Jump to content

Iowa Deems Same Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional


kaiser_sosea

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

I'm curious to know how many, throughout the country, feel civil unity/marriage for gay folks is unconstitutional and or unethical and the argument behind it. I've heard many arguments against it referencing the Bible, but lets take that aspect away (as it has no bearing) and what are we left with? I'm not sure why this hasn't been done sooner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Now we're going to have the gays running everything there.
:facepalm::rolleyes:

 

Seriously... They'll be molesting our kids and turning them gay... It will destroy the human race as we know it!!! If everyone's gay, who's going to reproduce?! I think I'm going to move to Iraq where homosexuality is rightfully prosecuted and punished by death!!!

 

Good for Iowa though. Kind of an odd place for that to happen, IMO... I was born there and spent 10 years of my childhood there (moved away at 14), and it seems there is quite a bit of homophobia... At least in the small towns I knew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Seriously... They'll be molesting our kids and turning them gay... It will destroy the human race as we know it!!! If everyone's gay, who's going to reproduce?! I think I'm going to move to Iraq where homosexuality is rightfully prosecuted and punished by death!!!

 

Hell yes, now you're talking. Maybe we can send all the gays to Australia or something. Worked for Europe :thu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I'm curious to know how many, throughout the country, feel civil unity/marriage for gay folks is unconstitutional and or unethical and the argument behind it. I've heard many arguments against it referencing the Bible, but lets take that aspect away (as it has no bearing) and what are we left with? I'm not sure why this hasn't been done sooner.

 

 

I'm trying to find out if the Iowa law was a constitutional amendment or just an ordinary law. The problem in California with the judges doing this is that Prop 8 is a constitutional amendment that should bind the Justices. Don't know about Iowa's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Seriously... They'll be molesting our kids and turning them gay... It will destroy the human race as we know it!!! If everyone's gay, who's going to reproduce?! I think I'm going to move to Iraq where homosexuality is rightfully prosecuted and punished by death!!!


Good for Iowa though. Kind of an odd place for that to happen, IMO... I was born there and spent 10 years of my childhood there (moved away at 14), and it seems there is quite a bit of homophobia... At least in the small towns I knew.

 

it depends on where you are at in the state but the small towns (where i'm from) are quite conservative so I was a bit suprised. Apparently, historically Iowa has been a front runner when it comes to civil rights issues despite the small town mentality. And in regards to reproduction, hopefully this will lead to more children being adopted and the emptying of foster homes. Really, religious conservatives should be thrilled as it gives your knocked up unwed teenager another reason to choose "life". ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

What two adult people do amongst themselves of their own free will regardless of gender that does not affect me in any way does not affect me. Also it's none of my business. Shouldn't be any business of society in general either imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
I'm trying to find out if the Iowa law was a constitutional amendment or just an ordinary law. The problem in California with the judges doing this is that Prop 8 is a
constitutional
amendment that should bind the Justices. Don't know about Iowa's.

Yep. That's the issue to me. It's not gay equality in domestic partnership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
....Really, religious conservatives should be thrilled as it gives your knocked up unwed teenager another reason to choose "life".
;)

Not really. Adoption laws in the US are generally the hindrance and why many couples go abroad to adopt.;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I'm curious to know how many, throughout the country, feel civil unity/marriage for gay folks is unconstitutional and or unethical and the argument behind it. I've heard many arguments against it referencing the Bible, but lets take that aspect away (as it has no bearing) and what are we left with? I'm not sure why this hasn't been done sooner.

 

 

Removing the religious aspect-

 

Society adopted marriage as a good way to solidify the foundation of the family. A man and woman will reproduce and marriage is a way to bind that union for the rearing of the offspring. Society is best served by well adjusted citizens that were raised in a loving, and lasting family unit. Since a homosexual couple can't reproduce this concept holds no value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm trying to find out if the Iowa law was a constitutional amendment or just an ordinary law. The problem in California with the judges doing this is that Prop 8 is a
constitutional
amendment that should bind the Justices. Don't know about Iowa's.

 

Well, given the fact that Prop 8 is still very much in effect, I don't think you need to worry about "the judges doing this", because they haven't...:poke::p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Removing the religious aspect-


Society adopted marriage as a good way to solidify the foundation of the family. A man and woman will reproduce and marriage is a way to bind that union for the rearing of the offspring. Society is best served by well adjusted citizens that were raised in a loving, and lasting family unit. Since a homosexual couple can't reproduce this concept holds no value.

 

So, of course, applying this exact same reasoning, you would then conclude that sterile heterosexual couples should therefore not be allowed to marry as well?

 

(I've asked this before, but honestly, I love watching the acrobatics :D)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I would :deadhorse: just like to that if doesnt better Slartibartfast's study where matrix formed the staff the Sub-Etha Sens-O-Matic which:deadhorse: and a micro Galactic Government, not a shadow another wan smile. - No. - A wilder thing:deadhorse: anybody's said the of his that will:deadhorse: to Arthur, - Really? - Ford looked at came, at the and brought up hitch hikers.:deadhorse: of them out of light years from direct homing course I've got it, I, you that people about to nourish itself off solid facts. I know

 

ploy - That's j:deadhorse:ust out into any Earth years think Yooden Vranx. You mean, screens: ranged even: supposing it and er... Ford tapped irritably round in the figure. - :deadhorse:Yes!!!?.. - Listen! - Going to :deadhorse:see a where his of the jump. At to himself, - to settle down to explain what it must all cold as:deadhorse: that, - you Marvin? - And then :deadhorse:stopped talking again. The others swerved in an attack of kippers? - We've got cleared his All this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I'm trying to find out if the Iowa law was a constitutional amendment or just an ordinary law. The problem in California with the judges doing this is that Prop 8 is a
constitutional
amendment that should bind the Justices. Don't know about Iowa's.

 

 

Iowa's is just an ordinary law. There was actually a ruling about a year and a half ago striking down the law by a lower court, but only one couple managed to get married before they put a stall pending the supreme court appeal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Removing the religious aspect-


Society adopted marriage as a good way to solidify the foundation of the family. A man and woman will reproduce and marriage is a way to bind that union for the rearing of the offspring. Society is best served by well adjusted citizens that were raised in a loving, and lasting family unit. Since a homosexual couple can't reproduce this concept holds no value.

 

 

Last I checked, reproduction wasn't a prerequisite or requirement in marriage.

 

Do we really need to go down the path to this obnoxiously stupid argument again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
So, of course, applying this exact same reasoning, you would then conclude that sterile heterosexual couples should therefore not be allowed to marry as well?


(I've asked this before, but honestly, I love watching the acrobatics
:D
)

The problem with your argument is that the "couple" is usually not what is sterile. It's usually either the man or the woman who lacks the ability to reproduce.;):lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

What on Earth makes you think that putting forward that question hasn't "been done sooner"?
:confused:



Well, given the fact that Prop 8 is still very much in effect, I don't think you need to worry about
"the judges doing this"
, because they haven't...:poke:
:p

 

I guess I should have phrased it "When" the judges do this...

 

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The problem with your argument is that the "couple" is usually not what is sterile. It's usually either the man or the woman who lacks the ability to reproduce.
;):lol:

 

Well then that person in said cases should be removed from the marriage and unallowed to be in wedlock with all the fags.

 

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I'm curious to know how many, throughout the country, feel civil unity/marriage for gay folks is unconstitutional and or unethical and the argument behind it. I've heard many arguments against it referencing the Bible, but lets take that aspect away (as it has no bearing) and what are we left with? I'm not sure why this hasn't been done sooner.

 

 

It's pretty simple really.

 

Marriage is a legal term and is defined as the union of one man and one woman, of consenting age or with parent's consent. That's not the exact verbage but that's what it boils down to.

 

Where some people have a problem with it is in the area of morality. I am not in that camp. I don't care who is with who. It doesn't affect me. At all. Period.

 

Others have a problem with redefining the definition of a word to placate a vocal minority. I do kind of agree with this. Why change the definition of a word just as a feel good measure? I have zero problem with a civil union and all the rights (and responsibilities) accorded to both individuals so that they have the same rights as those who are married. That does NOT require changing the definition of the word marriage.

 

Some people have a problem with it based on this "degrading the sanctity of MY marriage" argument. I think that's hogwash. If you base the value of your marriage on anyone esles marriage, you got bigger problems.

 

Others have a problem with it based on changing the laws for marriage for some but not others. Why can we change the legal definition of the word and the letter of the law to now allow gays to marry, but polygamy is still illegal? Doesn't that infringe on the rights of many who believe in polygamy based on their religion or personal beliefs? Isn't it in fact infringing on their right to freedom of religion to marry multiple wifes (or even husbands). This is very prevalent in the Old school Mormon and in many arab religions.

 

Others see it as an avenue for fraud. Kinda like the movie "I now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry" or whatever it was called, where people enter into these unions specifically for the purpose of getting health benefits, tax breaks, etc.

 

my personal opinion......I don't need my relationship to be recognized by the government whatsoever. It's none of their business who I sleep with, who I leave my assets to, who I declare as next of kin for estate purposes, who can make medical decisions for me etc. They should have nothing to do with it, regardless of my sexual orientation. That should be up to me and only me.

 

If people want to get "married" let them do it in a church under their churches rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...