Gay Marriage Legal in California

[7960]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Do you think that polygamous, group, and incestuous marriages should be recognized by the State? If not, why? If so, can you explain the legal logistics of each of those?

how about we stick with the one issue, gay marriage. ok?

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by JaJae

What I'm saying is two consenting adults should be allowed to enter into the legal contract of marriage. As long as California is offering "marriage" they shouldn't discriminate based on race, gender, age, sexuality, etc.

Then it doesn't open the door up for everyone. As thewise1 pointed out, polygamy was just thrown out the window.


Any other minority groups that shouldn't have their marriages recognized by the state?

Any other gangs that should receive special privileges because they're not part of one of the listed minority groups that we're oppressing?

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by 7960

how about we stick with the one issue, gay marriage. ok?

Because you can't claim to be discussing "equal rights" or "opening it up for everyone" when you're refusing to acknowledge that you're explicitly singling out certain groups because their gang isn't as big as yours.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Then it doesn't open the door up for everyone. As thewise1 pointed out, polygamy was just thrown out the window.


Any other minority groups that shouldn't have their marriages recognized by the state?

Any other gangs that you think should receive special privileges because they're not part of one of the listed minority groups that we're oppressing?

I'm trying to understand your argument. Basically you're saying we should restrict marriage to a minority group of your choosing only because enough steps haven't yet been made to open it up to every other person you can think of? A step in the right direction is a step in the right direction.

To answer your polygamy and incest questions...
Incest: I could care less what two consenting adults do. Doesn't impact me in any way.
Polygamy: I could care less what groups of people wish to do. However, this would screw up tax laws and such so there would need to be other modifications made to our legal system as well.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Because you can't claim to be discussing "equal rights" or "opening it up for everyone" when you're refusing to acknowledge that you're explicitly singling out certain groups because their gang isn't as big as yours.

There was a time in this country when women and blacks were fighting for "equal rights." Just because other minority groups didn't have all the rights of the majority doesn't mean that they weren't fighting for equal rights as well. This is just a semantics argument and doesn't defend your position.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I'm trying to understand your argument. Basically you're saying we should restrict marriage to a minority group of your choosing only because enough steps haven't yet been made to open it up to every other person you can think of? A step in the right direction is a step in the right direction.

I think it's a step in the wrong direction. Abrogating a large portion of the tax incentives for getting legally married was a step in the right direction. Legalizing gay marriage is a step in the wrong direction.

To answer your polygamy and incest questions...
Incest: I could care less what two consenting adults do. Doesn't impact me in any way.
Polygamy: I could care less what groups of people wish to do. However, this would screw up tax laws and such so there would need to be other modifications made to our legal system as well.

And group marriages? There's also hypothetical "line marriages" (found on that page) and "circular marriages," which is similar to "group marriage" except not all members are married to each other, but rather, individuals pick and choose the members to whom they will be wed.

My position is that marriage should not be recognized by the state at all. Instituting more state-sanctioned recognition is a step in the wrong direction.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Do you think that polygamous, group, and incestuous marriages should be recognized by the State? If not, why? If so, can you explain the legal logistics of each of those?

polygamous and group? yes I do

incestuous? now that's a can of genetically fucked up worms with two heads

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by thewise1

polygamous and group? yes I do

incestuous? now that's a can of genetically fucked up worms with two heads

How does getting married lead to genetically fucked up worms with two heads?


Also you conveniently neglected to explain the logistics of how you'd go about instituting those types of marriages.


What about the minority group that wishes not to have its marriage recognized by the state, but still feels oppressed because other groups are getting special privileges? Care to resolve that one? Or should we just dismiss them because their gang isn't big enough to make a difference?

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

How does getting married lead to genetically fucked up worms with two heads?


Also you conveniently neglected to explain the logistics of how you'd go about instituting those types of marriages.


What about the minority group that wishes not to have its marriage recognized by the state, but still feels oppressed because other groups are getting special privileges? Care to resolve that one? Or should we just dismiss them because their gang isn't big enough to make a difference?

I like the idea of government just staying out of marriage, if that's what you're getting at. But since they won't, I think everyone should be able to get married. With the possible exception of incest situations for the genetic problems surrounding procreation in such a situation.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by thewise1

I like the idea of government just staying out of marriage, if that's what you're getting at. But since they won't, I think everyone should be able to get married. With the possible exception of incest situations for the genetic problems surrounding procreation in such a situation.

Does it then follow that you don't think sterile people should be able to get married? Or how about anyone with a genetic disorder? Should a couple of mental retards not be able to marry because of the high risk of giving birth to another retard? Or how about little people?

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Does it then follow that you don't think sterile people should be able to get married? Or how about anyone with a genetic disorder? Should a couple of mental retards not be able to marry because of the high risk of giving birth to another retard? Or how about little people?

like I said

can of worms

[kombayn]

Originally Posted by thewise1

I like the idea of government just staying out of marriage, if that's what you're getting at. But since they won't, I think everyone should be able to get married. With the possible exception of incest situations for the genetic problems surrounding procreation in such a situation.

It's almost impossible for government to stay out of marriage, because it's a direct link to tax forms and benefits you get for being married. And yes I think polygamy shouldn't be allowed because they're breaking the law having sex with underage girls and incest marriages? Come on... Lets be real here, that's just weird and why should society accept that shit? I don't care if back in Roman times it went on, but this is the 21st century.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by kombayn

It's almost impossible for government to stay out of marriage, because it's a direct link to tax forms and benefits you get for being married. And yes I think polygamy shouldn't be allowed because they're breaking the law having sex with underage girls and incest marriages? Come on... Lets be real here, that's just weird and why should society accept that shit? I don't care if back in Roman times it went on, but this is the 21st century.

Not all polygamy is about underage girls, but why should the government care if multiple consenting adults decide to have a relationship together?

[kombayn]

Well from that stand-point I don't care about that either. If 3 ladies want to be married to one guy or vice-versa and they're cool with it, let 'em. As long as they don't break the law or do weird shit like some of them do with children and teenagers.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by kombayn

It's almost impossible for government to stay out of marriage, because it's a direct link to tax forms and benefits you get for being married. And yes I think polygamy shouldn't be allowed because they're breaking the law having sex with underage girls and incest marriages? Come on... Lets be real here, that's just weird and why should society accept that shit? I don't care if back in Roman times it went on, but this is the 21st century.

wtf does polygamy have to do with incest and underage sex?

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Do you think that polygamous, group, and incestuous marriages should be recognized by the State? If not, why? If so, can you explain the legal logistics of each of those?

I think any marriage between consenting adults is fine, though the state should only deal with legal issues in all cases.

Incest does not have significant genetic problems until it become multi-generational.

[kombayn]

Originally Posted by thewise1

wtf does polygamy have to do with incest and underage sex?

I was replying to your statement earlier about incest, it has nothing to do with it... The underage sex, I will argue to the death with you because a big thing about polygamy, when you read it in the news is how they have sex with underage girls.

[Simius]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Then it doesn't open the door up for everyone. As thewise1 pointed out, polygamy was just thrown out the window.


Any other minority groups that shouldn't have their marriages recognized by the state?

Any other gangs that should receive special privileges because they're not part of one of the listed minority groups that we're oppressing?

I don't think the intention is to open marriages up for everyone. Technically speaking marriages in CA are as open to as many people after gay marriages were allowed as before they were allowed. Gays could marry before... just not people of the same gender.

But look at this. Before this change in CA, marriage laws discriminated against men. Jim wasn't allowed to marry another man simply due to Jim's gender. Nothing more, nothing less. That is discrimination. Marriage laws also discriminated against women. Sue wasn't allowed to marry another woman simply due to Sue's gender. That is discrimination. It is discrimination to bar Sue from marrying half the people in this country for no other reason than her gender.

But how is not allowing polygamy discrimination? A polygamist can now marry any person in CA. (aside from married people and minors I'm going to ignore minors for the rest of this paragraph) So how is it discrimination against polygamist Joe when he has the right to marry whoever anyone else in California has the right to marry?

[Simius]

I will say that I don't particularly care if there are polygamist marriages or not. The only real hurdle I see is: How the fuck would our tax system work with marriages of 3/4/10 people? Hammer out that problem and I say marry away.