[MP-Ryan]

A federal appeals court on Tuesday declared California’s same-sex marriage ban to be unconstitutional, putting the bitterly contested, voter-approved law on track for likely consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that a lower court judge correctly interpreted the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court precedents when he declared in 2010 that Proposition 8 was a violation of the civil rights of gays and lesbians.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/california-gay-marriage-ban-is-unconstitutional-court-rules/article2329542/

I wonder how many rounds the bigots have to lose before they concede the point?

[Nuke]

oh thank lucifer it wasnt the weed law, i thought for a second id have to rethink my retierment locale.

[Dragon]

I don't understand why people have problem with other people having different orientation. A person's sexuality is his/her own business, unless he/she actually interested in another person, then it becomes important for orientations to be compatible. And if catholic church has an issue with homosexuality due to some "sacred" text condemning it, then I don't see why homosexuals won't just leave the church or start their own religion. It'd make matters much simpler. And of course, government should stay out of it.

[Nuke]

because people would rather cling to a 4000 year old notion that homosexuality is sinful, as opposed to actually thing about it and realize that its no threat to them. pagan europe for the most part very tolerant of homosexuality, as was evident in greek and roman societies, but then the bible thumpers had to ruin it. if people wanna be gay by all means, more chicks for me.

[Mongoose]

I don't understand why people have problem with other people having different orientation. A person's sexuality is his/her own business, unless he/she actually interested in another person, then it becomes important for orientations to be compatible. And if catholic church has an issue with homosexuality due to some "sacred" text condemning it, then I don't see why homosexuals won't just leave the church or start their own religion. It'd make matters much simpler. And of course, government should stay out of it.

Honestly, I think a big chunk of the problem is the use of the term "marriage" for a government-conveyed union in the first place.  For a lot of people, marriage is a religious-based, even sacramental concept, so seeing that same term applied to unions that don't mesh with their idea of what marriage "should" be is what causes the outrage.  If I had my way, I'd get the government out of using "marriage" entirely.  Have it so that any two people, no matter their genders, can apply for a legal union status that conveys all of the same financial/medical/whatever benefits that civil marriage does today.  Leave the conveyance of "marriage" to whatever religious/spiritual institutions choose to do so, by whatever rules they choose to.  It won't silence the total whackjobs out there, but I think it will satisfy a lot of people on both sides.

[redsniper]

I don't understand why people have problem with other people having different orientation. A person's sexuality is his/her own business, unless he/she actually interested in another person, then it becomes important for orientations to be compatible. And if catholic church has an issue with homosexuality due to some "sacred" text condemning it, then I don't see why homosexuals won't just leave the church or start their own religion. It'd make matters much simpler. And of course, government should stay out of it.

Honestly, I think a big chunk of the problem is the use of the term "marriage" for a government-conveyed union in the first place.  For a lot of people, marriage is a religious-based, even sacramental concept, so seeing that same term applied to unions that don't mesh with their idea of what marriage "should" be is what causes the outrage.  If I had my way, I'd get the government out of using "marriage" entirely.  Have it so that any two people, no matter their genders, can apply for a legal union status that conveys all of the same financial/medical/whatever benefits that civil marriage does today.  Leave the conveyance of "marriage" to whatever religious/spiritual institutions choose to do so, by whatever rules they choose to.  It won't silence the total whackjobs out there, but I think it will satisfy a lot of people on both sides.

On the one hand, yeah I think it would be a good idea to disentangle legal and religious definitions of marriage. On the other hand, I don't think the legal side should stop being called "marriage" just because it bothers some people, then it just feels like you're caving in to uh... tyranny of the majority, I guess.

[Dragon]

Also, polygamy (for both men and women) should be allowed, right now most countries ban it, while it's an outright discrimination of Muslims (an most likely some other religions).
Of course, it should be somehow limited in order to prevent exploits like, for instance, prevent some clever people from "marrying" multiple "spouses" to get various tax cuts they individually get shared through the whole group, thus reducing the taxing to some silly amount. Or, for example, a man "marrying" 4 (already married or not) women who have one child each, therefore making the "family" have 4 children and thus be eligible for a free bus ticket for all of them, among other things.
I don't think it should be officially called "marriage", but people should be able to validate the act in the church of their choice (whether the church agrees for that it the church business). There's also a matter of language, what we call "marriage" in English refers to a lot of different rituals which most likely have different names depending on where the religion originated from.

[Mars]

Polygamy legalization should come with additional protections for spouses, largely wives who are exploited rather badly in many religions. (Certain forms of Mormonism and Islam come to mind.) Allowing poly-spousal unions should not be seen as a green light for people to start or continue practicing age old abuses and dehumanizing 'property' arrangements. 

[Qent]

Hmm nope. The issue with homosexual marriages is not whether it is immoral. It is that marriage is supported by the state so that they can have and raise babies. Same-sex couples can't have babies. But today I probably wouldn't trust most heterosexual couples to raise kids. So I think first you'd need to fix education. Then tie tax benefits to raising children. Then sure, I can see homosexual couples getting "married," even if they call it "marriage" just to piss us off. ("A gay man can marry a woman just like any other man so they do have equal rights" etc.)

Given that homosexuality is immoral, trying to legislate against it on the grounds that it is immoral is useless and annoying.

[Mars]

Hmm nope. The issue with homosexual marriages is not whether it is immoral. It is that marriage is supported by the state so that they can have and raise babies. Same-sex couples can't have babies.

Were that so, why would we support marriage for the elderly or of sterile couples?

EDIT:

Actually, why would we allow unions of people who weren't planning on having babies. Why wouldn't we have adoption like systems in place making sure that the heterosexual, fertile couples who had petitioned for marriage had lifestyles and appropriate personalities for bringing children into the world?

. . .

Actually, that doesn't sound like too terrible an idea. . .

[Qent]

Because you also have no right to inquire whether they are able/willing to have children. There's no need with homosexual couples.

That would be solved of course by supporting raising children instead of bearing them.

[Mars]

How do you mean there's no need? If you don't allow same-sex couples to marry because they "can't have children" and you're attempting to save valuable money by excluding them from marriage, it would make logical sense to "get a return on investment" on hetrosexual couples too - as a significant percentage of hetro-unions do not result in children.

Let me break it down for you.

A) Homosexual couples can't have children
B) Marriage in terms of the state is for making children
C) Therefore homosexuals should not marry.

So - extrapolating from that

A) Elderly couples can't have children
B) Marriage in terms of the state is for making children.
C) Therefore elderly couples should not marry.


This is not even covering the fact that your suppositions are not strong - many homosexuals use various reproductive technologies to produce their own biological offspring (sperm banks, surrogate mothers, etc.) So homosexual unions sometimes DO result in children.

[Qent]

Preventing such couples who can't have children from marrying would require either private medical info or info about their sex lives, neither of which you can have.

But I (knowing very little of tax law) suspect it would be better to tie benefits more directly to raising productive members of society.

But really, I don't care about the money that much even. There are much better ways to get everyone more money that are going completely ignored. I'm against homosexual marriage because they call it marriage (instead of a civil union) out of spite, and because they claim that society has robbed them of their right to marry, when in fact they have the same rights as everyone else.

[Bobboau]

yeah, negros can marry someone of the same color just like everyone else.

[Mars]

The issue with homosexual marriages is. . . that marriage is supported by the state so that they can have and raise babies. Same-sex couples can't have babies.

Okay, your argument is that gay people shouldn't get married because they "can't have babies." I can show multiple stories about homosexual couples who have sought out to do just that.

Preventing such couples who can't have children from marrying would require either private medical info or info about their sex lives, neither of which you can have.

No it wouldn't - you could simply prevent any couple over sixty from getting married - that would take care of a lot of unproductive unions. The ones who choose not to have children are usually fairly vocal about their reproductive choices.

But I (knowing very little of tax law) suspect it would be better to tie benefits more directly to raising productive members of society.

But marriage isn't remotely what you're saying it is, in context of a state.

But really, I don't care about the money that much even. There are much better ways to get everyone more money that are going completely ignored. I'm against homosexual marriage because they call it marriage (instead of a civil union) out of spite, and because they claim that society has robbed them of their right to marry, when in fact they have the same rights as everyone else.

How is it called "marriage" out of spite? It's called marriage because that's what we call unions between people who generally mate for a long period of time. Granted this definition has changed a bit given some marriages, but practices similar to it have existed for thousands of years in hundreds of cultures. It is indeed a cultural phenomenon. I don't know what you're on about.

EDIT:

So yes, I'd say homosexual people are missing out on some rights - they don't have the generally granted right to marry whomever they choose, put into a similar category as someone who would want to marry a child, but with many fewer sound arguments that support it being detrimental.

[Qent]

yeah, negros can marry someone of the same color just like everyone else.

If that really were the case back then, then they would have had equal rights as far as marriage was concerned. But you know it wasn't, so why make that comparison?

[Mars]

yeah, negros can marry someone of the same color just like everyone else.

If that really were the case back then, then they would have had equal rights as far as marriage was concerned. But you know it wasn't, so why make that comparison?

They did not have that right "back then" if by "back then" you mean the period of slavery in the United States.

[FlamingCobra]

I don't understand why people have problem with other people having different orientation. A person's sexuality is his/her own business, unless he/she actually interested in another person, then it becomes important for orientations to be compatible. And if catholic church has an issue with homosexuality due to some "sacred" text condemning it, then I don't see why homosexuals won't just leave the church or start their own religion. It'd make matters much simpler. And of course, government should stay out of it.

cuz a man can't reproduce with another man.
Therefore,
IT IS COM-PLETE-LY UNACCEPTABLE!

[Qent]

yeah, negros can marry someone of the same color just like everyone else.

If that really were the case back then, then they would have had equal rights as far as marriage was concerned. But you know it wasn't, so why make that comparison?

They did not have that right "back then" if by "back then" you mean the period of slavery in the United States.

Yes, that.

I don't know enough about taxes really, and I'm sorry I brought that up. But I don't think it makes sense to pay people just for being together, especially when they can just get divorced at a moment's notice. That would apply to all couples.

But I do think that calling it "marriage" is a deliberate act of aggression against anyone who believes differently. And heterosexual people do not have the right to marry anyone they choose either, so calling for "equal rights" is also a deliberate twisting of language that I cannot stand. If they had instead claimed that all people ought to be allowed to marry whomever they chose, they might have had better success.

This is what I think. It might be confusing that I started with what people should be up in arms about, instead of religious prejudices.

[Bobboau]

yeah, I want to hear a very specific and clear explanation of what your understanding of the legal status of interracial marriage in the majority of states before 1948, or in the south specifically before 1967.