Page 57 of 61 FirstFirst ... 7475556575859 ... LastLast
Results 561 to 570 of 602

Thread: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

  1. #561
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    in a neocon's craw
    Last Seen
    04-24-17 @ 10:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,801

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    I'm from the suburbs of Chicago. Farms and farm animals are not a big part of my life.
    Big enough for you to make up fantasies about, it seems.

    I agree. I believe bestial relationships should be illegal for the same reason, but there are sound arguments to the contrary (just ask Agnapostate) and these arguments cannot be ignored simply because you don't agree with them.
    There are no sound arguments as far as I am aware, you could prove me wrong by making one.

    Legally speaking, it is entirely possible that a bestial relationship could garner the same Constitutional protection as a heterosexual or homosexual relationship, and pursuant to such a determination one could make an argument for equal protection under the law, e.g. state-sanctioned bestial marriage.
    No, I don't think it is entirely possible but as I said above, you could make an argument and we'll see.

    Once again, I agree, but the question is not whether polygamist relationships should be illegal, the question is whether or not they should receive positive recognition from the state.
    If the "state" is going to be involved in marriage then, yes.

    If you affirm the "right" of gay couples to marry under the equal protection clause then you must also affirm the "right" of polygamists to do the same; unless, of course, you're just a hypocrite who doesn't know the first thing about Constitutional law.

    So, do you affirm the "right" of polygamists to receive positive recognition from the state in the form of a marriage? Or are you just another person who screams about "rights" and the Constitution when it suites their political agenda?
    Yes, I do affirm that consenting adults should be able to enter into a state recognized contract, currently called marriage, regardless of the race, creed, religion, sexual orientation or number of consenting adults involved.

    It's a pretty simple concept of equality, fairness and privacy.

  2. #562
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by thabigred View Post
    Well polygamy you might get an argument but bestiality is considered abuse of animals,
    .
    The day animals enter into contractual law will be an odd day. But if the animals do it with a full understanding of their rights and obligations recognized by a court of law and I would be all for it.

  3. #563
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    Big enough for you to make up fantasies about, it seems.
    The only thing I'm fantasizing about is seeing you make a logical statement. I guess unrealistic expectations are a natural consequence of letting one's imagination run wild.

    There are no sound arguments as far as I am aware, you could prove me wrong by making one.
    Devil's Advocate

    A man loves his dog and wants to marry it. Argument made.

    No, I don't think it is entirely possible
    That's because you have no understanding of the law. Here's how it works, now pay attention:

    A law makes it illegal to engage in bestiality. A man sues the government for violating his right to engage in bestiality. The case makes it to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court affirms his right to engage in bestiality. See how that works? Pretty neat, huh?

    If the "state" is going to be involved in marriage then, yes.
    So what are you waiting for? Get out in the streets and start protesting! We're talking about people's rights here! Aren't you furious!?

    Yes, I do affirm that consenting adults should be able to enter into a state recognized contract, currently called marriage, regardless of the race, creed, religion, sexual orientation or number of consenting adults involved.

    It's a pretty simple concept of equality, fairness and privacy.
    Do you also affirm their "right" to receive the pecuniary benefits and social validation associated with marriage?

  4. #564
    Student thabigred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    04-24-09 @ 01:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    205

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    The day animals enter into contractual law will be an odd day. But if the animals do it with a full understanding of their rights and obligations recognized by a court of law and I would be all for it.
    Animals already have, and actually they had rights before children did in this country.

    There were animal police before there were child abuse investigators.

    Also animals according to the law are like children, unable to understand right from wrong, so the state decides it is illegal to partake in sexual acts with an animal.
    Last edited by thabigred; 04-09-09 at 08:41 PM.

  5. #565
    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 winston53660 View Post
    No I mean they applied the State Constitution of Iowa and as it stands now banning gay marriage is unConctitutional. The Constitution can be amended though.
    They have no written constitution. These judges have made it mere guidelines. They did not in any sense simply "apply" it, they reinterpreted it making law and far overstepping their allotted role.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  6. #566
    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 Slippery Slope View Post
    Fairness is progressive.
    To talk of progress as Linear is silly.

    “The history of a society can be considered in many aspects. It can be seen as the rise of democracy, the fall of aristocracy, the advance of technology, or the recession of religion. It can be conceived, as Tocqueville conceived it, as the work of equality; as Acton considered it, as the work of freedom; or in Bertrand Russell's terms, as the story of power. There is no limit to the ways of profitably regarding the history of any given society. Each mode of consideration is, as Whitehead reminded us, 'a sort of searchlight elucidating some of the facts, and retreating the remainder into an omitted background.”
    Robert Nisbet.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  7. #567
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    The court did not invent anything, it just affirmed that the constitution in no way says that heterosexuals should have special rights invented for them and them alone. Saying that heterosexuals alone have the right to marry is creating a new right that didn't exist before. This is what I often find so hypocritical about the anti-gay marriage activists: they say that gays are trying to get new rights created for them, yet they are okay with Constitutional Amendments that say only heterosexual couples can marry?

    So much hypocrisy.

  8. #568
    Pathetic Douchebag
    Cilogy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    10-10-14 @ 05:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,587

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Devil's Advocate

    A man loves his dog and wants to marry it. Argument made.
    Is the dog a taxpayer/voter/legal citizen of the United States?

    If THAT kind of change were to be made, then there would have to be laws passed that made the dog a legal citizen. Whereas in the situation of gay marriage, its just the simple change of ONE law, and a very progressive change at that.
    Last edited by Cilogy; 04-10-09 at 05:00 AM.


  9. #569
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    in a neocon's craw
    Last Seen
    04-24-17 @ 10:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,801

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    The only thing I'm fantasizing about is seeing you make a logical statement. I guess unrealistic expectations are a natural consequence of letting one's imagination run wild.
    (1) All men are mortal.
    (2) Socrates is a man.
    Therefore:
    (3) Socrates is mortal.

    I'm flattered that you care.


    Devil's Advocate

    A man loves his dog and wants to marry it. Argument made.
    You call that a "sound argument"? To offer an argument, you cannot simply make a claim or gainsay what others claim.

    An argument is a deliberate attempt to move beyond just making an assertion. When offering an argument, you are offering a series of related statements which represent an attempt to support that assertion — to give others good reasons to believe that what you are asserting is true rather than false.

    That's because you have no understanding of the law. Here's how it works, now pay attention:

    A law makes it illegal to engage in bestiality. A man sues the government for violating his right to engage in bestiality. The case makes it to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court affirms his right to engage in bestiality. See how that works? Pretty neat, huh?
    How do you make such a claim? Are you invading my thoughts?

    Again, nothing but fantasy. Here's another one for you: A man sues the government to force them to stop invading his thoughts with their secret mind control weapon. The case makes it to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court affirms his right to not have the government invade his thoughts with their secret mind control weapon. See how that works? Pretty neat, huh?

    So what are you waiting for? Get out in the streets and start protesting! We're talking about people's rights here! Aren't you furious!?
    A man is trying to marry his dog aren't you furious?
    Get out in the streets and start protesting!

    You really make the worst possible comments if your intention is to appear intelligent.



    Do you also affirm their "right" to receive the pecuniary benefits and social validation associated with marriage?
    If any other group of citizens gets those benefits then obviously, yes. Otherwise it's discriminatory.

  10. #570
    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 Orius View Post
    The court did not invent anything, it just affirmed that the constitution in no way says that heterosexuals should have special rights invented for them and them alone.
    What? These "special rights" are simply the way it has always been interpreted. By going against that tradition and precedent randomly it is turning the constitution into mere guidelines and an excellent example of the arbitrary power of judicial activism.

    In another thread you were complaining about the US not upholding its constitution?


    Saying that heterosexuals alone have the right to marry is creating a new right that didn't exist before.
    Except you know it existed for centuries and that is how it was always interpreted in Iowa. Your argument makes little sense mate.

    This is what I often find so hypocritical about the anti-gay marriage activists: they say that gays are trying to get new rights created for them, yet they are okay with Constitutional Amendments that say only heterosexual couples can marry?
    That is a different issue of course, it is not the judiciary wielding arbitrary power and destroying the constitution. I'm sure many would be a lot happier, although they'd still oppose it, if the gay rights campaigners went down that route rather one so destructive as judicial activism.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

Page 57 of 61 FirstFirst ... 7475556575859 ... 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
  •