• 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

Fixxxer said:
It is not unconstitutional. The Constitution says nothing at all about gay marriage. That means the right to decide weather or not it is legal is the state's right.
Click to expand...
Some could, rightfully, argue that it is unconstitutional since it is depriving a citizen of the pursuit of liberty and happiness as well as being discriminatory which is also unconstitutional.
 
Jerry said:
Ahh so we have to allow polygamy, according to you, since Marital Status is a protected class.

Oh you don't like the polygamy angle? Ok, then you have to allow incest since Familial Relation is a protected class.

Pft, "Discrimination is illegal", as if that's true ;)

Yup, not allowing gay marriage is discrimination, and that is acceptable and ethical.
Click to expand...
Polygamy yes, incest no. I think you know the reason so don't bother being obtuse.
 
Coolguy said:
No... it is not discrimination or an injustice.


The relationship isn't the same.



There is inequality because the relationships are not the same.


No they are not.


Are you saying that the men who formulated, wrote and signed the Constitution would support gay marriage?
I highly doubt it... And they clearly new what this country stands for.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you're wrong on every account. If you'd like to defend or discuss your comments you'll have to expond on them a bit more.
 
Midwest Lib said:
"Are you saying that the men who formulated, wrote and signed the Constitution would support gay marriage?
I highly doubt it... And they clearly new what this country stands for."

That is incredibly arrogant firstly. To say this country stands for something because you say so is just ridiculous. Secondly using the founding fathers beliefs in an era long past is illogical as well. For example, there are founding fathers that had slaves. Do you support slavery because there are founding fathers who were ok with it? A document that old, regardless of its significance and important content will not completely pertain to modern American civilization.
Click to expand...

Like the bible. :doh
 
Coolguy said:
Marriage is a term used to describe the union between those of the opposite gender and should not be usurped by the homosexual community to get the same status and privileges, especially when a same gender union is different from an opposite gender union.
Click to expand...
And when did this definition come into being?

How is a homosexual union different than a heterosexual union?
 
Coolguy said:
The problem resided in recognition. Not with the union itself.
If Civil Unions had the same 'rights' and privileges guaranteed. There would be no problem.
Click to expand...

I can see no reason why they wouldn't contain the same rights.

To obtain recognition through the usurpation of the term marriage, is the wrong way to go.
Click to expand...
Since the term has been "usurped" many times your statement is irrelevant.

Not at all.
They both receive a Contract of Union, same gender couples get to call theirs a Civil Union and opposite gender couples get to call theirs a Marriage.
Same recognition, but different in name only because of the difference in the genders involved.
Click to expand...

Why does the gender of the individuals have any impact on the contract?

Like said: "I find it funny that the homosexual community wants to be respected, but in turn, show great disrespect in their attempted efforts to get there."

It is very disrespectful for the homosexual community to try and usurp the term.
Click to expand...
The current definition is a usurpation to begin with.


Yep, marriage used to be a contract of ownership rather than union.
But historically, and for the vast majority of all occurrences, it has always been between a man and a woman.
A few occurrences of same gender unions usurping the term Marriage does not supplant what it means, or shows that it has changed.
Click to expand...

OH well looky here... I'm glad you recognize the problem with your use of "usurping" the term. To bad you don't follow that just one step farther.

Different gender versus same gender. That clearly isn't the same.
Click to expand...
Please explain the relevance of the difference.
 
celticlord said:
Captain, need I remind you that the position of "no religion" is itself a religious position, and thus, paradoxically, "'NO' religion" is still religion?

You can disclaim the need for a sacred text -- that is a religious statement.

No it's not.

You can deny the existence of a Deity -- that is a religious statement.

No it's not.

You can deny that anything beyond the empirical world of the senses exists -- that is a religious statement.

No it's not.

When you make religious statements, you are practicing religion.

That is true.

What unites the Atheist with the Fundamentalist is their fervent faith in their own beliefs; one is neither more nor less religious than the other.
Click to expand...
This exposes your lack of understand of atheism.
Click to expand...
 
Slippery Slope said:
Polygamy yes, incest no. I think you know the reason so don't bother being obtuse.
Click to expand...

For as long as people with other genetic diseases are allowed to marry there is no reason so you can take your personal attack and shove it :2wave:
 
Ikari said:
I used the fact that the communist regimes forcibly suppress the expression and establishment of religion and actively discourage the engagement in religion. Atheism has no such tenet (it has no tenets in fact, other than there being no god). Atheism doesn't seek destruction of other religions, it's merely a philosophy of itself. Anti-theism, on the other hand, is just as described. It's the active search to destroy religion as it can be practiced by the people, it's completely different than atheism.

If you want to talk about "true" atheist governments, I would say the closest you can come is that of a secular government. One in which no religion is promoted or disparaged.
Click to expand...
I don't think you can credibly make that statement since there is no "atheist society" to compare to. I also disagree with your definition of Anti-theism as well as it's comparison to communism.
 
Jerry said:
Yup.



Not so long as people with other genetic diseases are allowed to get married.



The argument I'm making here isn't necessarily opposed to gay-marriage.

I'm saying gay-marriage not a civil rights issue. You can still establish gay-marriage without it being a civil rights issue. Society can come together and say "you know, gays may not be 'entitled' to marriage, but we think gay-marriage would be a good thing so we're gona go ahead and allow it."

Without opposing gay-marriage I'm pointing out that since there is no 'fundamental right' to *marry* just whomever you want, there is no right being denied and therefore no "discrimination".

Gays are confusing the fundamental right of free association with the fundamental right to marry. Go ahead and love who you want, make a life and live with whom you please. Marriage, however, serve a purpose, and ANYONE who doesn't intend or can not fulfill that purpose has no business getting married.

Even in futile Japan and Rome where gay relationships were the accepted norm, marriage was always respected for it's function and neither society sought to have same-sex "marriages".
Click to expand...

What is the purpose? I was not given a hand guide, so consequently I am probably not achieving the intended purpose.
 
Coolguy said:
No... it is not discrimination or an injustice.

Sure they are...


The relationship isn't the same.

No relationship is the same...

There is inequality because the relationships are not the same.

No relationship is the same...

No they are not.

Yes they are...

Are you saying that the men who formulated, wrote and signed the Constitution would support gay marriage?
I highly doubt it... And they clearly new what this country stands for.

Where in the world do you do you get that from? :lol:
Click to expand...
 
Slippery Slope said:
I don't think you can credibly make that statement since there is no "atheist society" to compare to. I also disagree with your definition of Anti-theism as well as it's comparison to communism.
Click to expand...

You can disagree all you like. I don't see atheism in and of itself as much a threat as mostly that works its way out in very secular ways. The only calls against religion comes from anti-theists which is definitely pushed by any ideology which wants to make the government to be the supreme, ultimate power which can not be questioned by anything including gods. Communist governments in practice are pretty much this definition.
 
Coolguy;1057982501 said:
Are you saying that the men who formulated, wrote and signed the Constitution would support gay marriage?
I highly doubt it... And they clearly new what this country stands for.[/SIZE][/FONT][/I]
Click to expand...

They may or may not support gay marriage, I doubt highly that the issue was ever given much thought at the time (what do you think?), but I can guarantee one thing...they would support equal protection and standards of fairness...and ultimately that is what is involved in this issue.
 
Coolguy said:
To obtain recognition through the usurpation of the term marriage, is the wrong way to go.[/I]
Click to expand...

This is always one of my favorite anti-gay marriage arguments...the arrogance that people have an exclusive claim of right to a word based solely on sexual orientation.

Does this mean that gays can now forbid straights from using the word "fabulous"?
 
Last edited:
Bodhisattva said:
What is the purpose? I was not given a hand guide, so consequently I am probably not achieving the intended purpose.
Click to expand...

The purpose of the institution of marriage is to promote the formation and maintenance the Nuclear Family, as this is in the best interests of any children being raised and by extension society as a whole.
 
Last edited:
Marriage is not a right. It is a discriminatory institution that confers benefits upon a specifically defined group of people. If people are going to claim a gay couple has the "right" to a marriage then I'm going to claim I have a "right" to a minority housing grant.
 
Jerry said:
The purpose of the institution of marriage is to promote the formation and maintenance the Nuclear Family, as this is in the best interests of any children being raised and by extension society as a whole.
Click to expand...


Are you claiming that two men can't raise a child as good as or better than a man and a woman or that two men two women can't be a nuclear family?
 
Ethereal said:
Marriage is not a right. It is a discriminatory institution that confers benefits upon a specifically defined group of people. If people are going to claim a gay couple has the "right" to a marriage then I'm going to claim I have a "right" to a minority housing grant.
Click to expand...

I agree... minority grants and such are just as discriminating...
 
disneydude said:
They may or may not support gay marriage, I doubt highly that the issue was ever given much thought at the time (what do you think?), but I can guarantee one thing...they would support equal protection and standards of fairness...and ultimately that is what is involved in this issue.
Click to expand...
Equal protection and fairness have never been a part of this issue, nor will they ever be a part of this issue.

"Fairness" requires a bit more than people crying "unfair!".
 
Bodhisattva said:
Are you claiming that two men can't raise a child as good as or better than a man and a woman or that two men two women can't be a nuclear family?
Click to expand...

If The People decided to allow gay marriage because the evidence shows that gays can raise children just as well as there hetero counter parts, fine; but it's still not a civil rights issue.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Are you claiming that two men can't raise a child as good as or better than a man and a woman or that two men two women can't be a nuclear family?
Click to expand...
Are you claiming that marriage is a necessity to raise a child, or to form a family?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom