Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 200,987

A federal judge in California has knocked down the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, ruling Wednesday that the state's controversial Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution.

Full Story
14th country

Covina, CA

#192535 May 18, 2013
Is that Carmel coated or just plain old Karma?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192536 May 18, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
From your article...
"Legal action A might not be that bad, for instance because giving same-sex couples marriage licenses doesn’t hurt anyone else. But taking 'action A' will increase the likelihood of legal 'action B', which would be worse—from the perspective of some observers—because it would interfere with the free choice of people or groups who oppose homosexuality."
----------
Exchange the words "giving same-sex couples marriage licenses" with the words "giving African Americans equal rights". Also exchange the words "groups who opposed homosexuality" with the words "groups who oppose equal rights for blacks".
Exchange these same sets of words with "giving women the rights to vote and own property" and "groups who oppose equal rights for women".
Certainly even you can see that refusing to give rights to minorities based on other's rights to oppose certain minorities, sets up a disastrous situation.
Everybody has the right to dislike others based on their own personal belief system. However, folks don't have the right to enforce laws based on those rights--especially when the minority group has NO ILL EFFECTS on greater society.
"Ill effects" or "damaging effects" are the only reasons that societies should be able to oppose certain groups.
Simply "not liking" a particular group is not an adequate reason for puffing unequal and discriminatory laws into place.
The KKK and White Power organizations can exists all they want. But in this country, their opinions about racial, religious, and sexual minorities ARE NOT a basis on which to create discriminatory laws.
I'm trying to tell you the slippery slope is REAL but no detriment to allowing same sex marriage. If you weren't so angry, you would use that information wisely.

When you dismiss a real argument as not real, and act emotionally instead of countering it intelligently and with facts, you lose all credibility.

People against SSM are not stupid like you think. They are just wary of this tremendous social change and rightly so. Convince them SSM is good, don't try to convince them that they are stupid. Never underestimate your opponents' intelligence even if it's justified.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192537 May 18, 2013
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
the difference being my links will take you to scientific studies whereas your links will be to the ramblings of people like Mann Coulter, Sean Hannnity, Glen Beck etcc
http://www.secularhumanism.org/...

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/marriage.pdf

Those are my links- One to a paper by a UCLA professor of law, one to the Council for Secular Humanism. None to Ann Coulter et al. You are stupid and you are a liar.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#192538 May 18, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is the historical evidence that societies around the globe, across time and place, recognized same sex marriage? There are a few examples, but clearly no indication this was cross cultural cross time practice.Certainly not in Western Civilization.
<quoted text>
Of course not all of history was recorded. But with no evidence at all, its speculation, plausible or not.
<quoted text>
A disgrace as well. A world treasure destroyed.
<quoted text>
Perhaps, but you raise a good point. Not all recognized ss unions were considered marriage.
<quoted text>
I'm not disagreeing.
<quoted text>
Show me the money.... Point to any historical record of a sustained movement to have ss relationships recognized in any form, let alone as marriage.
<quoted text>
Scattered historical examples only.
<quoted text>
"Conjugal", as in "husband and wife".
<quoted text>
Agreed, we fumbled the ball.....so to speak. Screwed up.
1.) Let me prove it by saying that same-sex unions/marriages would not need to be outlawed if the they weren't taking place on a wide scale basis.

What I am suggesting is that same-sex unions "existed and continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, which prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed."

"(In) Mesopotamia, where documents exist for a variety of marital practices, including male lovers of kings and polyandry. None of the recorded laws of Mesopotamia, including the Code of Hammurabi, contain restrictions against same-sex unions despite the fact that marriages are otherwise well regulated."

The Mesopotamian empire lasted around 4800 years.

Is that a long enough time frame for you?

Western Civilization is said to have began around the 8th century BC. The Roman Empire started long before that time. Same-sex unions were a part of their society until it was outlawed in 342 AD.--a period of roughly 350 years.

So, there is adequate proof that the Western Civilization, by way of the Romans, accepted same-sex unions/marriages for a long period of time.

You might say that until Christianity became a dominant religion, same-sex behavior and unions/marriages were common. And since widespread Christianity is only about 1700 years old--a drop in the bucket compared to the history of mankind--the notion of same-sex behavior and/or same-sex unions/marriages being abhorrent is relatively new.

Thankfully, modern man has started to question early Christian teachings and beliefs about same-sex attractions.

We are no longer shackled to ancient belief systems based on ancient religious ideas.

As with many other current social ideas and values that we embrace, such as the eradication of slavery, racial inequality, and gender inequality, we base our notions of equality on contemporary science and ideas--not religious dogma.

