Historic Day in California Today - Page 3
Join the #1 Art Workshop - LevelUpJoin Premium Art Workshop

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 213

Thread: Historic Day in California Today

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Pasadena, CA
    Posts
    3,330
    Thanks
    173
    Thanked 874 Times in 529 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I'd like us to be careful about phrasing with respect to what "people" want. People had their will thwarted not only by this California Supreme Court opinion. Other people had their will thwarted by the gay marriage ban. Say "the majority" if that's what you mean. I'm straight, but even I am a little bit unnerved when language seems to imply that same sex couples are not people, or they do not have a will that can be thwarted.

    The First Amendment not only contains the Freedom of Religion clause and the Freedom of Association clause, it contains the Establishment clause. The government can't make normative laws in this area of religious thought, period.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to arttorney For This Useful Post:


  3. #62
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Abyss, Manchester UK
    Posts
    2,921
    Thanks
    1,202
    Thanked 2,265 Times in 736 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    You can argue the semantic definition of marriage till the cows come home; it doesn't really matter. What this amounts to, and should, is that gay couples can have a 'marriage', 'civil union' whatever you wish to call it, and be treated equally under the law. And why not? Be happy and proud that the American democracy in California has recognised another minority’s rights not based on prejudice or pre-conceived and received opinion. Brilliant! If you really object to it, look at your motives and ask yourself are they based purely on the legal definition of marriage?

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  4. #63
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Midwest. USA
    Posts
    414
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 19 Times in 13 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JessiBean View Post
    Just one more thing...



    Marriage is MUCH MUCH MUCH older than the bible and, in fact, pre-dates reliable recorded history.
    in my view it began with the story of Adam and Eve.

    but again, just because my religious beliefs compel me to disagree with same sex marriage doesn't change the fact that the people of california already had their say on this. the unconstitutional argument is weak at best imo.
    they're just forcing this to go a constitutional amendment battle which does not bode well for those in favor of same sex marriage.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to mwillustration For This Useful Post:


  6. #64
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    1,153
    Thanks
    53
    Thanked 25 Times in 13 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by mwillustration View Post
    in my view it began with the story of Adam and Eve.

    HAHA, your avatar truly fits that statement.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  7. #65
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Raleigh
    Posts
    1,215
    Thanks
    49
    Thanked 165 Times in 66 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Kev, I'm not offended, but I do think you are wrong in the second part of your post.

    I see two major things wrong with it:

    1. You are picking out of all the valid arguments in this thread for gay marriage, one that was less an argument and more a joke on marriage as a whole (Steph's comment).

    2. You say that nobody is bringing up 'the argument that dare not be discussed', yet its been mentioned several times in this thread. In fact, it was mentioned not a couple posts before you and even links to the wiki page that discusses in great length why this is a logical fallacy and has been recognized as one for a rather long time.

    I think the two great arguments FOR the legalization of gay marriage is the one that you tendered at the beginning of your post. The second is that it is actually under our established constitution completely illegal to disallow it in the first place.

    Anyhoo.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  8. #66
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Midwest. USA
    Posts
    414
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 19 Times in 13 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    kev and posh, i appreciate your measured tone and willingness to discuss this issue without trying to paint those that disagree as means of being banned or full of hateful intent.

    i can disagree with fervor, but i'm not attacking anyone personally.
    i'd appreciate the same in return.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  9. #67
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Raleigh
    Posts
    1,215
    Thanks
    49
    Thanked 165 Times in 66 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by mwillustration View Post
    they're just forcing this to go a constitutional amendment battle which does not bode well for those in favor of same sex marriage.
    I'm curious, how so?

    --
    Also, I hope you don't think I'm attacking you. I'm trying to assault your position, certainly, but I have no problem with you. In fact, I have no real problem with people not liking gay marriage if they realize that they shouldn't blanket apply their religious views to everyone.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  10. #68
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,010
    Thanks
    193
    Thanked 324 Times in 155 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    There was a time when a marriage between protestants and catholics was considered illegal and impossible. Yet we generally dont care anymore.

    There was a time when a marriage between two different races was considered illegal and impossible. Yet we generally dont care anymore.

    I hope to say this about the gay marriage one day.

    "Master storytellers never explain. They do the hard, painfully creative thing-- they dramatize"

    Sketchbook
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  11. #69
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,907
    Thanks
    816
    Thanked 2,275 Times in 625 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Grief For This Useful Post:


  13. #70
    Vhan Juju's Avatar
    Vhan Juju is offline Just another developing teenage artist. Level 6 Gladiator: Provocator
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    588
    Thanks
    25
    Thanked 18 Times in 14 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Man, this is exactly why I hate religion in general. It makes people so closed minded in a "just because" kind of way.
    Yea, there is a bandwagon element in most anything mainstream. But people should note that "just because" is never a good enough answer, you have to be willing to back that up with claims. To many religions attemt to argue on this isshue without offering an adiquite defence, but please don't think that we are all that closed minded and willing to accept that its wrong just because someone told us so.

    Kudos to Kev Ferra for encourage me to explore my own opinions.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  14. #71
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Midwest. USA
    Posts
    414
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 19 Times in 13 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by J Wilson View Post
    Man, this is exactly why I hate religion in general. It makes people so closed minded in a "just because" kind of way. Over the course of history has there been any other book to have indirectly caused as much misery as the Bible? Don't get me wrong, religion has been used to do some great wonderful things, mainly from people who take the general meaning of "treat other people well and love them." Then there are the idiots and assholes who take the book and use a phrase here and there to back up whatever fucked up position they happen to have, and use it tell others that the life they are living is wrong and evil, or at the least they are not entitled to equality.

    Answer this question: WHY isn't it a marriage between people of the same sex? Is it because there can be no children, and thus no "family" like I've heard others say? How do you feel about straight married couples that either can't or chose not to have children? What real difference is there?


    You didn't say it, but you did put it on equal terms as beastiality, NAMBLA, and marriage without consent, which is so highly offensive if I had to power I'd ban you for suggesting it. Where do we draw the line? How about two loving consenting adults?

    Maybe you need to get to know a few gay/lesbian people before you cast your judgement against them. Hell, you probably already do and don't know it, because they know how closed minded you are. I'll tell you, before a few years ago I didn't have especially strong feelings about the subject. I was for gay rights as a principle, but it wasn't anything that I got especially fired up over either. Then I met a great girl and we became really fantastic friends. After knowing her for a few months we got closer and she started to reveal/realize that she was a lesbian. It was a whole different experience knowing someone who had to go through what she did as she slowly came out-to everyone but her family- her mom is a minister. It's tough for her, and lonely, and I'd like to know that one day when she meets the right girl she'll be able to get married and walk with her love out in the open. Luckily we're in a very progressive area, but it's still tough. She is truely one of the best friends I've ever had, and it saddens me to no end that there are people who are so closed minded they judge her as less than everyone else just based on who she loves and is attracted to. And for what? Semantics on what you think a word means?
    i have a close friend who is gay, so please, don't just assume.
    i'm not attacking you, i just disagree.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  15. #72
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Berkeley
    Posts
    2,695
    Thanks
    296
    Thanked 639 Times in 171 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kev ferrara View Post

    Sorry Steph, but "My parents marriage sucked, so marriage ain't no big deal to me, so why not let gays get married" really bothers me as an argument. (please let me know if I am misinterpreting you here)
    Oh no no no, that's not what I meant at all! I was trying to say that I was disagreeing with Vhan Juju's statement of "Marrige is for a man and a woman, I really can't believe that what they have is really "a marrige"...". I meant to show that a man and a woman tied by marriage are not an automatic recipe for success - indeed I know of several married gay couples who function far better than some straight married couples I know, including the situation with my parents. Just trying to wipe gender out of the happy couple equation

    Does that make sense? While it's obvious that my personal feelings about marriage are at times cynical, I wasn't trying to say "Hey, it's shitty for hets, gays can have it too! Haw!" If you're with the person that compliments you and you work hard at it, it doesn't matter what does or doesn't dangle between their thighs. I've seen enough people live half-lives of lies to think otherwise.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  16. #73
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Haven, CT
    Posts
    2,081
    Thanks
    323
    Thanked 968 Times in 519 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I'm not attacking you personally. I don't know you. But your suggestion that gay marriage in any way is similar to beastiality, NAMBLA, or a marriage against someone's will is so distasteful it IS hateful. To suggest gay marriage opens to the door to any of those is disgusting, and of course wrong. I'm sorry (for you) if you don't see that.

    i have a close friend who is gay, so please, don't just assume.
    i'm not attacking you, i just disagree.
    I find it impossible to fathom having a close friend and still believing they don't deserve the same equality you have, including the simple right of acceptance. For what you have and take for granted, others struggle and it causes them such emotional pain to be denied that you may not be able to understand. Why anyone would wish that on a close friend I can't understand.

    I don't for a second think you are attacking me. Despite my heated position (which I get about things I feel strongly about) I understand a difference of opinion. My main opposition to your statements was the only slightly veiled suggestion that homosexuality is a perversion ranking up there with child abuse, rape, and beastiality. All of those are torturous things done to others against their will or full understanding. A gay or lesibian couple love each other as fully as you or I ever have, and they harm no one.

    Last edited by J Wilson; June 18th, 2008 at 05:27 PM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  17. #74
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Midwest. USA
    Posts
    414
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 19 Times in 13 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by wassermelone View Post
    I'm curious, how so?
    just because it's already been voted down in the proposal that it's likely to go similarly especially if it's brought up again at the next election.

    i don't think you're attacking me, but some really enjoy the pile on when they smell the lone Christian in the thread.
    talk about minority.


    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to mwillustration For This Useful Post:


  19. #75
    Elwell's Avatar
    Elwell is offline Sticks Like Grim Death Level 17 Gladiator: Spartacus' Dimachaeri
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Hudson River valley, NY
    Posts
    16,212
    Thanks
    4,879
    Thanked 16,666 Times in 5,020 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by mwillustration View Post
    they're just forcing this to go a constitutional amendment battle which does not bode well for those in favor of same sex marriage.
    I think you're wrong on this, as I've said earlier in the thread. For a "people" whose "will" has been "thwarted," the citizenry of California hardly seems to be rising up in mass protest. Instead, the pictures we are seeing are of happy families celebrating a profound and joyous event. And the very normalcy is what is already turning this into a non-issue, even among many young evangelical Christians. The same people who are willing to say homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry in the abstract are far less likely to say to an already married couple, "I'm sorry, you can't be married anymore." Possession is nine tenths of the law, and it is far more difficult to take something away from somebody than to tell them they can't have it in the first place.


    Tristan Elwell
    **Finished Work Thread **Process Thread **Edges Tutorial

    Crash Course for Artists, Illustrators, and Cartoonists, NYC, the 2013 Edition!

    "Work is more fun than fun."
    -John Cale

    "Art is supposed to punch you in the brain, and it's supposed to stay punched."
    -Marc Maron
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  20. #76
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Midwest. USA
    Posts
    414
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 19 Times in 13 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by J Wilson View Post
    I'm not attacking you personally. I don't know you. But your suggestion that gay marriage in any way is similar to beastiality, NAMBLA, or a marriage against someone's will is so distasteful it IS hateful. To suggest gay marriage opens to the door to any of those is disgusting, and of course wrong. I'm sorry (for you) if you don't see that.
    i'm not saying it's similar, i'm saying that if the definition is so moldable, then those are possibilities for some that want marriage to change as well.

    but if you think those things are so wrong, aren't you close minded too?
    i mean why are they wrong? because they're not culturally normal?

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  21. #77
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    1,153
    Thanks
    53
    Thanked 25 Times in 13 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by mwillustration View Post
    i don't think you're attacking me, but some really enjoy the pile on when they smell the lone Christian in the thread.
    talk about minority.

    I love how xtians always manage to find a way to claim oppression, even as they oppress all others.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  22. #78
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Raleigh
    Posts
    1,215
    Thanks
    49
    Thanked 165 Times in 66 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by mwillustration View Post
    just because it's already been voted down in the proposal that it's likely to go similarly especially if it's brought up again at the next election.

    i don't think you're attacking me, but some really enjoy the pile on when they smell the lone Christian in the thread.
    talk about minority.
    Well, a constitutional amendment would be a lot harder than any law.

    Read here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article...s_Constitution

    Not only would 2/3s of the states have to propose a convention, at that convention 3/4s of the states would have to ratify it. So 38 of the 50 states would have to ratify the change in the constitution. So, to say it would go similarly is a little off.

    And, heh, I do find it kind of humorous to be part of a secular majority on websites at times. Its certainly a turn about from where I live.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  23. #79
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Southeast coast, USA
    Posts
    2,794
    Thanks
    511
    Thanked 505 Times in 341 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by mwillustration View Post
    i don't think you're attacking me, but some really enjoy the pile on when they smell the lone Christian in the thread.
    talk about minority.
    Pretty sure you can't claim "only Christian" or "that's why you guys don't agree." Many gays are Christian. My family is Baptist and my father is very much conservative Republican. Neither of my parents and none of my siblings are anti-gay-marriage. My parents have more gay friends than I do. The Southern Baptist(!!) side of my family just had a reunion at the house of my cousin and her "wife"...and their dad(/"in-law") is a preacher! This wasn't really a discussion on religion until YOU made your view of your religion the hinge point. Not all Christians or Christianity is the same (Disagree? Just start your own church! ).


    Quote Originally Posted by bluefooted View Post
    his argument was that gays already have the right to marry: a gay man can marry a woman anytime he wants, or a gay woman can marry a man. Seriously.
    Haha! Y'know, I was going to ask if anyone had some "good" (as in "funny as hell") anti-gay-marriage stand points because the only one I've heard repeatedly was the: "What am I going to say to my CHILDREN when they see some gays MAKING OUT?!?!" Yes. Because you having a short discussion with the kiddos about "Because they love each other! " is on the scale of keeping a couple from marriage. Right. Hell, the kiddos wouldn't even care so long as they saw YOU didn't.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  24. #80
    kev ferrara is offline Registered User Level 17 Gladiator: Spartacus' Dimachaeri
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Fallingwater
    Posts
    5,059
    Thanks
    1,516
    Thanked 5,150 Times in 1,700 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Poshspice View Post
    You can argue the semantic definition of marriage till the cows come home; it doesn't really matter. What this amounts to, and should, is that gay couples can have a 'marriage', 'civil union' whatever you wish to call it, and be treated equally under the law. And why not?
    The words do matter. Marriage is a different word than civil union. I'm 100 percent for civil union. That's not really the question. The question is whether the word "marriage" is the term for a same sex union. And that is a complicated question. I'm probably for gay marriage, I just want to hear the best arguments on both sides.

    On the slippery slope argument... I've read those logical fallacies a thousand times and they're great and helpful. But there is such a thing as precedent in law. A new precedent leads to any number of new questions. You can think of this as a slippery slope or not. But precedent does lead to new avenues of legality and we have to be prepared for them.

    So who is willing to say consensual polygamy is not allowed? Who wants to be that particular bigot?

    At least Icarus tried!


    My Process: Dead Rider Graphic Novel (Dark Horse Comics) plus oil paintings, pencils and other goodies:
    http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...d.php?t=101106

    My "Smilechild" Music. Plus a medley of Commercial Music Cues and a Folksy Jingle!:
    http://www.myspace.com/kevferrara
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  25. #81
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Gainesville
    Posts
    1,150
    Thanks
    77
    Thanked 941 Times in 222 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by mwillustration View Post
    i'm not saying it's similar, i'm saying that if the definition is so moldable, then those are possibilities for some that want marriage to change as well.

    but if you think those things are so wrong, aren't you close minded too?
    i mean why are they wrong? because they're not culturally normal?
    Sorry, but those things are not comparable to a marriage between two consenting adults of the same sex. The very fact that you bring them up in this thread is what is ticking people off. There is no slippery slope here because there are already laws that protect both children and animals from abuse and injury, and from entering into legally binding contracts like marriage.

    There are no good legal arguments for denying marriage to same-sex couples. The argument from tradition ("marriage has always been between a man and a woman") is also not valid because that obviously isn't true. Even from a Christian fundamentalist perspective, that isn't true.

    Honestly, it just makes me sad that people still do not support equal rights for gays and lesbians. It seems like we should be able to get past this as a society.

    blue's sketchbook
    Someone gave me this custom title and I will never, ever change it!
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  26. #82
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    YUL = MONTREAL !
    Posts
    3,534
    Thanks
    276
    Thanked 129 Times in 88 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Otsredir View Post
    and in most religions, homosexuality is considered wrong. when looking at it that why, gay and lesbian marriage shouldnt be allowed.
    Um, I don’t know the extent of your research on that statement but “most religions” = Catholics + Islam? Hot dang, if everyone things that’s bad, than it HAS to be wrong, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by mwillustration
    like without both consenting, or with multiple wives or husbands or with children and adults or (…)
    If you look beyond your borders (heck, unconsenting weddings still happen in the US), you’ll notice that this happens quite frequently and still called a marriage. Not a Christian one, but still.

    Thanks bluefooted for clarifying some things I was about to comment on (i.e. why marriage and not civil union or PaCS, etc.)

    J Wilson: Religion isn’t so bad… It’s been serving as a guideline to life and values for thousands of years and billions of people. Of course, what you do with it is your own prerogative and how open minded to other ideas changes from one person to another.


    What bugs me the most is the interpretation people have made of the bible and all the “revisions” out there. I wonder, though, if Christianity is the main religion in the states, compared to atheists or agnostics, etc.

    EDIT:
    But if you marry in California and then move to a non supporting state, your marriage is NOT recognised. Are you subject to sanctions?

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  27. #83
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Abyss, Manchester UK
    Posts
    2,921
    Thanks
    1,202
    Thanked 2,265 Times in 736 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kev ferrara View Post
    The words do matter. Marriage is a different word than civil union. I'm 100 percent for civil union. That's not really the question. The question is whether the word "marriage" is the term for a same sex union. And that is a complicated question. I'm probably for gay marriage, I just want to hear the best arguments on both sides.
    That comment wasn't aimed specifically at you Kev; maybe I should have said 'one' rather than 'you'. However, this is where the argument does become semantic. Should the word 'marriage' be solely a prerogative of heterosexual couples. If so then it ultimately comes down to a perpetuation of inequality at a semantic level, and I don't buy that. If a gay couple, joined in a civil union wish to have their 'marriage' identified as such and accorded all the rights and responsibilities that go with it, then why is that even debatable?

    I don't know why, but I keep thinking of Tom Lehrer here: "I'm sure we all agree that we ought to love one another and I know there are people in the world that do not love their fellow human beings and I hate people like that."

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  28. #84
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Vancouver.WA.USA
    Posts
    2,515
    Thanks
    42
    Thanked 96 Times in 36 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by egerie View Post
    EDIT:
    But if you marry in California and then move to a non supporting state, your marriage is NOT recognised. Are you subject to sanctions?

    Actually there is some precedent for deciding this. Originally, divorce wasn't a federally mandated right and each state made separate laws regarding divorce. So it could have been true that you could get legally divorced and remarried in one state, yet according to another state you were an illegal bigamist.

    I imagine that eventually there will be a federal law similar to the one that currently allows your legal divorce in one state to be legal in another, only for gay marriages (assuming this whole thing continues down this path).

    "Every generation sees the past though the lens of its own time." - Thom Hartmann
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  29. #85
    kev ferrara is offline Registered User Level 17 Gladiator: Spartacus' Dimachaeri
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Fallingwater
    Posts
    5,059
    Thanks
    1,516
    Thanked 5,150 Times in 1,700 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I hate to disagree with you Bluefooted, but a few scattered exceptions to Hetero marriage in thousands of years of publicly sanctioned unions does not destroy the tradition argument, nor the semantic/law argument which arises from it (i.e. the use/meaning of the word "marriage" in the context of state law.)

    Posh: The argument "stop being mean and let them be married" is a good one, and one that I often think is the right one.

    Last edited by kev ferrara; June 18th, 2008 at 06:47 PM.
    At least Icarus tried!


    My Process: Dead Rider Graphic Novel (Dark Horse Comics) plus oil paintings, pencils and other goodies:
    http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...d.php?t=101106

    My "Smilechild" Music. Plus a medley of Commercial Music Cues and a Folksy Jingle!:
    http://www.myspace.com/kevferrara
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  30. #86
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Pasadena, CA
    Posts
    3,330
    Thanks
    173
    Thanked 874 Times in 529 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kev ferrara View Post
    The words do matter. Marriage is a different word than civil union. I'm 100 percent for civil union. That's not really the question. The question is whether the word "marriage" is the term for a same sex union. And that is a complicated question. I'm probably for gay marriage, I just want to hear the best arguments on both sides.

    On the slippery slope argument... I've read those logical fallacies a thousand times and they're great and helpful. But there is such a thing as precedent in law. A new precedent leads to any number of new questions. You can think of this as a slippery slope or not. But precedent does lead to new avenues of legality and we have to be prepared for them.

    So who is willing to say consensual polygamy is not allowed? Who wants to be that particular bigot?
    One argument in favor of using the word marriage is that the California Code is riddled with the word "marriage" in hundreds of instances where it hands out rights and obligations. (well I just did a quick search and it is mainly confined within about twenty blocks of code sections with each block being about 3-10 statutes. These are mostly in the Family Code, of course, but some are in the Evidence Code, Business and Professions Code, and the Health and Safety Code)

    If we want clearly to give civil unions all those same rights, it would be necessary for the California legislature to go through the California Code section by section and vote to amend it "and civil unions" in all those places.

    In a way that would be cool, because they wouldn't have enough time to enact as many lame tax and spend provisions as they currently do, but it's so easy to solve the problem by using the word "marriage."

    Last edited by arttorney; June 18th, 2008 at 07:08 PM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  31. The Following User Says Thank You to arttorney For This Useful Post:


  32. #87
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Gainesville
    Posts
    1,150
    Thanks
    77
    Thanked 941 Times in 222 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kev ferrara View Post
    I hate to disagree with you Bluefooted, but a few scattered exceptions to Hetero marriage in thousands of years of publicly sanctioned unions does not destroy the tradition argument, nor the semantic/law argument which arises from it (i.e. the use/meaning of the word "marriage" in the context of state law.)
    I'm willing to bet that it was probably not 'a few scattered exceptions to hetero marriage' as we know it today. Polygamy was probably very common for a very long time. But either way, there are many traditions that we now find unacceptable, and we change the law to reflect that. Slavery, for example. Maintaining a tradition is not a very good argument.

    Kev, you're a reasonable guy. I know we are probably at opposite ends of the spectrum, politically, but I know you value logic and reason.

    So, can you give me a reasonable and logical argument for why two consenting adults of the same gender should not be allowed to get married. And I mean the whole deal 'marriage', just like a heterosexual couple. I am honestly curious.

    Posh: The argument "stop being mean and let them be married" is a good one, and one that I often think is the right one.
    This is a good one, maybe the most important one. But I can think of a few others:

    1. Establishment of standard regulations and procedures regarding the care and custody of children of gay couples.

    2. Establishment of rights of a partner to inherit in the event of the other partner's death and lack of will.

    3. Establishment of rights re care and decision making in the case of one partner becoming incapacitated.

    I think society benefits when these issues are settled. Right now (and under 'domestic partnership' laws) there is a lot of gray area on these issues.

    blue's sketchbook
    Someone gave me this custom title and I will never, ever change it!
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  33. #88
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Uk
    Posts
    1,765
    Thanks
    178
    Thanked 275 Times in 172 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I do not understand the OP's post, elaborate for those outside the US that do not inquire into some other countries sub-government.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  34. #89
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Pasadena, CA
    Posts
    3,330
    Thanks
    173
    Thanked 874 Times in 529 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    A ruling of the California Supreme Court has overturned a ban of same sex marriages within California. There was a short period following the ruling during which the status quo remained. Now, though, same sex couples can be married in California. As you can see, the debate goes on about whether it ought to be this way. Regrettably, Portia di Rossi has married, or will do so shortly. Oh well.

    This does not affect the other 49 states, although it is the sort of thing that may lead to U.S. Supreme Court activity or attempted legislative override in various ways.

    Last edited by arttorney; June 18th, 2008 at 07:53 PM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  35. #90
    Elwell's Avatar
    Elwell is offline Sticks Like Grim Death Level 17 Gladiator: Spartacus' Dimachaeri
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Hudson River valley, NY
    Posts
    16,212
    Thanks
    4,879
    Thanked 16,666 Times in 5,020 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Rist View Post
    I do not understand the OP's post, elaborate for those outside the US that do not inquire into some other countries sub-government.
    Here ya' go, Rist, I even made it a link to the Beeb:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7458304.stm


    Tristan Elwell
    **Finished Work Thread **Process Thread **Edges Tutorial

    Crash Course for Artists, Illustrators, and Cartoonists, NYC, the 2013 Edition!

    "Work is more fun than fun."
    -John Cale

    "Art is supposed to punch you in the brain, and it's supposed to stay punched."
    -Marc Maron
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast

Members who have read this thread: 0

There are no members to list at the moment.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •