• 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

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

There are cases where women have had to child support as well. My girlfriends X actually sued for sole custody and child support as well.
 
Goobieman said:
Again:
Nothing here affects my post in any way.
You can get married. A woman can get married.
Thus: More.
Click to expand...

So, you get married to a woman and a woman gets married to you.

More?

I don't think so skippy.

Single people get more. Much more.

Believe that.

:rofl
 
Goobieman said:
Again:
Nothing here affects my post in any way.
You can get married. A woman can get married.
Thus: More.
Click to expand...

Equal protection under the law does affect your argument. Same does not mean equal. I can do something legally that a woman can not do that is not equal.
 
Captain America said:
So, you get married to a woman and a woman gets married to you.
More?
I don't think so skippy.
Single people get more. Much more.
Click to expand...
Having been single twice now -- I know. :mrgreen:
 
I call this a victory, a victory for society. The fact that resistance against gay marriage is so strong that the left actually has to resort to the force of the courts. Legally, the gays may have their rights, but in society, well, I am happy to say it will be long after we are all dead before our society will denegrate to accepting gay marriage as "civil".
 
Note that the issue at hand here was a state law ruled to violate the IA Constitution.

Should the people of IA be of a mind to do so, they can amend the Constitution to the same effect, rendering the ruling moot.

Many states have done this, for this same reason.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
I call this a victory, a victory for society. The fact that resistance against gay marriage is so strong that the left actually has to resort to the force of the courts. Legally, the gays may have their rights, but in society, well, I am happy to say it will be long after we are all dead before our society will denegrate to accepting gay marriage as "civil".
Click to expand...

Can you believe that some people are actually proud of that too?

At least we don't have the Taliban to deal with here. :mrgreen:

So I guess we should count ourselves lucky I suppose.

It could be much worse.
 
Last edited:
DarkWizard12 said:
I call this a victory, a victory for society. The fact that resistance against gay marriage is so strong that the left actually has to resort to the force of the courts. Legally, the gays may have their rights, but in society, well, I am happy to say it will be long after we are all dead before our society will denegrate to accepting gay marriage as "civil".
Click to expand...

And the right had to run to Congress.
 
MrVicchio said:
I gave a pretty good quote from a judge, I tend to agree with that POV. Did you read it?
Click to expand...

I read it and I've seen it before. It doesn't, really, address my question. The government supports marriage for a variety of reasons. Heterosexual marriage has been shown to result in those reasons being fulfilled. So does homosexual marriage. One cannot make the argument that homosexual marriage would lead to polygamy unless one can show that the things that the government deems as important, society-wise, in regards to marriage, can apply to polygamy. Can you show that polygamous marriage fulfills governmental reasons for supporting marriage? If you cannot, then this is a false conclusion.
 
Goobieman said:
Note that the issue at hand here was a state law ruled to violate the IA Constitution.

Should the people of IA be of a mind to do so, they can amend the Constitution to the same effect, rendering the ruling moot.

Many states have done this, for this same reason.
Click to expand...

In Texas only 13%of eligible voters showed up when gay marriage was on the ballot. Not all voted to the amend the Constitution here.

I'd say the majority could care less if gays get married.
 
winston53660 said:
In Texas only 13%of eligible voters showed up when gay marriage was on the ballot. Not all voted to the amend the Constitution here.

I'd say the majority could care less if gays get married.
Click to expand...
The amenment passed, so I'd say the majority could care less if they do not.
 
winston53660 said:
In Texas only 13%of eligible voters showed up when gay marriage was on the ballot. Not all voted to the amend the Constitution here.

I'd say the majority could care less if gays get married.
Click to expand...

I believe the only reason gay marriage is ever put on a ballot to begin with is to draw more social conservatives to the voting booths. Usually, it seems, that the issue is put on the ballots during election season and does not stand alone in and of itself. It is often "added" to the same ballot, right along side the names of people running for public office. I always thought it to be voter manipulation at it's best. Add a social wedge issue to the ballot so more Republican social conservaatives show up to vote, giving the GOP the edge in the election.

The same could be said for marijuana legalization. Add that issue to the ballot and all the liberals would show up in droves thus favoring the democrats.

These issues should stand alone and NOT be included with any other issues on the ballot such a office elections.
 
Captain America said:
I believe the only reason gay marriage is ever put on a ballot to begin with is to draw more social conservatives to the voting booths.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't putting gay marriage on the ballot also serve to draw more social liberals to the voting booth?

Wouldn't more gays come out to vote? And their friends and supporters?



:confused:
 
Captain America said:
I believe the only reason gay marriage is ever put on a ballot to begin with is to draw more social conservatives to the voting booths. Usually, it seems, that the issue is put on the ballots during election season and does not stand alone in and of itself. It is often "added" to the same ballot, right along side the names of people running for public office. I always thought it to be voter manipulation at it's best. Add a social wedge issue to the ballot so more Republican social conservaatives show up to vote, giving the GOP the edge in the election.

The same could be said for marijuana legalization. Add that issue to the ballot and all the liberals would show up in droves thus favoring the democrats.

These issues should stand alone and NOT be included with any other issues on the ballot such a office elections.
Click to expand...


Constitutional rights should never be put to a simple majority ballot.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I read it and I've seen it before. It doesn't, really, address my question. The government supports marriage for a variety of reasons. Heterosexual marriage has been shown to result in those reasons being fulfilled. So does homosexual marriage. One cannot make the argument that homosexual marriage would lead to polygamy unless one can show that the things that the government deems as important, society-wise, in regards to marriage, can apply to polygamy. Can you show that polygamous marriage fulfills governmental reasons for supporting marriage? If you cannot, then this is a false conclusion.
Click to expand...
Except that you are making a false argument. The reason for the IASC ruling had nothing to do with the "government reasons for supporting marriage" if that were the sole basis, marriage would only be granted to couples with intent to procreate, ergo homosexuals would be ineligible based on biology.

Of course we can go around that with adoptions and turkey baster kids, but that's not the point.

Two men and a woman wish to be married. They point out that the two men can earn enough to raise their two children the three have, and the woman can stay home and take care of the children better then any two of them could.

Thus the government need is met. And since the courts have determined two men may marry, for fairness, what basis have you for denying three?

See how easy that was?
 
I, for one, am proud that the Iowa Supreme Court has legitimized same-sex marriage. Iowa is part of America's heartland, and could lay the foundation for other heartland states to eventually come around and do the right thing. Another generation or two that passes should help weed out the older generational mindset against homosexual equality.

Kudos to Iowa and the Iowa people! :2wave:
 
In the end, there is precedent against polygamy in that we wouldn't allow Utah into the union less they got rid of it.
 
It seems that the main argument against same-sex marriage in this thread is that it will lead to polygamy. With that reasoning, should heterosexual marriage be banned because it has lead to homosexuals wanting it also? Should heterosexual marriage be banned because it will lead to polygamists wanting it also?

Why should the government not recognize same-sex marriage and polygamy?
 
Grateful Heart said:
Wouldn't putting gay marriage on the ballot also serve to draw more social liberals to the voting booth?

Wouldn't more gays come out to vote? And their friends and supporters?



:confused:
Click to expand...

The difference is, the straight people who are adamantly against gay rights, make the effort to show up and do something about it with their vote.

The straight people who really could care less, one way or the other, (and I think that's where the majority of society fits in) don't bother to come out and vote one way or another because it simply doesn't concern them.

You see, gay marriage only effects you if you let it. Some people don't have anything better to do than to worry about it. Most people could care less. Which ones do you think are more likely to show up and vote one way or another?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom