LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Proposition 8 ruled unconstitutional..

It's about time.

I don't care what your religious beleifs are, if one person in the pairing was of the opposite gender, no other differences, then it isen't a problem. Therefore, banning gay marrage is gender discrimination.
 
I am so happy for you all :D :)

So I can only say this with a big congratulations too.

This was about motherfucking time !!! :) that it finally happened.
Now I just hope , the Danish political arseholes will make an "okay to REAL gay marriage" here too. And "not just registered partnership". Congratulation guys and gals :)
 
swordandsandle said:
It's about time.

I don't care what your religious beleifs are, if one person in the pairing was of the opposite gender, no other differences, then it isen't a problem. Therefore, banning gay marrage is gender discrimination.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's sexuality discrimination. It would be gender discrimination if lesbians were allowed to marry each other, but gay men weren't or vice versa.
 
John Doe said:
Actually, it's sexuality discrimination. It would be gender discrimination if lesbians were allowed to marry each other, but gay men weren't or vice versa.
Click to expand...

No, it is discrimination based on gender.

Theoretical situation. I am a man, and want to marry a woman. Legal? Yes. If you are a woman, and want to marry a woman, you can not legally do so. It is becuse of your gender that you are being discriminated agenst.
 
Let's see what happens. The Federal Supreme Court will have to hear the case. We have laws. And some laws actually prohibit some people from marring others.

Examples:
1. Cousins are forbidden to be married in more than half of the 50 States.

2. Michigan (and many other states have similar laws)
"No man shall marry his mother, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, stepmother, grandfather's wife, son's wife, grandson's wife, wife's mother, wife's grandmother, wife's daughter, wife's grand-daughter, nor his sister, brother's daughter, sister's daughter, father's sister, or mother's sister, or cousin of the first degree. " MCL 551.3; MSA 25.3.

"No woman shall marry her father, grandfather, son, grandson, stepfather, grandmother's husband, daughter's husband, granddaughter's husband, husband 's father, husband 's grandfather, husband's son, husband's grandson, nor her brother, brother's son, sister's son, father's brother, mother's brother, or cousin of the first degree. " MCL 551.4; MSA 25.4.

"No marriage shall be contracted whilst either of the parties has a former wife or husband living, unless the marriage with such former wife or husband, shall have been dissolved." MCL 551.5; MSA 25.5.

I could go on. But it's important to realize that we are not free to marry whomever we choose. And it is not enough to say "Whom I marry is no one's business." It's the governments business, whether we like it or not. It is just that simple.
 
Vail_Indigo said:
yes, but there's good reason to prevent that. First, there's the whole issue of daddy molesting little suzy all her life and forcing her to marry him. Second, you have a tendency to get children with three heads.
BTW, EXACTLY the same argument was used to keep blacks and whites from marrying.
Click to expand...

So, you agree that the government has a right to limit marriage to individuals they deem worthy of the act. BTW, there are states that still prevent relatives from marrying, even of one or both parties are sterile.

But you pick out an example of Daddy forcing his molested daughter to marry him. What about all the others cases where no molestation exists? Do you still agree that relatives can marry? If not, then are you any more qualified that the government to determine who can marry, and who cannot?

EDIT: Recall States prohibit marriage between non-blood related relatives too.
 
Floridacouple, what is your point? Can you make a plain and simple statement? because I can make five different guesses here, and I don't know which one in in your mind.
 
Link to an Article.

Today the California supreme court ruled that they wouldn't see the bid to force the California government to defend the overturning of Prop 8, which pretty much means this is going to the supreme court. They found that the Governor is legally forced to defend all laws but since the law was found unconstitutional then legally they don't have to put up a defense to uphold it. Which is kind of neat... and complicated.

But Yay!
 
swordandsandle said:
No, it is discrimination based on gender.

Theoretical situation. I am a man, and want to marry a woman. Legal? Yes. If you are a woman, and want to marry a woman, you can not legally do so. It is becuse of your gender that you are being discriminated agenst.
Click to expand...

It's not really about gender except in a very roundabout way.
 
Stella_Omega said:
Floridacouple, what is your point? Can you make a plain and simple statement? because I can make five different guesses here, and I don't know which one in in your mind.
Click to expand...

I am not an eloquent writer :)

I offered no opinion of my own other than to say the Federal Supreme Court will have to decide. I merely attempted to point out that, as of today, the government (i.e. state/federal) can outlaw marriage between certain individuals.

And if the government can outlaw marriages between certain individuals, then it seems reasonable that they can outlaw gay marriage. Just like they outlaw bigamy. Just like that outlaw cousin-cousin marriage. Just like they outlaw... etc, etc.
 
Well it looks like a judge has looked upon, don't ask don't tell part of the American military, and he deemed it unconstitutional too.
 
FloridaCouple said:
I am not an eloquent writer :)

I offered no opinion of my own other than to say the Federal Supreme Court will have to decide. I merely attempted to point out that, as of today, the government (i.e. state/federal) can outlaw marriage between certain individuals.

And if the government can outlaw marriages between certain individuals, then it seems reasonable that they can outlaw gay marriage. Just like they outlaw bigamy. Just like that outlaw cousin-cousin marriage. Just like they outlaw... etc, etc.
Click to expand...
They outlaw marriages between individuals who already have certain relationships, in those cases. And they outlaw them because of what's called "received wisdom" the"everybody knows" kind of thing, in much the same way that "everybody knows" that gay marriage is evil.

Personally, I think we'll see an easing up on that restriction as well-- eventually. Give it a couple more centuries.

The thing is, there are hundreds of thousands of gay couples that want to be married, and vocal and agitating about it, and not so many incestuous couples-- and certainly not many willing to open their mouths.

Yet.

ETA:

So, I'm getting PM's from someone who is afraid that some folk will think I am admitting that gay marriage and incest are the same thing.

No, that is in no way any part or parcel of my argument. The reasons that gay marriage should be legal are similar to the reasons that incestuous marriage may-- some day in the far far future-- become legal-- but I refuse to be suckered into any 'slippery slope' arguments.
 
Last edited:
Stella_Omega: in Denmark being married to your cousin (I am of course talking about male and female cousin stuff right now) and also have consensual bedfun with your cousin, whether it is female or male bed hanky panky. But if we are talking brother sister shit, then I fucking hope not that will ever happen, since that would be eeky . Since we are not ancient Egyptians , are we ?

My point of view with marriage between cousin and cousin, is that in the long run you are going to get "funny" children genetically speaking.
 
Wolfman1982 said:
But if we are talking brother sister shit, then I fucking hope not that will ever happen, since that would be eeky . Since we are not ancient Egyptians , are we ?

My point of view with marriage between cousin and cousin, is that in the long run you are going to get "funny" children genetically speaking.
Click to expand...

This comment reinforces my point. Many people do not want to the government to decide who can marry whom (e.g. gay marriage). But these same people are okay with government putting restrictions on marriage for marriages that are "eeky" or something the masses do not agree with.

Most are opposed to sibling marriage, as am I. Cousin-cousin not really popular, but it is allowed in 1/2 the states. Bigamy, also outlawed in all states, is another example of a "harmless" marriage that is prohibited.

The challenge I have for gay marriage proponents is if you want gay marriage legalized, then you must accept all marriages involving consenting adults, be it 2-party marriages, or multi-party marriages. And this includes the "eeky" ones we all think are sick.
 
Last edited:
My point of view with marriage between cousin and cousin, is that in the long run you are going to get "funny" children genetically speaking.
Click to expand...
Marriages rights has been pretty well proven to be a seperate issue from procreation. Samesex marriage is not about having children -- with your partner, at least. Many hetero marriages are not for the purposes of having children.
The challenge I have for gay marriage proponents is if you want gay marriage legalized, then you must accept all marriages involving consenting adults, be it 2-party marriages, or multi-party marriages. And this includes the "eeky" ones we all think are sick.
Click to expand...
Nope, floridacouples, Although I, personally, would like to have a poly marriage, gay marriage proponents do not have to accept that, or incest or any other variant as an adjunct to our cause.

Justice, in this US Of A is a bit of a do-it-yourself business, as I'm sure you've noticed. Racial equality wasn't important until the people affected by it started making their position public. The gay rights fight began when a group of drag queens fought back against police brutality in the Stonewall Riots Gay marriage rights have been fought for by gay people who want to get married. We are not going to allow you to link incest to gay marriage because you happen to think the bandwagon is handy. We've been fighting towards this for sixty years-- long before Stonewall made the fight public. Hundreds of couples have died of old age without the protection of marriage during the course of this fight.

My challenge to the people who want incestuous marriage is that they begin the fight to have their cause recognised. It takes decades. In the case of incest it's going to take tens of decades. better start thinking out your strategy. If you make a good case, you can convince other activists to support your cause.
 
Stella_Omega said:
Nope, floridacouples, Although I, personally, would like to have a poly marriage, gay marriage proponents do not have to accept that, or incest or any other variant as an adjunct to our cause.
Click to expand...

Of course they have to recognize your poly marriage (if you had one). What we have today
a. Heteros saying only hetero marriages (1 man and 1 woman) are "real" marriages.
b. Gays saying "Hold on a minute. Marriage can include partners of the same gender. You Heteros have to recognize that these are 'real' marriages too."
c. All courts (state and Federal) are not on the same page about Gay marriage, i.e. is it legal or not. Some state allow incestuous marriage. And all courts find Poly marriage to be illegal.

If Gays want to force Heteros into recognizing Gay marriage, and then Gays decide not to recognize other types of marriage (e.g. poly, or male cousin married to male cousin), doesn't that make the Gays just like the Heteros of today? Basically, deciding what is, and is not, a "real" marriage?
 
FloridaCouple said:
Of course they have to recognize your poly marriage (if you had one). What we have today
a. Heteros saying only hetero marriages (1 man and 1 woman) are "real" marriages.
b. Gays saying "Hold on a minute. Marriage can include partners of the same gender. You Heteros have to recognize that these are 'real' marriages too."
c. All courts (state and Federal) are not on the same page about Gay marriage, i.e. is it legal or not. Some state allow incestuous marriage. And all courts find Poly marriage to be illegal.

If Gays want to force Heteros into recognizing Gay marriage, and then Gays decide not to recognize other types of marriage (e.g. poly, or male cousin married to male cousin), doesn't that make the Gays just like the Heteros of today? Basically, deciding what is, and is not, a "real" marriage?
Click to expand...
Ah, I see, you are talking about actual marriages? That has nothing to do with what "Gays decide to recognize."

That's a constitutional matter. No one's personal opinion about any group of humans has any standing when it comes to human rights.

I was talking about the fight to get those forms of marriage recognised. And I will choose my battles. You're not going to choose them for me. Start your battle yourself. If I think your fight is a worthwhile one, I'll be your ally.

But you should realise that each one of these battles that is won makes it that little bit easier to win the next one. :)


And by the way, I, me Stella am ONE person. I am not all "Gays." No GLBT person is "Gays." And I know of gay and lesbian poly marriages. Gays are not, as you should know, one group that are all the same. Neither are "heteros." Right? ;)
 
Stella_Omega said:
And by the way, I, me Stella am ONE person. I am not all "Gays." No GLBT person is "Gays." And I know of gay and lesbian poly marriages. Gays are not, as you should know, one group that are all the same. Neither are "heteros." Right? ;)
Click to expand...

Agreed :)
 
Stella_Omega: why I said "sister and brother shit" is because I think it is a bad genetic idea of getting any kind of offspring, because of all our junk dna will probably get a really big chance of getting some serious "funky" kids. I know for a fact that in my past my great (can't remember which number "great") grandparents were male and female cousin, but still because of what I know about my own family, then I would not like to have children with any of my family members of close origin( here we are of course talking about cousin cousin hanky). Sure, if I had gotten the chance with two of my female cousins, I would have humped them both . But that was because back then, the two sisters were hot as hell (I have not seen them in years, but that has nothing to do with my comment about humping the living bejesus out of them, but some family trouble stuff which is private).But the issue here is this, we should be above those things, but I know there HAS been quite a few cases, of either two adopted kids (from Korea) being adopted to different families in the USA, and then finding each other as "strangers" and falling in love with each other, and married and has sex with each other, and first afterwards with help of DNA found out they were brother and sister. There are also other cases around the world with that stuff.

Okay, here is something I do not know if the law will make illegal or not, but two "siblings" falling for each other , but they are NOT siblings at all, and not genetically related either, are they allowed to marry over there ?
Cause last time I checked Danish laws, then if two adopted "siblings" (that is why I used the " ") are not allowed here to marry. But well you can not stop them for being lovers or girlfriend/boyfriend as far as I am aware off.
I for once think I am right about that crazy Danish laws, but I could be wrong, since it has been a while since I looked it, but right now I am sticking to my answer. Since I am not really interested in looking up the Danish law (which I can online). But anyway those were my thoughts on the matter for now. Personally, two "siblings" from an adopted family would I allow to be married to each other, and have all the kids that they would like, and have all the "normal" nasty and kinky (consensual) sex with each other they would like. But that is just my point of view upon it, and I really do not care, since they are NOT genetically related.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

RobDownSouth
How the Supreme Court Screwed Up The Idaho Abortion Case
Replies
3
Views
264
SmokingFap
SmokingFap
B
5-...4-...3-...2-...
Replies
11
Views
821
bodysong
B
DMBFFF
1000th post
Replies
0
Views
569
DMBFFF
DMBFFF
UnHolyPimpHand
Wings of the Fallen ((UnHolyPimpHand & Curious_Muse))
2 3
Replies
50
Views
8K
UnHolyPimpHand
UnHolyPimpHand
Cum_Inside
Cum Inside; Grab a drink and curl up for some light reading.
Replies
5
Views
5K
ArtemisBaelin
A
Back
Top