California Prop 8 outlawing gay marriage ruled unconstitutional

reply to post by nunya13


Again, until any consenting adults can marry who they want, and as many as they want, it's special rights. Noone, not anyone has the right to marry anyone they choose to, the partner must meet certain requirements,and until that happens for everyone, I'm gonna stick with special rights.

reply to post by adifferentbreed


Noone, not anyone has the right to marry anyone they choose to, the partner must meet certain requirements,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huh?
where do you live?
What requirements, other than consent?
What right does the Government have to involve itself in marriage in the first place, other than for tax purposes?

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
reply to post by rogerstigers

 

Sensitivity training/counseling etc, so I can accept homosexuality, no thanks, how about we reverse it? Hate crime laws were a bad idea when they were instated, and are just as bad now. We aren't going to agree on this, just saying, homosexuals have rights and recourses that others don't have, and to constantly playing the victim, as well as the homophobe card, to demand further special rights does nothing to further their cause.

I go back and forth on the Hate Crime.

Sometimes I do think it is "special law" and should not be allowed. Then I run into people who are just ignorant - - and think "yeah - we need that extra protection in some instances"

Extending Equal Rights to all citizens is NOT special rights.

Do you even know what sensitivity training is? My husband has to attend sensitivity training for his job. It simply teaches you to treat everyone equally: such as disabled - ethnic - gender - etc.

EQUAL - not special.

reply to post by OldDragger


As stated earlier, you can't marry a blood relative, I don't care what they do on springer, nor can you marry more thn one person lgally at a time. There are restrictions on who you can marry.......this just happens to be one of them.

reply to post by Annee


Yes I know what sensitivity training is........and I don't think any of it is necessary. and to include homosexuals in the same group as people with disabilities, or people of another race just makes no sense....to me.

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
reply to post by OldDragger

 

As stated earlier, you can't marry a blood relative, I don't care what they do on springer, nor can you marry more thn one person lgally at a time. There are restrictions on who you can marry.......this just happens to be one of them.

All the more reason to do away with this whole "marriage" thing. That way *anyone* can union together with *anyone* else regardles of what the religious or morals peoples think.

For example, I believe that typical civil union could be comprised of Two Parents, 1.5 Kids, and a elder (grandpa or something). Or possibly a single mom, 2 kids, and a Godparent of some sort.

[edit on 8-5-2010 by rogerstigers]

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
reply to post by Annee

 

Yes I know what sensitivity training is........and I don't think any of it is necessary. and to include homosexuals in the same group as people with disabilities, or people of another race just makes no sense....to me.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What a curious answer!
Sensitivity training is about intolerance to those different than you.
It's not about "people with disabilities or another race"!!

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
reply to post by OldDragger

 

As stated earlier, you can't marry a blood relative, I don't care what they do on springer, nor can you marry more thn one person lgally at a time. There are restrictions on who you can marry.......this just happens to be one of them.

Other then marrying a blood sibling - which is illegal because of incest laws.

What other law is there against legal adults marrying?

[edit on 5-8-2010 by Annee]

reply to post by OldDragger


Not really an interesting answer.....being disabled or of another race has nothing to do with choice. I'm still of a mind that it is a choice. Maybe not an easily made one, but a choice none the less. You can label me anything you want to, you can "judge" me any way you want to (especially since I'm a white heterosexual male), you know, "judge", the thing we aren't allowed to do to anyone else.....and it won't change my mind, or opinion. I keep hearing live and let live, but it will never happen...there is always another hurdle (real or imagined) that needs to be cleared.........nice chatting with you though.

Originally posted by OldDragger

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
reply to post by Annee

 

Yes I know what sensitivity training is........and I don't think any of it is necessary. and to include homosexuals in the same group as people with disabilities, or people of another race just makes no sense....to me.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What a curious answer!
Sensitivity training is about intolerance to those different than you.
It's not about "people with disabilities or another race"!!

Don't know what sensitivity training you've been in.

But - absolutely - the disabled and ethnicity -- is part of sensitivity training.

There are many kinds of prejudice.

reply to post by Annee


So, giving an example isn't enough.........it's illegal, we both agree on that. So therefore, aren't people being discriminated against by it being illegal? It is after all, 2 consenting aduts, and as been stated here so many times....the government has no business in someones bedroom.........I guess only when it fits someones particular agenda is it important

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
reply to post by Annee

 

So, giving an example isn't enough.........it's illegal, we both agree on that. So therefore, aren't people being discriminated against by it being illegal? It is after all, 2 consenting aduts, and as been stated here so many times....the government has no business in someones bedroom.........I guess only when it fits someones particular agenda is it important

NO. I think you're being ridiculous.

You know very well the reason blood siblings should not get married.

I'm not gonna play this game with you.

reply to post by adifferentbreed


I believe the law states you must be at least second cousins to marry. You CAN marry a blood relative, but there must be a certain "distance" in between the two of you. This is ONLY because of the potential physical deformities or other meidcal anomolies in the off spring.

Alas, I believe you already know all of this and are purposefully being obtuse.

reply to post by Annee


I wasn't aware we were playing a game, you asked for an example......how about another. I can't marry two women at the same time, should that be legal? If not, you are still excluding a group of people, I'm sorry if my examples dont fit you idea of intelligence, however exclusion, is exclusion.......

reply to post by adifferentbreed


Well, I already said in another thread that I believe polygamy/bigamy should be legal. I also stated in this one that the only reason I can see marriage between relatives being illegal is because of incest laws. other than that I am on the fence. It is a victimless crime up and until they reproduce and that can have serious reprucussion on the offspring, but non-related adults are not forbidden from reproducing even if there is a high chance of some kind of abnormality due to the genetics of the mother/father.

Regardless, you keep talking as if it is unfair for the aforementioned groups to be denied the right to marry and then saying that means that gays should not marry. The logic is astounding. To say that it's not fair for one group means that another group should not also enjoy those rights makes no sense. Instead, it would be far more logical to say you think gays should marry and therefore people should be able to have multiple spouses/marry their relatives.

You still have yet to provide your justification for saying letting gays marry gives them special rights. If an consenting adult man and woman want to marry, then a consenting adult man and man should be able to also. So should a man and a man and a woman, imo.

So, for the sake of argument, any consenting adults (including relatives and more than two) should be able to marry in the interest of equal rights. Then shouldn't gays be afforded that same right?

Originally posted by Layla
reply to post by adifferentbreed

 

I believe the law states you must be at least second cousins to marry. You CAN marry a blood relative, but there must be a certain "distance" in between the two of you. This is ONLY because of the potential physical deformities or other meidcal anomolies in the off spring.

Alas, I believe you already know all of this and are purposefully being obtuse.

I agree. The poster is most certainly trying to cloud the issue. People tend to do this when they do not have a sound argument.

reply to post by adifferentbreed


Man, you really don't get it!
Choice has nothing to do with tolerance!
It's about YOU, not THEM!
You, even if you don't realize it, are a million light years from understanding the concept!

Nope, not being obtuse at all. I'm simply trying to point out that there will by necessity never be equality....never, someone will always be left out of the loop. And while I feel that marrying one of your blood relatives is wrong, as do all of you from what I can tell, however.........who are you to decide what's right or wrong, same question that's being asked of heterosexuals who dont agree with homosexual marriage? You can't have it both ways, you can't condemn one group for disagreeing with you, when you do the same thing.

Originally posted by Layla
reply to post by adifferentbreed

 

I believe the law states you must be at least second cousins to marry. You CAN marry a blood relative, but there must be a certain "distance" in between the two of you. This is ONLY because of the potential physical deformities or other meidcal anomolies in the off spring.

Alas, I believe you already know all of this and are purposefully being obtuse.

Actually - many states allow 1st cousin marriages. You can look it up.

Only immediate family blood relatives can't marry - because of incest laws.

reply to post by OldDragger


Back at ya..........there never will be equality, and never can be. Tolerance has nothing to do with it, it's null and void.......neither side has it, nor will they.