Bottom line, we do not need to rely on how Christian history has treated homosexuals to determine how we treat homosexuals today.

2.) Conjugal relations refer to sexual relations between spouses. In the states and countries that recognize same-sex marriage, a conjugal relation refers to sexual relationships between a married man and a woman, a married man and a man or a married woman and a woman.

3.) The only way to have equal legal rights and protections of marriage to same-sex couples is to DENY them to all married couples or EXTEND them to all married couples--be they opposite-gender or same-gender couples.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#192539 May 18, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm trying to tell you the slippery slope is REAL but no detriment to allowing same sex marriage. If you weren't so angry, you would use that information wisely.
When you dismiss a real argument as not real, and act emotionally instead of countering it intelligently and with facts, you lose all credibility.
People against SSM are not stupid like you think. They are just wary of this tremendous social change and rightly so. Convince them SSM is good, don't try to convince them that they are stupid. Never underestimate your opponents' intelligence even if it's justified.
No one is questioning your intelligence. We are questioning your logic.

As I pointed out to your earlier, 46 years ago a Virginia lawmaker argued in the Supreme Court that interracial marriage would lead to polygamy.

In nearly half a century it has not.

Why would we believe that same-sex marriage; an act that joins only two people together, would be the basis for joining more than two people together.

Since the Loving v. Virginia trial, I can't find one case that has been brought before any court in which a plaintiff has sued on behalf of polygamy.

Loving v. Virginia didn't bring out the polygamists and neither will same-sex marriage cases.

Again, the primary reason that polygamy WILL NOT ride the coattails of same-sex marriage is because same-sex marriage continues the definition of marriage as being between TWO people.

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

#192540 May 18, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm trying to tell you the slippery slope is REAL but no detriment to allowing same sex marriage. If you weren't so angry, you would use that information wisely.
When you dismiss a real argument as not real, and act emotionally instead of countering it intelligently and with facts, you lose all credibility.
People against SSM are not stupid like you think. They are just wary of this tremendous social change and rightly so. Convince them SSM is good, don't try to convince them that they are stupid. Never underestimate your opponents' intelligence even if it's justified.
1. people often complain about homosexuals being promiscuous, allowing them to enter into marriage would bring some stability into their lives.

2. we allow heterosexuals into monogamous marriages, why not homosexuals. we are just opening up a legal commitment/contract that heterosexuals enjoy to homosexuals. a woman who lived with her married partner for decades got hit with a 400,000+ tax bill from the IRS after her partner died because the IRS (FED) doesn't recognize same sex marriages, something a heterosexual couple wouldn't face...is that fair?

we are not talking about allowing gays into polygamous marriages, just as we don't allow hetero-sexual couples either

as for the other end of slippery slopes, pedophiles, bestiality...
children can not give consent
animals can not give consent

as for marrying siblings/cousins..there are plenty of scientific reasons for that dealing with genetic defects...a case study of Russian Tsarist ruling families is a prime example of that.

Just as there are scientific studies providing justification for outlawing marriage between close relatives, there are plenty of sociological studies detailing the harmful effects of polygamous marriages, besides the legal issues concerning inheritance, property distribution etc
14th country

Covina, CA

#192541 May 18, 2013
Is that Carmel coated or just plain old Karma? Soft or hard center?

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

#192542 May 18, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.secularhumanism.org/...
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/marriage.pdf
Those are my links- One to a paper by a UCLA professor of law, one to the Council for Secular Humanism. None to Ann Coulter et al. You are stupid and you are a liar.
relax footloops

my reply wasn't to the subject of same sex marriage but the difference of how conservatives and liberals think

Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
here is your evidence of such assertions.
Actually studies have shown that Liberals are more likely to process new data and make decisions on facts as opposed to conservatives who once they make up their mind, they are less likely to process new facts/data and change their position
http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-sci ...
Analyzing the data, Sulloway said liberals were 4.9 times as likely as conservatives to show activity in the brain circuits that deal with conflicts, and 2.2 times as likely to score in the top half of the distribution for accuracy.
"Sulloway said the results could explain why President Bush demonstrated a single-minded commitment to the Iraq war and why some people perceived Sen. John F. Kerry, the liberal Massachusetts Democrat who opposed Bush in the 2004 presidential race, as a "flip-flopper" for changing his mind about the conflict.
Based on the results, he said, liberals could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas.
"There is ample data from the history of science showing that social and political liberals indeed do tend to support major revolutions in science," said Sulloway, who has written about the history of science and has studied behavioral differences between conservatives and liberals."
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/09/03 ...
" Researchers also noted that Democrats had larger anterior cingulate cortexes, which are associated with tolerance to uncertainty, while Republicans had larger right amygdalas, which are associated with sensitivity to fear."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/ ...

