• 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

disneydude said:
It is a signature victory. When even Mid-America begins to recognize it, the battle is won....if not tomorrow, then the day after that.
Click to expand...

Mid-America didn't recognize it. Your own link even says it. Lambda a NY based special interest group filed the lawsuit.

Try to keep up with the facts in your own thread.
 
TheNextEra said:
If it is not a contractual meaning to prodcue children than a contract of marriage doesn't matter whether they produce or not.
Click to expand...
What do you mean? It does not have to be in the license for that to be an important social role of marriage. That is my point in the same way any institution usually does more, and often more important things, than what its central ideational role is.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Too easy Jerry. Procreation as a reason for the state to have a compelling interest in marriage is negated by the fact that obtaining a marriage license is not contingent on the agreement to have children. If it were, since marriage is a contract, if a couple decided to not procreate, the marriage license would be void. This does not occur. Adoption is also a piece that indicates that child-rearing, not procreation is the component that is being addressed. Child-rearing is one of the reasons the state has a compelling interest in marriage, but not the only one. Health and creating a stable society are also reasons. These things are accomplished by both hetero-sexual and homo-sexual marriages.
Click to expand...

Capt'n, it's like questioning a mod action on this board.

A given incident may not be that bad, and in fact many acts of questioning mod actions may be relatively harmless or 3 point infractions at worst.

However, a strict rule with rigid enforcement and a harsh penalty needs to be in place to preserve the overall cohesiveness of many threads over a long period of time.

If you begin to allow exceptions to the rule then the rule is chipped away at, more and more threads degrade into bickering over rules technicalities (= your refrences to adoption and infertile hetero couples), more and more questions are pressed and challenges made until finally the mod's authority collapses.

The same concept is true of marriage. Gay marriage itself may not be so bad, but the more we allow people to chip away at the rule the less meaning and authority that rule has; until finally it the social bond itself collapses.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
It does not have to be in the license for that to be an important social role of marriage.
Click to expand...

Well there are people that can't have kids that get involved with marriages. So your point is moot.

Either Marriage is a contract that means you will produce kids or it is a contract in where the production of kids doesn't matter.

The fact is marriage is a contract where the production of kids doesn't matter.

So bringing up that marriage CAN produce kids doesn't make it ANYWAY a matter of legality. Case closed on that. Come up with a better reason.
 
I know it's futile to post in such a flooded thread, but it's my
human duty to say this: with the problems we face today,
it doesn't matter. This issue is just a diversion.
 
TheNextEra said:
Well there are people that can't have kids that get involved with marriages. So your point is moot.
Click to expand...

See Capt'n? Exceptions to the rule are used to further degrade the rule itself.

***
Imo the law alone can not resolve the issue, ever. Using only the law, we either have to issue a marriage under the strictest conditions and alienate adoption and couples who don't know they're infertile, or, we have to allow just anyone to marry just anyone and marriage become non-functional.

This is why the Constitution was meant for "a religious and moral people". The Constitution is not equipped to deal with a society who does not share a common general understanding of the Natural Law premise.
 
Last edited:
TheNextEra said:
Well there are people that can't have kids that get involved with marriages. So your point is moot.
Click to expand...
Not really. This is the direct argument of Bonald's I was drawing from. The fact they can't have children does not lessen the social role of marriage to produce and raise children in a stable environment. You are simply confused by the fact that the ideational place of marriage in our society is far wider than the strict functionalism we are talking about.

Either Marriage is a contract that means you will produce kids or it is a contract in where the production of kids doesn't matter.

The fact is marriage is a contract where the production of kids doesn't matter.

So bringing up that marriage CAN produce kids doesn't make it ANYWAY a matter of legality. Case closed on that. Come up with a better reason.
Click to expand...
Again the main role of marriage or any institution need not be its main ideational one. So your argument fails.

Now I'm not arguing here against GM, simply that a major social role of marriage is creating stable relationships for children to be raised in and as the centre of the important kinship association which helps to support the individual and maintain his freedom, personality and meaning in life. It does this though while enmeshed in other institutions and within its own ideational, or ideological, place in society that is distinct from but feeds into this.

I'm simply interested in not causing this to be lost within these debates.
 
Jerry said:
This is why the Constitution was meant for "a religious and moral people". The Constitution is not equipped to deal with a society who does not share a common general understanding of the Natural Law premise.
Click to expand...

If the constitution was meant for a religious and moral people, freedom of speech would not have been allowed.

It seems you are the one that is at a loss. Maybe Iran would better suit your "Morals".
 
Last edited:
Midwest Lib said:
I agree with your preferred solution because I believe strongly in the separation of church and state. In the church's eyes (because marriage WAS initially a sacrament received through the church) marriage should be between a man and a woman, and I find that to be completely acceptable. What I find to be unacceptable and downright discriminatory is the lack of a suitable alternative for homosexuals. The reason its unjust and discriminatory is because of the social benefits that a homosexual couple has no option of getting. Let a gay couple have rights such as insurance, life and death benefits and take the title off of it completely. Send it through another office and put a different name tag on it, but don't strip a couple of the rights that every other straight couple is entitled to just because of a word.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, but...

no court is empowered to create government agencies, establish new government standards, or rewrite government regulations.

Yes, there is a potent argument for injustice within the topic of gay marriage, but that argument requires legislative not judicial remedy. As Marbury v. Madison clearly demonstrates, it is possible for a court to acknowledge the right without needing to manufacture a remedy when that remedy is distinctly beyond its competence.
 
TheNextEra said:
If the constitution was meant for a religious and moral people, freedom of speech would not have been allowed.

It seems you are the one that is at a loss. Maybe Iran would better suit your "Morals".
Click to expand...

Oh wow, your personal attacks totaly changed my point of view :roll:
 
Jerry said:
Oh wow, your personal attacks totaly changed my point of view :roll:
Click to expand...

Not a personal attack just a comment on someone who feels the constitution sho0uld be only for religious and moral people.
 
Wessexman said:
That is a non sequitur. The conclusion is far from necessary from the premise.
Click to expand...

so you think the U.S. constitution is only meant for a religious and moral people?
 
lawshume said:
I know it's futile to post in such a flooded thread, but it's my
human duty to say this: with the problems we face today,
it doesn't matter. This issue is just a diversion.
Click to expand...

It's not futile, merely wrong.

THIS issue especially is not a diversion. The rights of men, the manner and modes by which people will live their lives, are at the core of what a free and democratic society is all about.

This is a debate which needs to happen, and forums such as DP are the place where it needs to happen--not in legislative chambers, but among people. It is here, not a courtroom or a house of Congress, where social consensus is formed. It is here that the will of "we the people" crystallizes and takes shape.

This discussion especially is worth the time and the trouble.
 
celticlord said:
It's not futile, merely wrong.

THIS issue especially is not a diversion. The rights of men, the manner and modes by which people will live their lives, are at the core of what a free and democratic society is all about.

This is a debate which needs to happen, and forums such as DP are the place where it needs to happen--not in legislative chambers, but among people. It is here, not a courtroom or a house of Congress, where social consensus is formed. It is here that the will of "we the people" crystallizes and takes shape.

This discussion especially is worth the time and the trouble.
Click to expand...

Holy ****!!!!! I actually agree with Celtic for once.

There has to be an alignment of planets somewhere for this one to happen.
 
TheNextEra said:
so you think the U.S. constitution is only meant for a religious and moral people?
Click to expand...

He meant it was made for a religious and moral people. Or that is what I got. As in it is not some magic document that can operate and maintain liberty among a decadent and corrupt people.
 
Wessexman said:
He meant it was made for a religious and moral people. Or that is what I got. As in it is not some magic document that can operate and maintain liberty among a decadent and corrupt people.
Click to expand...

In that case you are wrong. It was EXACTLY meant for those that don't follow a religooin.

That was the whole point of the consitution, to not FORCE religious on someone.

Maybe you and others need to research why we have the constitution the way we do.

If it was for a religious person they would have made it religious. The founding fathers didn't for a reason.

Just because someone isn't religious doesn't mean they can't contribute to society.

As for morality, that is subjective. To some having sex for anything other than procreation is immoral.

So who's definition of morals will you use? That is why morality is not entered into the constitution which is what the founding fathers wanted.
 
Last edited:
TheNextEra said:
In that case you are wrong. It was EXACTLY meant for those that don't follow a religooin.

That was the whole point of the consitution, to not FORCE religious on someone.
Click to expand...
Of course they didn't want to force religion onto someone. However they certainly did construct it for a people who were religious and moral. It was not made for abstract people but the American people of the time and the FF's were sure of this. They knew it required a certain kind of national and individual temperament for it to be maintained.

If it was for a religious person they would have made it religious. The founding fathers didn't for a reason.
Click to expand...
Your argument doesn't make sense, it is a non sequitur. Your conclusions keep not following from your premises.

Just because someone isn't religious doesn't mean they can't contribute to society.
Click to expand...
That is debatable.:mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
~John Adams

The law can not govern the corrupt or criminal.
 
Jerry said:
The law can not govern the corrupt or criminal.
Click to expand...

Well that would explain you. Now what about the rest of us that aren't corrupt?
 
Wessexman said:
Of course they didn't want to force religion onto someone. However they certainly did construct it for a people who were religious and moral. It was not made for abstract people but the American people of the time and the FF's were sure of this. They knew it required a certain kind of national and individual temperament for it to be maintained.

Your argument doesn't make sense, it is a non sequitur. Your conclusions keep not following from your premises.

That is debatable.:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Again none of what you said refutes what I said. Try again.

What do you define as moral? Those that obey the bible? If so you have failed, because the bible isn't where we define the definition of moral from.
 
Jerry said:
Wow, more personal attacks, your logic is undeniable :roll:
Click to expand...

No personal attack just my opinion. Just as you think those that are for gay marriage are immoral.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom