, outside of the obvious issues involving child custody and asset distribution, I don't see a compelling reason to prevent people from having polygamous unions. After all, we can simply work to directly police the abusive relationships that might arise.

Regardless, the idea that we should prevent homosexuals from marrying because we will eventually have to allow polygamous couples is fallacious. For that argument to hold true, the existence of marriage itself would also have to set up a set of conditions according to which homosexual marriage would be inevitable.

Never said he was. Just saying same sex marriages will be more likely to go to a court house, rather than a church. Which is kinda a win for the state governments as it is more revenue.

Ironhide wrote:Never said he was. Just saying same sex marriages will be more likely to go to a court house, rather than a church. Which is kinda a win for the state governments as it is more revenue.

Ah, misunderstood you then

dogma wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:
I mean, I love not being stuck with the same woman so by the logic of many here I should be legally allowed to have multiple wives so I need not bury the snake in the same hole every night (not to mention the tax breaks I'd get with 3 or 4 wives).

No, that's not the same logic. The rationale behind permitting homosexual marriage is that we should not dictate to people who they will marry. Whereas the rationale behind the prohibition against polygamy is that there is a socially compelling reason to prohibit marriages between multiple people; namely the apparent tendency for that sort of relationship to be open to victimization.

That said, outside of the obvious issues involving child custody and asset distribution, I don't see a compelling reason to prevent people from having polygamous unions. After all, we can simply work to directly police the abusive relationships that might arise.

Regardless, the idea that we should prevent homosexuals from marrying because we will eventually have to allow polygamous couples is fallacious. For that argument to hold true, the existence of marriage itself would also have to set up a set of conditions according to which homosexual marriage would be inevitable.

But if state gov't can work around child adoption and parenting issues with SSM then surely something could be done for people wanting multiple wives/husbands? Sure it could be a lot messier than 2 men or women marrying but the points still stand. Gay couples want to be married to either show their love or for the same benefits straight married couples get with taxes and whatnot (which is also why are tax system is so fethed up in the first place but that's not for discussion right now). Imagine the tax breaks the IRS would HAVE to give a man/woman with 3-4 wives. Victimization also may not be as prevalent as any other "abusive" relationship would go through. Hell, if the guy is abusive to one wife and they all like one another that guy might not get to victimize the one wife he is for very long. 4 women could probably do things to a man in his sleep that a single woman couldn't. If anything polygamy might help thin the population of the donkey-caves who SHOULD be quartered and hung for beating their wives.

Fateweaver wrote:

See where I'm going with this? A lot of things in nature are "natural" (mates killing their partner after sex) but we can't apply "natural" argument to every reason for marriage in human society or we'd have one fethed up society.

but im not sure a human would want to eat another human after mating, the other one being all sweaty and all...

A human doesnt eat his partner but has sex with it. A monkey has sex with his partner and doesnt eat it. (or else it would be one strange monkey...) a praying mantis eats his partner, and has sex with it. There is an evolutionary reason for eating the mate. We dont need it.



and since when does having legal same sex marriage have anything in common with pedophiles marrying kids?!

Fateweaver wrote:If you want to be gay that is your prerogative. Don't expect churches and God fearing institutions to agree with your decision and get upset when they won't marry you.

There is nothing requiring a church to marry a gay couple. A church can choose to marry them, or it can choose not to. The couple is free to go to a church that will marry them, or free to keep church out of their marriage entirely.

Your argument above is completely made up. It's absolute drivel.

Stormrider wrote:This has reamined and should remain a states rights issue. Everywhere this has been voted on, the voters have ruled against Gay Marriage. It's by the activism of judges that this gets overturned. BTW, the judge who ruled on this is a homosexual.

Sigh. The judge ruled on the issue based on the Californian constitution. The decision is based entirely within the state.

And it is an absolute pile of nonsense to believe in a constitution while decrying every decision you don't like as judicial activism.

rubiksnoob wrote:How exactly would allowing same sex couples to marry lead to polygamy and people marrying children? What is the bizarre, twisted reasoning behind that line of thought?

Fateweaver has been pretty much actively hostile to logic and reality for a long time now. What matters is loyalty to ideology. He believes what they believe, and he figures out reasons to believe that later.

Fateweaver wrote:To the second point? Who's to say I don't love all 5 the same and want to be with JUST those 5 for the rest of my life? Shouldn't I be allowed to marry all 5?

Because property laws and child custody in the event of divorce or death are already complicated, allowing multiple spouses will just make that incredibly complex. Then there's welfare and taxation, which would become incredibly more difficult and prone to exploitation if people can set up multiple spouse legal constructs.

In other words, bigamy is illegal because bad things will happen if it is made legal. No such argument can be made against homosexual marriage.

Sebster, the judge used the wrong precedent to overturn the decision. I have no problem with a legitimate case of unonstitutional laws being overturned, but there needs to be precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986 basically said there is not a Constitutional right to Homosexual activity. In 1996 Romer v. Evans said sexual preferences are to be treated like a race or creed, it was struck down by the SCOTUS. Lawrence v. Texas 2003 completely reversed the 1986 decison and said there is a right to sodomy, which in turn gave the rights to Homosexuals in a vicarious sort of way (even though most of the laws against sodomy were either gone or out of any kind of enforcement). How could a decison be derived from any of these three as there is no decison concerning the act of homosexual marriage. The "privacy of your bedroom" argument falls flat if your commiting incest or rape doesn't it?

Since there is no judicial precedent on the act of Homosexual marriage, what standing the Judge have?

Your self riteouness is getting really old. Do have some deep seeded guilt inside of you or something?

Fateweaver wrote: They shouldn't need to get married though. I mean, what's next? Allowing people to have more than a single wife? Allowing adults to marry kids?

I mean, I love not being stuck with the same woman so by the logic of many here I should be legally allowed to have multiple wives so I need not bury the snake in the same hole every night (not to mention the tax breaks I'd get with 3 or 4 wives).

slippery slope fallacy and totally illogical. by that rationale, since people have been getting married for thousands of years, there have been lobbies for thousands of years supporting multiple marriage, right? wrong.

who are you to say they can't get married? you just agreed it's none of your business. the constitution of the US provides for the pursuit of happiness. full stop.

Stormrider wrote:Sebster, the judge used the wrong precedent to overturn the decision. I have no problem with a legitimate case of unonstitutional laws being overturned, but there needs to be precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986 basically said there is not a Constitutional right to Homosexual activity. In 1996 Romer v. Evans said sexual preferences are to be treated like a race or creed, it was struck down by the SCOTUS. Lawrence v. Texas 2003 completely reversed the 1986 decison and said there is a right to sodomy, which in turn gave the rights to Homosexuals in a vicarious sort of way (even though most of the laws against sodomy were either gone or out of any kind of enforcement). How could a decison be derived from any of these three as there is no decison concerning the act of homosexual marriage. The "privacy of your bedroom" argument falls flat if your commiting incest or rape doesn't it?

Yes, a lot has changed in court rulings on homosexuality in a few short decades. Because precedent matters, but precedent that doesn't fit with a current understanding of the law needs to be overturned.

Your self riteouness is getting really old. Do have some deep seeded guilt inside of you or something?

I have little patience for nonsense. Sorry if you cop the brunt of that.

I will concede I made an error above, I thought this was based on the equal protection clause in the Californian constitution. My mistake.

I don't see how legal marriage can be classified as a basic right, but then again I have to honestly say I don't see the point anyway.

I say let the gays have the right to marriage, it's just another example of how it is little more than a ceremony of dedication to another person, that any two people can just as easily share in any form other than the signing of official papers under a registered celebrant. You can always just change your last name anyway. That's kind of going out of fashion too. If people feel it 'cheapens' their heterosexual marriage in any way, they've completely missed the point of loving another person.

The point, as far as the state is concerned, is the joint tax return. Religious affairs are outside of the jurisdiction in question.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:I don't see how legal marriage can be classified as a basic right, but then again I have to honestly say I don't see the point anyway.

I say let the gays have the right to marriage, it's just another example of how it is little more than a ceremony of dedication to another person, that any two people can just as easily share in any form other than the signing of official papers under a registered celebrant. You can always just change your last name anyway. That's kind of going out of fashion too. If people feel it 'cheapens' their heterosexual marriage in any way, they've completely missed the point of loving another person.

The point, as far as the state is concerned, is the joint tax return. Religious affairs are outside of the jurisdiction in question.

under UN charter its a basic human right

I am aware of that. It seems redundant.

youbedead wrote:

Arctik_Firangi wrote:I don't see how legal marriage can be classified as a basic right, but then again I have to honestly say I don't see the point anyway.

I say let the gays have the right to marriage, it's just another example of how it is little more than a ceremony of dedication to another person, that any two people can just as easily share in any form other than the signing of official papers under a registered celebrant. You can always just change your last name anyway. That's kind of going out of fashion too. If people feel it 'cheapens' their heterosexual marriage in any way, they've completely missed the point of loving another person.

The point, as far as the state is concerned, is the joint tax return. Religious affairs are outside of the jurisdiction in question.

under UN charter its a basic human right

What jurisdiction does the State of California fall under? Their state Constitution and the US Constitution, not a UN Charter.

Stormrider wrote:

youbedead wrote:

Arctik_Firangi wrote:I don't see how legal marriage can be classified as a basic right, but then again I have to honestly say I don't see the point anyway.

I say let the gays have the right to marriage, it's just another example of how it is little more than a ceremony of dedication to another person, that any two people can just as easily share in any form other than the signing of official papers under a registered celebrant. You can always just change your last name anyway. That's kind of going out of fashion too. If people feel it 'cheapens' their heterosexual marriage in any way, they've completely missed the point of loving another person.

The point, as far as the state is concerned, is the joint tax return. Religious affairs are outside of the jurisdiction in question.

under UN charter its a basic human right

What jurisdiction does the State of California fall under? Their state Constitution and the US Constitution, not a UN Charter.

Wrong. ALL UN countries are bound by UN Charter:

"As a charter, it is a constituent treaty, and all members are bound by its articles. Furthermore, the Charter states that obligations to the United Nations prevail over all other treaty obligations."

I disagree with the legal finding, I don't think there are any relevant rights guaranteeing the right to marriage to anybody, gay or otherwise. I don't really care if gay people get married, but I am annoyed when judges decline to be judges and instead decide to be backdoor legislators.

PUN INTENDED! LAWLS!

I think they should take this opportunity to change all legal references to "marriage" to "legal union" or whatever. That way religious institutions can have their own rules, and the government can have its rules, and they don't have to share a name and get people all upset.

Fateweaver wrote:
But if state gov't can work around child adoption and parenting issues with SSM then surely something could be done for people wanting multiple wives/husbands? Sure it could be a lot messier than 2 men or women marrying but the points still stand.

The issues are very different. Insofar as homosexual marriage is concerned, the present conventions of divorce law would apply unchanged; two people are two people regardless of gender. Compare this to polygamous unions in which you have could multiple parties vying for custody, or a share of collected assets.

Fateweaver wrote:
Gay couples want to be married to either show their love or for the same benefits straight married couples get with taxes and whatnot (which is also why are tax system is so fethed up in the first place but that's not for discussion right now). Imagine the tax breaks the IRS would HAVE to give a man/woman with 3-4 wives.

Yes, the taxation issues are another issue with polygamous marriages. Presumably either the entire tax code governing married people would require an overhaul, or separate polygamous category would have to be created.

Fateweaver wrote:
Victimization also may not be as prevalent as any other "abusive" relationship would go through. Hell, if the guy is abusive to one wife and they all like one another that guy might not get to victimize the one wife he is for very long. 4 women could probably do things to a man in his sleep that a single woman couldn't. If anything polygamy might help thin the population of the donkey-caves who SHOULD be quartered and hung for beating their wives.

Historically that hasn't been the case; recall that most societies that permitted polygamy tended to have a low regard for women. That doesn't mean it couldn't be carried out differently in different circumstances, but that precedent is there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stormrider wrote:
Since there is no judicial precedent on the act of Homosexual marriage, what standing the Judge have?

There doesn't actually have to be precedent regarding any given judicial ruling. Precedent can strengthen a ruling, but it isn't necessary for a ruling to be made. That said, this ruling is a tenuous one, as you have pointed out.

Phryxis wrote:I disagree with the legal finding, I don't think there are any relevant rights guaranteeing the right to marriage to anybody, gay or otherwise. I don't really care if gay people get married, but I am annoyed when judges decline to be judges and instead decide to be backdoor legislators.

Well, sure, but he found the amendment to be lacking on constitutional grounds. He found the interests claimed by the state were not sufficient to meet the rational basis test.

That's what judges are supposed to do.

I think they should take this opportunity to change all legal references to "marriage" to "legal union" or whatever. That way religious institutions can have their own rules, and the government can have its rules, and they don't have to share a name and get people all upset.

Religious institutions already have their own laws, more or less. A church doesn't want to marry two people, it doesn't have to. Whether that marriage is called a marriage or a legal union doesn't matter.

Fateweaver wrote:1) It's natural (apparently). Okay, I guess at times in nature males copulate with males. Cool.

You seem to only mention the male/male side of homosexuality. Consistently. Strange.