Relax fruitloops we can post links back and forth all day long and you'd still be wrong.

The thing is any link I post you'll dismiss as lies and propaganda from "faux news" or a "right wing hate group".

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

#192543 May 18, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
1.) Let me prove it by saying that same-sex unions/marriages would not need to be outlawed if the they weren't taking place on a wide scale basis.
What I am suggesting is that same-sex unions "existed and continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, which prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed."
"(In) Mesopotamia, where documents exist for a variety of marital practices, including male lovers of kings and polyandry. None of the recorded laws of Mesopotamia, including the Code of Hammurabi, contain restrictions against same-sex unions despite the fact that marriages are otherwise well regulated."
The Mesopotamian empire lasted around 4800 years.
Is that a long enough time frame for you?
Western Civilization is said to have began around the 8th century BC. The Roman Empire started long before that time. Same-sex unions were a part of their society until it was outlawed in 342 AD.--a period of roughly 350 years.
So, there is adequate proof that the Western Civilization, by way of the Romans, accepted same-sex unions/marriages for a long period of time.
You might say that until Christianity became a dominant religion, same-sex behavior and unions/marriages were common. And since widespread Christianity is only about 1700 years old--a drop in the bucket compared to the history of mankind--the notion of same-sex behavior and/or same-sex unions/marriages being abhorrent is relatively new.
Thankfully, modern man has started to question early Christian teachings and beliefs about same-sex attractions.
We are no longer shackled to ancient belief systems based on ancient religious ideas.
As with many other current social ideas and values that we embrace, such as the eradication of slavery, racial inequality, and gender inequality, we base our notions of equality on contemporary science and ideas--not religious dogma.
Bottom line, we do not need to rely on how Christian history has treated homosexuals to determine how we treat homosexuals today.
2.) Conjugal relations refer to sexual relations between spouses. In the states and countries that recognize same-sex marriage, a conjugal relation refers to sexual relationships between a married man and a woman, a married man and a man or a married woman and a woman.
3.) The only way to have equal legal rights and protections of marriage to same-sex couples is to DENY them to all married couples or EXTEND them to all married couples--be they opposite-gender or same-gender couples.
there is also evidence that same sex marriage was legal in medieval Europe too

http://www.livescience.com/7344-gay-civil-uni...

http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-m...
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192544 May 18, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
No one is questioning your intelligence. We are questioning your logic.
As I pointed out to your earlier, 46 years ago a Virginia lawmaker argued in the Supreme Court that interracial marriage would lead to polygamy.
In nearly half a century it has not.
Why would we believe that same-sex marriage; an act that joins only two people together, would be the basis for joining more than two people together.
Since the Loving v. Virginia trial, I can't find one case that has been brought before any court in which a plaintiff has sued on behalf of polygamy.
Loving v. Virginia didn't bring out the polygamists and neither will same-sex marriage cases.
Again, the primary reason that polygamy WILL NOT ride the coattails of same-sex marriage is because same-sex marriage continues the definition of marriage as being between TWO people.
You have exposed your hypocrisy. I knew it.

What harm would a loving marriage of three consenting adult men cause you or anyone else?

Marriage. There is NO ONE RIGHT WAY.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192545 May 18, 2013
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
relax footloops
my reply wasn't to the subject of same sex marriage but the difference of how conservatives and liberals think
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
here is your evidence of such assertions.
Actually studies have shown that Liberals are more likely to process new data and make decisions on facts as opposed to conservatives who once they make up their mind, they are less likely to process new facts/data and change their position
http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-sci ...
Analyzing the data, Sulloway said liberals were 4.9 times as likely as conservatives to show activity in the brain circuits that deal with conflicts, and 2.2 times as likely to score in the top half of the distribution for accuracy.
"Sulloway said the results could explain why President Bush demonstrated a single-minded commitment to the Iraq war and why some people perceived Sen. John F. Kerry, the liberal Massachusetts Democrat who opposed Bush in the 2004 presidential race, as a "flip-flopper" for changing his mind about the conflict.
Based on the results, he said, liberals could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas.
"There is ample data from the history of science showing that social and political liberals indeed do tend to support major revolutions in science," said Sulloway, who has written about the history of science and has studied behavioral differences between conservatives and liberals."
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/09/03 ...
" Researchers also noted that Democrats had larger anterior cingulate cortexes, which are associated with tolerance to uncertainty, while Republicans had larger right amygdalas, which are associated with sensitivity to fear."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/ ...
Relax fruitloops we can post links back and forth all day long and you'd still be wrong.
The thing is any link I post you'll dismiss as lies and propaganda from "faux news" or a "right wing hate group".
I fully support marriage equality and I am wrong? You are arguing against yourself dummy. Have fun!

The bottom line is I support marriage equality and you do not. So climb down off your high angry horse spice boy. You're a hypocrite.

Hope that helps.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192546 May 18, 2013
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
there is also evidence that same sex marriage was legal in medieval Europe too
http://www.livescience.com/7344-gay-civil-uni...
http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-m...
An appeal to tradition?

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#192547 May 18, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm when the laws of many states have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability.
Put bluntly, if heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?
You have formed two separate questions, even though you are generally asking only one.

1.) Should monogamy socially be relevant to marriage? And the answer is "I don't know". Other cultures, currently and historically, have embraced non-monogamous marriages. Obviously it worked (works) for them.

2.) Is monogamy a VALUE for First World, industrialized countries? And the answer to that question is an almost unanimous "YES!"

For whatever reason, we in large continue to value monogamy--even gay couples value monogamy.

Maybe it's a statement about our value of a "love-based" marriage system. Whereas in polygamous marriages, there is less of a "love-based" quality, and more of a utilitarian basis.

----------

Monogamy is not necessary for social stability--as you suggest in your comment above. If that were the case, then every culture or tribe or society that has a polygamy based marital system should have failed. And they haven't.

But monogamy is what our culture values. It places great importance on one-to-one love and trust. When that love and trust is breached through adultery, then the marriage can fall apart.

But that is a luxury that we have. Women are no longer solely dependent on men. Our laws protect women (and men) from the heartache of adultery (which is, I believe, a form of attempted polygamy).

As long as our cultures continue to value monogamy--love and trust between two people--then it is highly unlikely that polygamy will gain a foothold.

Who knows... Maybe polygamy will become legal here some day.

But it won't be because gays were given the right to marry, anymore than it won't be based on the legalization of interracial marriage.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192548 May 18, 2013
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
relax footloops
my reply wasn't to the subject of same sex marriage but the difference of how conservatives and liberals think
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
here is your evidence of such assertions.
Actually studies have shown that Liberals are more likely to process new data and make decisions on facts as opposed to conservatives who once they make up their mind, they are less likely to process new facts/data and change their position
http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-sci ...
Analyzing the data, Sulloway said liberals were 4.9 times as likely as conservatives to show activity in the brain circuits that deal with conflicts, and 2.2 times as likely to score in the top half of the distribution for accuracy.
"Sulloway said the results could explain why President Bush demonstrated a single-minded commitment to the Iraq war and why some people perceived Sen. John F. Kerry, the liberal Massachusetts Democrat who opposed Bush in the 2004 presidential race, as a "flip-flopper" for changing his mind about the conflict.
Based on the results, he said, liberals could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas.
"There is ample data from the history of science showing that social and political liberals indeed do tend to support major revolutions in science," said Sulloway, who has written about the history of science and has studied behavioral differences between conservatives and liberals."
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/09/03 ...
" Researchers also noted that Democrats had larger anterior cingulate cortexes, which are associated with tolerance to uncertainty, while Republicans had larger right amygdalas, which are associated with sensitivity to fear."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/ ...
Relax fruitloops we can post links back and forth all day long and you'd still be wrong.
The thing is any link I post you'll dismiss as lies and propaganda from "faux news" or a "right wing hate group".
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xcgaxs_conse...
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192549 May 18, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
You have formed two separate questions, even though you are generally asking only one.
1.) Should monogamy socially be relevant to marriage? And the answer is "I don't know". Other cultures, currently and historically, have embraced non-monogamous marriages. Obviously it worked (works) for them.
2.) Is monogamy a VALUE for First World, industrialized countries? And the answer to that question is an almost unanimous "YES!"
For whatever reason, we in large continue to value monogamy--even gay couples value monogamy.
Maybe it's a statement about our value of a "love-based" marriage system. Whereas in polygamous marriages, there is less of a "love-based" quality, and more of a utilitarian basis.
----------
Monogamy is not necessary for social stability--as you suggest in your comment above. If that were the case, then every culture or tribe or society that has a polygamy based marital system should have failed. And they haven't.
But monogamy is what our culture values. It places great importance on one-to-one love and trust. When that love and trust is breached through adultery, then the marriage can fall apart.
But that is a luxury that we have. Women are no longer solely dependent on men. Our laws protect women (and men) from the heartache of adultery (which is, I believe, a form of attempted polygamy).
As long as our cultures continue to value monogamy--love and trust between two people--then it is highly unlikely that polygamy will gain a foothold.
Who knows... Maybe polygamy will become legal here some day.
But it won't be because gays were given the right to marry, anymore than it won't be based on the legalization of interracial marriage.
You still refuse to accept the fact that I support same sex marriage. You argue as if I don't.

I am not afraid of Polygamy dummy! I support it. You don't seem to get that either.

I support true marriage equality. You do not.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192550 May 18, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>

...Monogamy is not necessary for social stability--as you suggest in your comment above. If that were the case, then every culture or tribe or society that has a polygamy based marital system should have failed. And they haven't.
Wha? If monogamy is not necessary polygamous societies would have failed? Huh?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192551 May 18, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
You have formed two separate questions, even though you are generally asking only one.
1.) Should monogamy socially be relevant to marriage? And the answer is "I don't know". Other cultures, currently and historically, have embraced non-monogamous marriages. Obviously it worked (works) for them.
2.) Is monogamy a VALUE for First World, industrialized countries? And the answer to that question is an almost unanimous "YES!"
For whatever reason, we in large continue to value monogamy--even gay couples value monogamy.
Maybe it's a statement about our value of a "love-based" marriage system. Whereas in polygamous marriages, there is less of a "love-based" quality, and more of a utilitarian basis.
----------
Monogamy is not necessary for social stability--as you suggest in your comment above. If that were the case, then every culture or tribe or society that has a polygamy based marital system should have failed. And they haven't.
But monogamy is what our culture values. It places great importance on one-to-one love and trust. When that love and trust is breached through adultery, then the marriage can fall apart.
But that is a luxury that we have. Women are no longer solely dependent on men. Our laws protect women (and men) from the heartache of adultery (which is, I believe, a form of attempted polygamy).
As long as our cultures continue to value monogamy--love and trust between two people--then it is highly unlikely that polygamy will gain a foothold.
Who knows... Maybe polygamy will become legal here some day.
But it won't be because gays were given the right to marry, anymore than it won't be based on the legalization of interracial marriage.
What harm would loving poly marriage cause you? If poly becomes legal it will be so rare you'll probably never have to be offended by the sight of a happy poly family.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192552 May 18, 2013
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
1. people often complain about homosexuals being promiscuous, allowing them to enter into marriage would bring some stability into their lives.
2. we allow heterosexuals into monogamous marriages, why not homosexuals. we are just opening up a legal commitment/contract that heterosexuals enjoy to homosexuals. a woman who lived with her married partner for decades got hit with a 400,000+ tax bill from the IRS after her partner died because the IRS (FED) doesn't recognize same sex marriages, something a heterosexual couple wouldn't face...is that fair?
we are not talking about allowing gays into polygamous marriages, just as we don't allow hetero-sexual couples either
as for the other end of slippery slopes, pedophiles, bestiality...
children can not give consent
animals can not give consent
as for marrying siblings/cousins..there are plenty of scientific reasons for that dealing with genetic defects...a case study of Russian Tsarist ruling families is a prime example of that.
Just as there are scientific studies providing justification for outlawing marriage between close relatives, there are plenty of sociological studies detailing the harmful effects of polygamous marriages, besides the legal issues concerning inheritance, property distribution etc
I support SSM dummy, you're preaching to the choir. I support marriage equality and you do not.

What harm would a loving marriage of 3 adult men cause you or anyone hypocrite? How does it feel to be arguing against marriage equality?

As far as the "too complicated" argument, is denying equal protection OK if it would be complicated to grant it? And it's not complicated, the legalities could be easily worked out.
Knee Roe

Tempe, AZ

#192553 May 18, 2013
Wherever homosexuals appear in large numbers, a society soon fails. There are no exceptions.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192554 May 18, 2013
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
...Just as there are scientific studies providing justification for outlawing marriage between close relatives, there are plenty of sociological studies detailing the harmful effects of polygamous marriages, besides the legal issues concerning inheritance, property distribution etc
Modern science has debunked the myth that there are significant health problems with close relatives procreating. First cousins may marry in many states, why not siblings?

And procreation is irrelevant to marriage, right? So why can't I marry my brother?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Oroville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 6 hr ForkBelly 7,962
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 12 hr Flaggstaff 5,083
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) Sun theos 2,276
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) Sep 18 Pizza 16,000
beating Sep 4 psychomike 1
Council continues Walmart appeals (Dec '10) Sep 3 Andy 49
Anyone see Marvin Markle lose his sh*t yesterday? (Feb '12) Aug 24 jram1970 88
•••

Fire Warning for Butte County was issued at September 22 at 1:45PM PDT

•••
•••
Oroville Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Oroville Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Oroville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Oroville News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Oroville
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••