So Gay Marriage Is Illegal In California Again

[Quintastic One]

I will say this. In addition to the things Enzo said, which I agree with, i've always found the "love is love" argument to be utterly ridiculous. In that case, we should consider beastiality, necrophilia, and incest okay as well. Just on the bottom line of it. Not to mention, this "equality" bill business seems to be a soulless money/benefits grab than anything. As well as to say someone is born gay, or bisexual, or anything as an excuse, is too laughable to even comment on. (Just in case that gets brought up.) But anyway, the legality, again, as Enzo said, is pretty much pointless in the gays pursuit of "equality", since it doesn't change much besides them wanting some extra benefits. And since they cannot hold a true family is extremely selfish on their end. And as Enzo said, just be happy their group is the apple of this media, and entire country's eye.

One thing I agree with KB on is on their part, I don't understand why the officials changed their mind. That's just stupid whether I agree with it or not.

The only difference with your argument is that Necrophelia, Beastiality, Pedophelia & the like actually do cause harm to others and/or are more about pure sexual ecstasy, rather than two people actually having consensual sexual relations and sharing in a relationship. If you honestly believe that by giving gays the right to marry that it's instantly going to open a gateway for the harmful practices above, you don't understand the real legal purpose of the situation.

 

[Hometown Kid]

The only difference with your argument is that Necrophelia, Beastiality, Pedophelia & the like actually do cause harm to others and/or are more about pure sexual ecstasy, rather than two people actually having consensual sexual relations and sharing in a relationship. If you honestly believe that by giving gays the right to marry that it's instantly going to open a gateway for the harmful practices above, you don't understand the real legal purpose of the situation.

Not really legality based, just a general thing that I hate hearing/seeing "love is love" argument to defend people. It's doubtful that any doors would be opened for the more extreme offenders, but I would say they really should be in that case, considering many of the things you said to support gay marriage can just as justifiably be used to defend them.

But mostly agreeing with Enzo while throwing in some points so to not feel totally useless.

 

[Axis]

But the thing is, if two people want to get married, who are we to say they're not allowed? If we still need to live in a theocratic based society with the church telling us everything, then something is wrong. Aren't we meant to be democratic countries?

We are, and democracy is rooted in the idea that the will of the people is carried out. In this particular instance, the will of the people is to prohibit gay marriage. So, true democracy would go through with that election's results. The question then I guess is whether it's a case of mob rule where the opinion of the majority is squashing a natural right guaranteed by the Constitution, at which point the courts would have no choice but to overturn the democratically-decided opinion. Sort of like slavery, segregation, abortion, etc. where the courts found that popular opinion went directly against the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. That said, even some of those decisions are disputed today, so some of these issues will never be solved.

 

[Wrestling Station]

Question: Would you accept gay nigerians?

 

[monkeystyle]

I will say this. In addition to the things Enzo said, which I agree with, i've always found the "love is love" argument to be utterly ridiculous. In that case, we should consider beastiality, necrophilia, and incest okay as well.

Come on now, really?

Bestiality and necrophilia aren't even comparable. Regardless of how you feel about it, animals and corpses can't give or deny consent. That alone is enough to keep those two things illegal.

In the cases of same sex couples wanting to get married they have both consented to the act and are hurting nobody.

 

[FabulousRougeauBrother]

If you don't want to let them "marry" because you think it's some sacred entity, I think that's fine and the voters have a right to vote for that. However, I think there should be some other designation allowed (civil commitment, official partnership, whatever you want to call it) to allow same-sex couples to have all the legal benefits of marriage, just without the name to appease the majority of voters.

Tax breaks, benefit sharing, hospital visitation rights - just a few of the things that should be offered to same-sex couples in my opinion.