What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

California supreme court overturns gay marriage ban

  • Thread starter Clint
  • Start date
  • #21
You can believe in 2000+ year old fabricated desert dogma all you want, but the second you try to force it on people...I think that should carry the same penalty as treason.

Interesting. So please do show me how Jews/Christians are forcing people to get married and have marriage rights. Oh that's right, I believe people are taking from Judeo/Christian values and distorting it for their own means.

Also you're free to believe that you are a descendant of a monkey.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #22
Not all incestual relationships have to deal with children. You can have 18 year old brothers and sisters or parents with 18 year old children. If they're both consenting to marriage, why not? How can the animal consent? If it can't consent then consent shouldn't be needed.



Homosexuals don't add to the gene pool either.



Then every other non-traditional couple deserves the SAME protection as a homosexual couple. To not give them the same rights is discrimination.

Well, again, any incestuous relationship creates genetic problems for the progeny. Homosexual relationships do not. And yes, gay people add to the gene pool just like you and I do. It's called artificial insemination and surrogate mothers, and I know people who've done it.

Again, gay couples and families already exist. Why on earth would we deny them the financial and legal protections we give straight couples and families? Your particular church rules do not apply to others, as it should be for both your and our protection.

Capslock
 
  • #23
If it can't consent then consent isn't needed? Jesus Christ. I guess it's OK to marry braindead people. They can't consent, but it's not needed, right?

EEEEHHH wrong. We can add to the gene pool just as much as you can via in-vitro fertilization. I am just as capable of having a biological kid as you

Your arguments are just getting silly.

Not really, however I'm finding it rather entertaining that those who are for equal rights across the board are against giving them out to other groups of non-traditional marriage.

Why does there have to be consent from an animal for a person to marry one? We can just alter the definition of marriage to state "one man/woman that consents to be married to an animal". We all love redefining historical definitions, why not tweak it some more!
 
  • #24
Hey hey now. Makes a lot more sense that believing we were made from dirt and a rib, right?



You are arguing just to argue. You have ignored all reason presented by Max and myself.

To be fair, IIRC Outsiders supports giving us all the same benefits (correct me if I'm wrong) but his problem is with calling it "Marriage". He's looking at it from a spiritual POV when everyone who wants it changed is looking at it legally, the way it's meant to be looked at today when discussing it in any public context.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #25
Yay. More arguments for me to respond to. [EDITED INTO A CIVIL REMARK]

If they're both consenting to marriage, why not?
Incest is illegal because if it weren't, we'd have a lot more of a certain kind of folk running around. Hint hint. Oh, and have you ever seen Deliverance?
Also, those couples will produce children who almost, if not always, will have some major congenital defects. Most of the children die in infancy, etc, etc.

Homosexuals don't add to the gene pool either.
But they don't negatively add to it like incest does (IF the child survives). Oh, [EDITED] if a brother and sister knowingly commit incest, and it results in a child, which of course they know has about a 100% chance of some nasty birth defect, and the child dies as a result of such defect (which will happen at least eventually about 99% of the time), then that brother and sister just knowingly committed murder by your standards, didn't they? [EDITED]

Then every other non-traditional couple deserves the SAME protection as a homosexual couple. To not give them the same rights is discrimination.
Let's use that thing called literacy and read why not. Animals and children do not possess the capacity to consciously make a decision about a relationship. A gay couple is still two Homo sapien ssp. sapien. A girl and a horse = FAIL.

Also you're free to believe that you are a descendant of a monkey but please try to think harder than one when writing replies
[EDITED] ? Humans and monkeys shared a common ancestor...we never "were" monkeys. [EDITED]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #26
I think informed consent is a valid and reasonable requirement for the state conferring legal and financial protections. We do this to afford protections to families. It is currently ILLEGAL to have "relations" outside of informed consent. It's an established legal principle. It is currently LEGAL to have a homosexual relationship, by contrast.

Instead of trying to figure out what other forms of relationships we should give benefits to, please try to provide at least one valid reason we should deny them to gay families.

Max
 
  • #27
I think this is fantastic!

If I've said it before (I have!), I'd say it again (I will!): If a christian church chooses to "marry" a same-sex couple, then everything goes out the window in terms of the religious sanctity argument. I'm sure if a gay couple wants to get married under a christian church and a church chooses to marry them, then that settles that. If they are turned down by some other church, no big deal either. All churches operate under different interpretations and serve their population as they see fit. There is no umbrella. If gay couples want a civil union, they go to the courthouse; if they want to get married, they go to a church that knows that that is okay in the eyes of god, then they go to the courthouse. The point is, the government can't tell a church what to do just as the church can't tell the government what to do.

And, comparing the rights of homosexual couples to the rights of dogs, horses, and other animals, and children is as insulting as it is absurd, for the exact reasons Max listed.

And (puts moderator hat on), let's keep this civil, engaging, and educational. All slightly inflammatory posts, with any sort of derogatory-ness will be edited as soon as noticed, without any concern for content or argument and warnings will be handed out accordingly.

xvart.
 
  • #28
Well, again, any incestuous relationship creates genetic problems for the progeny. Homosexual relationships do not.

Whether an incestuous relationship creates an alien, what does it matter? What gives you the right to say they're not allowed to reproduce and be happy? Whether or not it could create defects in the offspring is not a good enough reason to withhold equal rights and protection from a consenting non-traditional couple.

And yes, gay people add to the gene pool just like you and I do. It's called artificial insemination and surrogate mothers, and I know people who've done it.

The majority of gays do not add to the gene pool, and it is IMPOSSIBLE for a gay couple to create life.

Again, gay couples and families already exist. Why on earth would we deny them the financial and legal protections we give straight couples and families? Your particular church rules do not apply to others, as it should be for both your and our protection.
Capslock

Tell me...what financial and legal protections were gays denied in California yesterday?
 
  • #29
Oooh. All sarcasm aside, I remember someone working on just that! It was a long time ago but I distinctly remember someone trying to produce an egg with the genes of one man that could be fertilized by his partner. Not like one specific couple, I mean couples in general. I wonder how long it'll be before it comes to fruition.
 
  • #30
Interesting. So please do show me how Jews/Christians are forcing people to get married and have marriage rights. Oh that's right, I believe people are taking from Judeo/Christian values and distorting it for their own means.

Also you're free to believe that you are a descendant of a monkey.



Theirs more than one religion that "marry" but their is separation of church and state, separation of peoples values, and a documented saying that people are married.

A Church can deny some one to get married to the same sex, but the people can get it done at the state house or w/e you get it done, that says they are married.

that way it keeps your opinions to your self, and other people to do what want with in the limits of the law.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #31
Incest is illegal because if it weren't, we'd have a lot more of a certain kind of folk running around. Hint hint. Oh, and have you ever seen Deliverance?
Also, those couples will produce children who almost, if not always, will have some major congenital defects. Most of the children die in infancy, etc, etc.

This argument is invalid, because regardless of allowing incestual marriage, incestual relationships will happen and reproducing of incestual couples do happen. We're not arguing defects here, we're arguing the rights of incestual couples to get married and have equal rights under the law.

But they don't negatively add to it like incest does (IF the child survives). If a brother and sister knowingly commit incest, and it results in a child, which of course they know has about a 100% chance of some nasty birth defect, and the child dies as a result of such defect (which will happen at least eventually about 99% of the time), then that brother and sister just knowingly committed murder by your standards, didn't they?

Genetic defects are rampant everywhere now, without incest.

Animals and children do not possess the capacity to consciously make a decision about a relationship. A gay couple is still two Homo sapien ssp. sapien. A girl and a horse = FAIL.

Incest does not always involve children. When you were edumacated down their in Texas did you not read Oedipus Rex? You can have two consenting adults with incest. If a woman loves her horse and wants to marry it why not?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #32
Theirs more than one religion that "marry" but their is separation of church and state, separation of peoples values, and a documented saying that people are married.

A Church can deny some one to get married to the same sex, but the people can get it done at the state house or w/e you get it done, that says they are married.

that way it keeps your close minded doctrine to your self, and sensible people to do what want with in the limits of the law.

Prove to me historically that marriage is a government created institution/tradition.
 
  • #33
Well, unfortunately, their are laws saying thats what it is in the United states, im not arguing with you that it wasn't created religiously.
 
  • #34
If a woman loves her horse and wants to marry it why not?

For the same reason that a man/woman can't marry a little boy/girl. Its been said prior to my post, why aren't you grasping it? (no disrespect meant)
 
  • #35
Well, unfortunately, their are laws saying thats what it is in the United states, im not arguing with you that it wasn't created religiously.

Well thank you, that's all I'm looking for. I don't think the government had any right using the term to begin with, when it is supposed to be separated into the Church category.

For the same reason that a man/woman can't marry a little boy/girl. Its been said prior to my post, why aren't you grasping it? (no disrespect meant)

Because I'm waiting for someone to drop the bomb. I'm waiting for someone to suggest why all these things are deemed wrong.

It sounds like morality might be an issue here and I find it quite ironic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #36
Because I'm waiting for someone to drop the bomb. I'm waiting for someone to suggest why all these things are deemed wrong.

It sounds like morality might be an issue here and I find it quite ironic.

Because, someone under the age of 18 does not have the mental capacity to know what they are doing. It's a protection of all children in all circumstance, no matter what. It's the same reason why children cannot legally enter into a contract with any entity, whether it be marriage, civil unions, or baseball card trades.

xvart.
 
  • #37
... What's the bomb? What hasn't already been said?
 
  • #38
You cant get consent from a horse, you cant get consent legally from a small child, though NAMBLA seems to think you can.

Well unfortunately outsiders, but it had to be done. Like it or not GAYS are minority's, and they Have social status, its not like they are going to hurt you if they are gay they have rights, and its not hurting any one to marry the same sex. And even if you don't feel this way you come off as if you do.
 
  • #39
Because, someone under the age of 18 does not have the mental capacity to know what they are doing. It's a protection of all children in all circumstance, no matter what. It's the same reason why children cannot legally enter into a contract with any entity, whether it be marriage, civil unions, or baseball card trades.

xvart.

Even though we're not discussing the marriage of children here xvart, I will humor you. Can you please show me how someone who is 17 that turns 18 magically has some kind of mental capacity that they didn't before? I know adults who are in their mid 20's/30's who have the mental capacity of someone who you'd think was a teenager. Age doesn't mean anything.
 
  • #40
Outsiders, you have to draw an age of consent somewhere, an it happens to be 18 and 21 for booze. You can't go on an individual basis, and you know that.
 
Back
Top