• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

Jerry, while I agree that yes most of the founding fathers were religious men, a lot of them were skeptical of religious practices. Thomas Jefferson was yes a spiritual man but we was very skeptical of religion.

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear. "

Thomas Jefferson

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter."

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

"Religions are all alike. Founded upon fables and mythologies."

Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson was very skeptical of religion, and so was John Adams, they had many conversations in letters about it.

"Indeed, Mr. Jefferson, what could be invented to debase the ancient Christianism which Greeks, Romans, Hebrews and Christian factions, above all the Catholics, have not fraudulently imposed upon the public? Miracles after miracles have rolled down in torrents."

John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, December 3, 1813

Mr. Adams and Mr. Jefferson along with many other founding fathers saw the importance of morals but disliked religious institutions, namely the catholic church.
 
Nasty stuff....next you will wanting to add eggplant and okra....philistines !!!

Eggplant and okra???????

Blasphemy to even suggest such a thing. For penance you must turn your wine back into water.
 
Jerry, while I agree that yes most of the founding fathers were religious men, a lot of them were skeptical of religious practices.

So?

I mean, I'm a Christian and I'm sceptical, so...again..."so?"
 
So?

I mean, I'm a Christian and I'm sceptical, so...again..."so?"

Besides, one can argue the value of "religion" without asserting the primacy of a religion.
 
Mr. Adams and Mr. Jefferson along with many other founding fathers saw the importance of morals but disliked religious institutions, namely the catholic church.
I distrust many religious institutions (I can count on one hand the number of clergy I know personally and respect--and two of those are uncles of mine). That does not bar me from having a great respect for religion, for religious traditions, or for religious teachings.
 
My problem was with people claiming that this has anything to do with equality.

For the sake of the argument: Sure, let gays get "married" all they want, but the moment you start pretending that gay marriage has anything to do with righting an injustice you're fool.


Well, my position is not that it is righting an injustice, it is simply equaling things out. It is inequality if things are not equal, and it has nothing to do with righting an injustice. I don't care what the history of marriage has been, I only care that it changes so that gays can legally marry and use the term marriage. Until gays can legally marry and use the term marriage, they are being discriminated against.
 
Well, my position is not that it is righting an injustice, it is simply equaling things out.

You are about to contradict this statement, observe:

It is inequality if things are not equal, and it has nothing to do with righting an injustice. I don't care what the history of marriage has been, I only care that it changes so that gays can legally marry and use the term marriage. Until gays can legally marry and use the term marriage, they are being discriminated against.

You're saying that there is currently the injustice of unethical discrimination, and that gay-marriage legislation rights that injustice.

I'm not realy trying to refute your argument here so much as clarify it.
 
You are about to contradict this statement, observe:



You're saying that there is currently the injustice of unethical discrimination, and that gay-marriage legislation rights that injustice.

I'm not realy trying to refute your argument here so much as clarify it.

thank you jerry, I was far too lazy.
 
You are about to contradict this statement, observe:



You're saying that there is currently the injustice of unethical discrimination, and that gay-marriage legislation rights that injustice.

I'm not realy trying to refute your argument here so much as clarify it.

Cool, it is all good. It might need carification, but it is not incorrect.

Denying gay marriage is an injustice...
Denying gay marriage is discrimination...

It is not about righting an injustice, since they never had the "right" in the ifrst place...
It is time to grant them this right though, thus balancing equality regarding marriage...
 
Cool, it is all good. It might need carification, but it is not incorrect.

Denying gay marriage is an injustice...
Denying gay marriage is discrimination...

It is not about righting an injustice, since they never had the "right" in the ifrst place...
It is time to grant them this right though, thus balancing equality regarding marriage...

Since inequality is an injustice, then since you say there's no injustice then neither is there inequality.

Since many people like to use Loving, I’d like to point out that interracial marriage was originally legal and then later targeted for criminalization. Gay marriage, however, was never legal or in the “history and traditions of the people”, so creating gay marriage today does not establish equality.
 
It is not unconstitutional. The Constitution says nothing at all about gay marriage. That means the right to decide weather or not it is legal is the state's right.
 
Since inequality is an injustice, then since you say there's no injustice then neither is there inequality.

Originally posted by Bodi
Denying gay marriage is an injustice...
Denying gay marriage is discrimination...

:confused: :confused:



Since many people like to use Loving, I’d like to point out that interracial marriage was originally legal and then later targeted for criminalization. Gay marriage, however, was never legal or in the “history and traditions of the people”, so creating gay marriage today does not establish equality.

Equality is not exclusive to legality...
If things are not equal, as they clearly are not, then there is an inequality.
 
It is not unconstitutional. The Constitution says nothing at all about gay marriage. That means the right to decide weather or not it is legal is the state's right.

...And any state that decides that it is illegal is guilty of Discrimination.
 
So... Discrimination is illegal.

Ahh so we have to allow polygamy, according to you, since Marital Status is a protected class.

Oh you don't like the polygamy angle? Ok, then you have to allow incest since Familial Relation is a protected class.

Pft, "Discrimination is illegal", as if that's true ;)

Yup, not allowing gay marriage is discrimination, and that is acceptable and ethical.
 
Ahh so we have to allow polygamy, according to you, since Marital Status is a protected class.

Oh you don't like the polygamy angle? Ok, then you have to allow incest since Familial Relation is a protected class.

Pft, "Discrimination is illegal", as if that's true ;)

Yup, not allowing gay marriage is discrimination, and that is acceptable and ethical.

Polygomy... no problem at all. Let a group of people get married. All good.
Incest.... don't be ridiculous. That is a crime for a very good reason.

Discrimination is illegal if it discriminates for no valid reason...

Provide an ethical argument for discriminating against gay marriage, because I don't think that there is one and then maybe I will see that it could be acceptable to discriminate.
 
I distrust many religious institutions (I can count on one hand the number of clergy I know personally and respect--and two of those are uncles of mine). That does not bar me from having a great respect for religion, for religious traditions, or for religious teachings.
So?

I mean, I'm a Christian and I'm sceptical, so...again..."so?"

Do you want to end religious institutions?

They both agreed that this was the way to go, do you agree with that?
 
Ahh so we have to allow polygamy, according to you, since Marital Status is a protected class.

Oh you don't like the polygamy angle? Ok, then you have to allow incest since Familial Relation is a protected class.

Pft, "Discrimination is illegal", as if that's true ;)

Yup, not allowing gay marriage is discrimination, and that is acceptable and ethical.

Acceptable and ethical to whom?

Not to people who understand what this Country stands for.

America either stands for freedom and equality or it stands for nothing.
 
Polygomy... no problem at all. Let a group of people get married. All good.

Yup.

Incest.... don't be ridiculous. That is a crime for a very good reason.

Not so long as people with other genetic diseases are allowed to get married.

Provide an ethical argument for discriminating against gay marriage...

The argument I'm making here isn't necessarily opposed to gay-marriage.

I'm saying gay-marriage not a civil rights issue. You can still establish gay-marriage without it being a civil rights issue. Society can come together and say "you know, gays may not be 'entitled' to marriage, but we think gay-marriage would be a good thing so we're gona go ahead and allow it."

Without opposing gay-marriage I'm pointing out that since there is no 'fundamental right' to *marry* just whomever you want, there is no right being denied and therefore no "discrimination".

Gays are confusing the fundamental right of free association with the fundamental right to marry. Go ahead and love who you want, make a life and live with whom you please. Marriage, however, serve a purpose, and ANYONE who doesn't intend or can not fulfill that purpose has no business getting married.

Even in futile Japan and Rome where gay relationships were the accepted norm, marriage was always respected for it's function and neither society sought to have same-sex "marriages".
 
Last edited:
Do you want to end religious institutions?

They both agreed that this was the way to go, do you agree with that?

I'm sorry I must be having a reading comprehension issue this evening.

Which 2 religious institutions decided that what was the way for exactly whom to go where?
 
Acceptable and ethical to whom?

Not to people who understand what this Country stands for.

America either stands for freedom and equality or it stands for nothing.

You forgot to bring something today.
 
Denying gay marriage is an injustice...
Denying gay marriage is discrimination...
No... it is not discrimination or an injustice.


It is time to grant them this right though, thus balancing equality regarding marriage...
The relationship isn't the same.


If things are not equal, as they clearly are not, then there is an inequality.
There is inequality because the relationships are not the same.


...And any state that decides that it is illegal is guilty of Discrimination.
No they are not.


Not to people who understand what this Country stands for.

America either stands for freedom and equality or it stands for nothing.
Are you saying that the men who formulated, wrote and signed the Constitution would support gay marriage?
I highly doubt it... And they clearly new what this country stands for.
 
"Are you saying that the men who formulated, wrote and signed the Constitution would support gay marriage?
I highly doubt it... And they clearly new what this country stands for."

That is incredibly arrogant firstly. To say this country stands for something because you say so is just ridiculous. Secondly using the founding fathers beliefs in an era long past is illogical as well. For example, there are founding fathers that had slaves. Do you support slavery because there are founding fathers who were ok with it? A document that old, regardless of its significance and important content will not completely pertain to modern American civilization.
 
"Are you saying that the men who formulated, wrote and signed the Constitution would support gay marriage?
I highly doubt it... And they clearly new what this country stands for."

That is incredibly arrogant firstly. To say this country stands for something because you say so is just ridiculous. Secondly using the founding fathers beliefs in an era long past is illogical as well. For example, there are founding fathers that had slaves. Do you support slavery because there are founding fathers who were ok with it? A document that old, regardless of its significance and important content will not completely pertain to modern American civilization.

Don't give Coolguy's words any thoughts or seriousness. He's just angry because he knows where this country is headed with respect to gay marriage. It's called a tantrum. ;)

Welcome to Debate Politics.
 
Back
Top Bottom