Polygamy is already allowed heh. Pets/Computers are not people nor do they have the same rights as people. Anything else?
Polygamy is already allowed heh. Pets/Computers are not people nor do they have the same rights as people. Anything else?
Atomic Playboy
Lifer
- Feb 6, 2007
- 16,432
- 1
- 81
Ah, so you admit that there is a benefit to filing jointly as a couple. This benefit may only apply to lower income earners, but it is only available to straight married couples currently. Straight couples have the right to not marry should they choose to avoid the tax penalty of higher income earnings. Gay couples do not have the right to marry to take advantage of the tax advantages of lower earnings. It's a completely pointless argument that same-sex couples tend to be more affluent; if the incentive would affect even one gay couple who are currently not eligible because of homophobic marriage laws, then it is an unequal system, and it needs to be rectified.
Asked and answered.
Polygamy is not allowed, that I know of.
But dont the people wanting to marry the pets/computers have the same rights as everyone else?
Pets and computers cannot consent.
Polygamy is allowed in certain states (as gay marriage is)
So again, anything else?
You're right. We'd better not let inter-racial couples or blacks marry, or those things will happen.
I think the only thing I've gotten out of this argument is that you're a bigot. But I already knew that.
Well, more precisely, it's the same slippery slope fallacy.
Instead of the debating the actual issue, the arguer comes up with some result that's more widely opposed, and claims that doing whatever the thing is leads to that.
The thing is, what makes it a fallacy is that the claim that it will lead to those other things is specious, ill-founded. If it weren't, it'd be a valid argument.
In fact, it doesn't even matter if the other things do happen, the question is whether the first thing caused the second - and whether, if it did, it's worth doing neither.
For example, let's say that someone in the 60's argued that inter-racial marriage would lead to gay marriage by the early 21st century. First, there's a question whether he was right; it's possible it wouldn't. Even if gay marriage does happen, it isn't proved it was caused by ending discrimination against inter-racial couples. Second, even if it were proven, you have to ask, is the supposed harm of gay marriage such that it's be worth the injustice to inter-racial couples, by banning both?
But I'm giving that trashy slippery slope more response than it deserves.
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24969197/
Calif. court won't delay gay weddings until vote
Justices deny appeal for stay until voters decide on ban initiative
So weddings will likely commence when the ruling goes into effect on June 16. The article says that if the november ballot initiative goes against gay marriage, it is currently unknown what will happen to those couples married between now and then. The Cali SC may have to hear another case to determine such an outcome, but it's unlikely they will do so unless the initiative passes as the issue wouldn't be ripe until then.
Troubling though is that recent polls have found California voters are about evenly split on whether gay couples should be allowed to marry. As far as presidential ramifications go, someone could still easily vote for Obama and also against gay marriage on the ballot.
Calif. court won't delay gay weddings until vote
Justices deny appeal for stay until voters decide on ban initiative
So weddings will likely commence when the ruling goes into effect on June 16. The article says that if the november ballot initiative goes against gay marriage, it is currently unknown what will happen to those couples married between now and then. The Cali SC may have to hear another case to determine such an outcome, but it's unlikely they will do so unless the initiative passes as the issue wouldn't be ripe until then.
Troubling though is that recent polls have found California voters are about evenly split on whether gay couples should be allowed to marry. As far as presidential ramifications go, someone could still easily vote for Obama and also against gay marriage on the ballot.
It all depends whether the amendment is written to ban the marriages that have already happened, if it passes. Luckily, it needs a super-majority to pass.
The political issue for Obama is that Republicans who might have not voted are motivated to vote against gay marriage, and vote for McCain.
I doubt many people who are wanting to vote against the amendment would not be voting otherwise.
Actually it just needs a majority unfortunately. The good news is that opinion polling is pretty close on the issue. I think the odds of this changing the Presidential situation in California are pretty insanely small.
As a constitutional amendment, my understanding is that it requires a super-majority. I can't immediately find evidence to confirm my understanding.
Edit: the office of CA Assemblywoman Mary Hayashi just confirmed the 2/3 requirement, quoting from the constitution.
shira
Diamond Member
- Jan 12, 2005
- 9,500
- 6
- 81
No, you were justifying why O'Reilly's guest wasn't required to provide a non-religious justification for opposing same-sex marriage. But in doing so, you're stating a premise. And if that premise leads, by rational extrapolation, to a conclusion that's contradicts the premise, then one can reject the premise as invalid.
Besides, O'Reilly's guest never tried to make the claim that the basis of his opposition was religious. He claimed that the compelling reason for opposing same-sex marriage was that changing the definition of marriage is a bad thing. When O'Reilly then asked him why changing the definition was bad, the guest gave a circular reply: Because people don't like definitions to change. It's clear that even hard-right O'Reilly knows the arguments against same-sex marriage are nonsense.
The rhetoric against same-sex marriage is so transparently empty, it's not surprising that there's a sea change in attitudes happening right now. In ten years, the remaining opponents will be viewed as wackos. And they should be.
With respect to the law and Constitutional equality, marriage is a creature of the civil state. The same laws authorize religious officials to perform legal marriages, along with judges and other specified secular officials.
Religions can impose their own restrictions on marriages they are willing to perform, but they are not empowered to bar anyone from entering into an otherwise legal civil marriage.
The question is only whether gays should be afforded equal rights and protections under civil law. The answer is YES.
Argh, the staff of the same office just confirmed now that it's 50% after all.
So, the question is, has public opinion shifted enough since 2000, when discrimination passed with 61%, to prevent 50% voting for it now as an amendment. Polls say yes, barely.
Does it really matter? We've already learned that no matter what the people vote, the courts in California are going to overrule it and do what they want anyways.
I believe in God but I don't care if gays marry. It is not hurting me in ny shape. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought all sins were looked up the same by God. So how can someone single out being gay above other things, like being judgmental like a majority of self-proclaimed Chistians are.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter