Page 15 of 61 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 602

Thread: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

  1. #141
    Guru
    Alex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    02-13-17 @ 04:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,962

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Coolguy View Post
    Your point is moot.
    This isn't about race.
    It is not the facts behind Brown v. Board of Education that are significant here, it is the reasoning that is important. The Court has always applied reasonings from past cases to the present, this is no different. Separate But Equal is not allowed whether in regard to ethnicity, or sexuality.

  2. #142
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Coolguy View Post
    Your point is moot.
    This isn't about race.
    It isn't moot at all.

    Your argument was that because gay people are allowed to marry people of the opposite sex, just as straight people are...there is no discrimination.

    The same flawed logic could be applied to inter-racial marriage as well.
    Because black people are able to marry people of their same race, just as white people are...there is no discrimination.

    See the flaws in that logic?
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  3. #143
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    It isn't moot at all.

    Your argument was that because gay people are allowed to marry people of the opposite sex, just as straight people are...there is no discrimination.

    The same flawed logic could be applied to inter-racial marriage as well.
    Because black people are able to marry people of their same race, just as white people are...there is no discrimination.

    See the flaws in that logic?
    Ok wtf?

    We can't bring in polygamy but you can bring in education?

    See this is why I don't support the modern gay-marriage movement: you people don't even follow your own rules.

  4. #144
    Banned Coolguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Last Seen
    01-26-10 @ 03:40 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    846

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex View Post
    It is not the facts behind Brown v. Board of Education that are significant here, it is the reasoning that is important. The Court has always applied reasonings from past cases to the present, this is no different. Separate But Equal is not allowed whether in regard to ethnicity, or sexuality.
    It is different because the issues are disparate.
    I fully understand what your argument is here and that a Court may or may not except your reasoning.

    Striking down the 'separate but equal doctrine' in regards to race discrimination has nothing to do with a persons sexuality.

    One human has the same and equal right as every other human has in this country; The 'Right' to marry someone of the opposite gender.

    Every person, whether homosexual, heterosexual, etc... has the same 'right'.
    There is no discrimination in that and no separate but equal doctrine that could be struck down. Making the court case you cite, moot.





    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    It isn't moot at all.

    Your argument was that because gay people are allowed to marry people of the opposite sex, just as straight people are...there is no discrimination.

    The same flawed logic could be applied to inter-racial marriage as well.
    Because black people are able to marry people of their same race, just as white people are...there is no discrimination.

    See the flaws in that logic?
    Yes it is.
    It is your logic that you are applying here that race discrimination somehow equates with this, not mine.
    Race discrimination disallowed the 'Right' for a person to marry a person of the opposite gender. Not so now, because it was discrimination.
    Last edited by Coolguy; 04-03-09 at 08:41 PM.

  5. #145
    Jedi Master
    Captain America's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,656

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    I'd be interested in trying to answer this. Could you actually list some of the reasons the government feels the need to sponsor and advocate marriage please?

    In regards to marriage in general, my position has long been stated on this board. The term "marriage" should be stripped from government completely, individual churchs should be free to "marry" whoever and however they want. Civil Unions should be allowed through the government to any two individuals due to the legal benefits such poses for people who are living together, wish an individual to be their default care taker or receiptient of property upon death, and other such things. This could be a loving couple, two siblings where one is taking care of the other, or two long time roommates who are happy living the single life and plan on staying in a house together for numerous years.

    I understand and see the slippery slope here. Indeed, one could say that changing the definition of marriage from "One man and One woman of the same race" to "One man and One woman" brought us to the "slippery slope" that is the changing from "One man and One woman" to "Two people".

    That said, does the fact that the repeal of segragationist marriage laws led us to the slippery slope of gay marriage being allowed nullify the correctness of removing the past law?

    No.

    One MUST be weary of the slippery slope. It is foolish to not at least acknowledged it HONESTLY and OBJECTIVELY. YES, by stating that courts can CHANGE...and it is a change....the definition of Marriage then it DOES set the precident and create a "slippery slope" for further change in the future.

    Those that refuse to acknowledge this because of the asinine point that those peddling this idea push it are themselves being asinine. It DOES set further precedent for in the future the legalization of polygamy or animal marriages or underage marriages or whatever else.

    BUT

    That does not mean those things WILL happen. While it perhaps makes them more likely then previously, it is like adding a pinch of sand to a Sand Dune. Perhaps that pinch WILL cause the avalanche, but more than likely that alone isn't going to do anything.

    People who act like once we legalize gay marriage suddenly we're going to blink and men are going to marry horses and women are going to be in five person relationships with each other are being idiotic, emotional, hyperbolic to an extreme, and frankly irrational.

    However, those that say that the slippery slope should not even be taken into consideration and state that it doesn't even apply AT ALL are ALSO being hyperbolic and irrational in the fear that if they at least admit the reality of things, even though the reality is not to the absurd point that others are pushing it to, that somehow it justifies the other persons position. It doesn't, but trying to ignore reality makes YOUR position look weaker.

    Slippery slope alone does NOT justify removing the barriers for Gay Marriage anymore than the slippery slope arguments would justify NOT removing the barriars of segregated marriage law.

    Slippery slope arguments must be taken into consideration, but the slippery slope alone should NEVER be the defining reasons why something is not turned into law...especially when dealing with something as tenuous as a potential fundamental right of the people.

    Until the people on the right can have a cohesive, intelligent, mature discussion about why they oppose gay marriage outside of "OMG its going to cause polygamy to become legal" or "Next they'll be marrying dogs" and the people on the left can make a respectful, honest, objective argument without going "Naturally the conservatives just hate gay people" or "You would've wanted to keeps black segregated too" or "there's absolutely no way in the world this could lead to polygamy" then NOTHING is going to really be accomplished with this idea. Everyone wants to be a damn ideolog and no one wants to actually be respectul intelligent people that want to talk about their positions, respect that people may have differing opinions of them, and figure out an answer based on actual facts rather than hyerpbole or insults.
    Damn dude. I think I wanna have your baby.

    That was absolutely profound. Most excellent post.

    I think I might have met someone here almost as smart as me.



    It's GREAT to be me. --- "45% liberal/55% conservative"
    Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy" until you can find a gun.

  6. #146
    Guru
    Alex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    02-13-17 @ 04:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,962

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Coolguy View Post
    It is different because the issues are disparate.
    I fully understand what your argument is here and that a Court may or may not except your reasoning.

    Striking down the 'separate but equal doctrine' in regards to race discrimination has nothing to do with a persons sexuality.

    One human has the same and equal right as every other human has in this country; The 'Right' to marry someone of the opposite gender.

    Every person, whether homosexual, heterosexual, etc... has the same 'right'.
    There is no discrimination in that and no separate but equal doctrine that could be struck down. Making the court case you cite, moot.


    Yes it is.
    It is your logic that you are applying here that race discrimination somehow equates with this, not mine.
    Race discrimination disallowed the 'Right' for a person to marry a person of the opposite gender. Not so now, because it was discrimination.
    Race has nothing to do with sexuality, but the principle of Separate but Equal can be applied to the argument you make. This doctrine is not exclusive to race issues.

    It is not an equal right when the law removes the choice of who to marry in one group of citizens and not in another group. That is inherently unequal and the Fourteenth Amendment forbids it.

  7. #147
    Banned Coolguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Last Seen
    01-26-10 @ 03:40 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    846

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex View Post
    Race has nothing to do with sexuality, but the principle of Separate but Equal can be applied to the argument you make. This doctrine is not exclusive to race issues.

    It is not an equal right when the law removes the choice of who to marry in one group of citizens and not in another group. That is inherently unequal and the Fourteenth Amendment forbids it.
    You are trying to separate homosexuals from the rest of mankind based solely on their sexual preference and then trying to equate it to race discrimination. And then demanding new and different rights be established based on grounds of sexual preference.

    There is no separate but equal doctrine that can be overturned here as in 'Brown'.

    People of any sexual preference are allowed, in the U.S., to marry someone of the opposite gender.
    This is the 'right' that all have. It is equal in that it applies to all, regardless of race or sexual preference. (Of course with caveats. e.g. Age, relationship etc...)
    Homosexuals willingly and freely partake in this 'right'.


    The real argument being made is that homosexual couples want the same privileges and amenities that come with state sanctioned marriage.
    There is no reason that they shouldn't have these.

    They just do not need to usurp and try to redefine the term marriage to fit their purposes.

  8. #148
    Advisor Midwest Lib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 05:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    512

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    It seems to me that the terms "marriage" and "civil unions" seem to cause the bulk of this problem. Personally, I am a straight atheist with no desire to be married or have children. To me, the only reason that making gay marriage constitutionally illegal is the lack of benefits for the couple that come with marriage. I doubt very seriously most homosexual couples would be concerned about being wed in a church, and I do believe very strongly that each individual religious denomination should withhold that right, but to exclude homosexuals from rights awarded to all other married couples (insurance, death benefits, etc.) is downright unjust.
    Keep the term marriage for the ceremony and title received through religious belief, but don't neglect those that believe differently just due to semantics.

    As far as saying polygamy will stem from gay marriage is just impossible to know. While what both sides are saying make sense from an idealistic point of view there is just no way to know for sure. For every cause an effect and for everything that is fundamentally good, a side effect. To dismiss a change like this just for the problems that it MAY cause, seems foolish.
    Last edited by Midwest Lib; 04-03-09 at 10:48 PM.

  9. #149
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,687

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    A decision made where it should be made, in the courts....
    putting some issues to a vote is just plain stupid, the Prop. 8 fiasco in California proved that.....
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  10. #150
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 04:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Iowa court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    Its just a matter of time....America may be slow but eventually injustice is righted and ultimately America stands for fairness with "liberty and justice for ALL".
    It doesn't say exactly how they decided upon this decision. If it is judicial activism, which is likely, then it is sad decision, a further victory for liberal committees on public safety and further evidence not enough libs realise the importance of means and distinguishing between them and ends.

    But sshooosh, obviously pointing out that just because an end can be considered good doesn't justify any means is not the PC thing to do.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

Page 15 of 61 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •