• 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

Goobieman said:
No more oppressed than I am, not being able to have a legal three-way marrige between Faith Hill, Shania Twain and myself.

:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Poor guy. A fella just can't get a break these days, huh?

I bet Tim could get in Shenia's panties if he wanted to. :mrgreen:
 
Goobieman said:
The part where you think any of that nullfies the argument for gay marrige, as applied to polygamy.

"If two consenting adults want to marry..."
"If three consenting adults want to marry..."
Click to expand...

Legally what is the issue in what I posted and legally what is your position?
 
Captain America said:
Poor guy. A fella just can't get a break these days, huh?
I bet Tim could get in Shenia's panties if he wanted to. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...
I know. It sucks. I need to sue someone.
 
winston53660 said:
Legally what is the issue in what I posted...
Click to expand...
I think I should let YOU explain your position
And then, I should let you explain how that applies to what I'm arguing.

...and legally what is your position?
Click to expand...
MY position is clear.
 
Goobieman said:
I think I should let YOU explain your position
And then, I should let you explain how that applies to what I'm arguing.


MY position is clear.
Click to expand...

I already explained my position. What don't you get?

The law against polygamy is equal across the board where as the law against gay marriage is based on gender.

What more do you need?
 
winston53660 said:
How about suing a boy named Sue?:mrgreen:
Click to expand...
I heard that Preparation H wanted to use "Ring of Fire" as thieir jingle.
The Cash estate said "um.... no".
 
winston53660 said:
I already explained my position. What don't you get?

The law against polygamy is equal across the board where as the law against gay marriage is based on gender.

What more do you need?
Click to expand...

I think you meant the law against gay marriage is based upon sexual preference.
 
stevenb said:
I think you meant the law against gay marriage is based upon sexual preference.
Click to expand...

No, it based on gender. I can marry a woman a woman can not simply because of the gender.
 
winston53660 said:
The law against polygamy is equal across the board where as the law against gay marriage is based on gender.
Click to expand...
That's as thin as arguing that 'not allowing same-sex marriage doesnt disctiminate against gender because all men and all women can still get married.'

So, there's an obvious need for 'more'.
 
Last edited:
stevenb said:
Erhm, not really.

But that's okay, I suppose the "conservative - preserve everyone's rights" movement will motion "Why not allow people to marry their farm animals?" soon.

Retaining the definition of marriage as a union between two legal and consenting adults in no way leads to the road of polygamy. Though it is kind of funny watching people say it does.


Keeping in mind, that I'm against the government regulating marriage in the first place. It should solely be handled by the religious institutions that created it.
Click to expand...
So you hope. :roll:
 
Goobieman said:
That's as thin as arguing that 'not allowing same-sex marriage doesnt disctiminate against gender because all men and all women can still get married.'

So, there's an obvious need for 'more'.
Click to expand...


If I can do something legally that a woman can not do that is not equal.
 
winston53660 said:
If I can do something legally that a woman can not do that is not equal.
Click to expand...
Nothing here affects my post in any way.
You can get married. A woman can get married.
Thus: More.
 
Last edited:
winston53660 said:
If I can do something legally that a woman can not do that is not equal.
Click to expand...

Like voluntarily eliminate your parental obligations?

Try telling the judge you don't want to pay child support because you wanted her to abort.
 
Goobieman said:
Nothing here affects my post in any way.
You can get married. A woman can get married.
Thus: More.
Click to expand...

14th:

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Click to expand...

If I can do something legally that a woman can not do legally that is not equal.
 
Captain America said:
Like voluntarily eliminate your parental obligations?

Try telling the judge you don't want to pay child support because you wanted her to abort.
Click to expand...

Can a man sue her because she did abort?

But this is really a different subject from the one being discussed now.
 
winston53660 said:
Can a man sue her because she did abort?

But this is really a different subject from the one being discussed now.
Click to expand...

Tru dat. But I am trying to point out, in general, that I don't think there will ever be such a thing as true equality. To many social factors and "what-if's" involved.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I always enjoy it when people throw out this fallacious argument. You do understand that there are many reasons why government supports and encourages marriage. These reasons occur through heterosexual marriage and through homosexual marriage, but not through polygamy.

But please show us how plural marriage benefits the government and society to bolster your argument that polygamy would be sanctioned.

This ought to be good.
Click to expand...

I gave a pretty good quote from a judge, I tend to agree with that POV. Did you read it?
 
I don't even see the merit in the argument here. Each situation should be considered on it's own merits which is why the slippery slope argument is so horrible. If we're ascribing to the slippery slope idea then we should certainly get rid of interracial marriage because the legalization of that is often used by supporters of same-sex marriage in their justification. Going back even we would probably have to get rid of marriage all together since marriage leads to people wanting equality in marriage rights (interracial/same-sex) and before you know it everybody is required to marry underage cat/toaster hybrids.

The court made the right ruling and I hear that it will be three years before the constitution could be amended so hopefully this will be secure by then instead of having an immediate reactionary backlash.
 
Ikari said:
If this is the game we're playing, doesn't fault then lie withing the SCotUS? It was the courts which ruled originally that the marriage license could not be applied to just interracial marriage. They changed marriage from between a man and a woman of the same race to just a man and a woman. So if that was changed, it is the source of all the downfall. Because clearly we as humans can't be rational about this so if we allow same sex marriage, we're totally going to allow polygamy, and let's throw in bestiality in there cause why do we have to limit it to the same species? Let's take the slippery slope and see where it goes, of course if we always did that nothing would get done. And in this instance it's very possible to be rational about this. But since we're not using rational arguments, then we'll tread back up the slippery slope to where it all started. We should never have allowed interracial marriage, that paved the way for the downfall of marriage. The purpose of the marriage license was to discriminate, it's still used that way (wonders how humanity grows).
Click to expand...

I believe that when the Supreme Court is faced with the issue of same-sex marriage, with the current make-up of the Court, it will rule in favor of it.

The last significant ruling on gay rights was with Lawrence and Garner v. Texas (Regarding homosexuals in general): "Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government," wrote Justice Kennedy. "The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual."

Justice Kennedy: "In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992), the Court reaffirmed the substantive force of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause. The Casey decision again confirmed that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. In explaining the respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these choices, we stated as follows:

'These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.'"

Six justices signed onto the majority in Lawrence and Garner v. Texas. Only one justice, Sandra Day O'Connor, wrote a separate concurring opinion stating the government had a right to regulate marriage. All five justices who signed the majority, without the concurrence, are still on the Court (Kennedy, Breyer, Souter, Stevens, Ginsgurg).

LAWRENCE ET AL. v. TEXAS 539 U.S. 558 -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom