• 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

I'm for gay marriage and all, but I think that people should vote on it before some court makes a decision which basically creates a new law. Actually, I don't think that only applies to this issue, but that's beside the point.

This undemocratic procedure could possibly just be making people angrier at the gay rights activists.
 
Last edited:
I'm for gay marriage and all, but I think that people should vote on it before some court makes a decision which basically creates a new law. Actually, I don't think that only applies to this issue, but that's beside the point.

This undemocratic procedure could possibly just be making people angrier at the gay rights activists.

Constitutional Rights/Privileges should never be subjected to a simple majority vote. The whole idea behind a "constitution" is that the minority should not be subject to the whim of the majority when it comes to fundamental rights and privileges.
 
It currently is.
One person has the equal 'Right" to marry someone of the opposite gender.
There is no discrimination in this.

The same was said of inter-racial marriage. There is no discrimination in this, one person has the equal right to marry someone of their own race.
 
The same was said of inter-racial marriage. There is no discrimination in this, one person has the equal right to marry someone of their own race.
Your point is moot.
This isn't about race.
 
And the road to polygamy opens further.

Good news too, there are a lot of hot women I need to work on marrying.

What's wrong with polygamy? I never understood the ban on it in the first place, other than the mormons abusing their version of xianity to be letches of young girls. As long as you are an adult and you give your consent to be married, who's business is it what race, sex or number of people are involved?

I though cons were against the government intruding on the private lives of citizens....
 
Constitutional Rights/Privileges should never be subjected to a simple majority vote. The whole idea behind a "constitution" is that the minority should not be subject to the whim of the majority when it comes to fundamental rights and privileges.

Of course, you're forgetting the fact that, whether you think it should or shouldn't be subject to a majority vote, it almost certainly will be, in the form of a constitutional amendment.
 
It currently is.
One person has the equal 'Right" to marry someone of the opposite gender.
There is no discrimination in this.

That is a "separate but equal" doctrine that was struck down by the Court in Brown v. Board of Education.

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.
 
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.
Actually, it would be much easier for you to list those benefits to the government that plural marriage doesn't offer.

This should be good.
 
Not in the least. There are reasons that the government sponsors and advocates for marriage. This has nothing to do with discrimination nor "rights". It has to do with the things that marriage brings to society and why government would want to promote those things.

Please show how polygamy accomplishes these things.
You've said this twice now without listing those reasons. So why not list them for us. ;)
 
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).
Actually, I don't think it's possible to make a valid argument for bestiality. An animal can't give consent, argument over.
 
The institution of marriage seems to me to be a religious one, therefore the government should stay out of that business and let the churches decide who gets married.

If the government is going to be involved, and I believe they should not, then they should call them all civil unions. That includes same-sex marriage and polygamy. It is not the business of the government, being a public entity for the entire population of the country, to dictate who consentingly marries who.

This is a perfect example of why I do not support the modern gay-marriage movement.

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with sexual preference.

You just said that enforcing the law is not the government’s business, that the government needs to keep it's nose out of rights and privileges under the law.

You aren't making any sense at all.

There's not even enough logic in your post to object to. There's really nothing there at all.
 
But wait... if marriage is religious, does that mean that atheists shouldn't be allowed to get married?
 
That is a "separate but equal" doctrine that was struck down by the Court in Brown v. Board of Education.

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.

I'm not sure what that ruling has to do with anything, but Brown v. Board of Education merely said that black schools must be as good as white schools, and that if, IF a given black person wanted to attend a white school, that said black person could not be barred from doing so on the sole account of race.

This ruling has nothing to do with marriage.
 
That is a "separate but equal" doctrine that was struck down by the Court in Brown v. Board of Education.

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.

Me personally, I don't even support hetero-marriage for the sake of equality, so arguing for gay-marriage on the basis of equality is a waste of your time.
 
That is a "separate but equal" doctrine that was struck down by the Court in Brown v. Board of Education.

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.
Your point is moot.
This isn't about race.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.





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:
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. :mrgreen:


:applaud
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
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.....
 
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.:2razz:
 
Back
Top Bottom