Iowa strkes down ban on same-sex marriage

soulsinging

prfctlefts wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

IMO This issue isn't about the acceptance of gay marriage.It's about a bunch of liberal activist judges trying to impose their vision of America on the entire country. They are going around the people and people dont like it. The truth is that many people who oppose gay marriage do so because they believe that society is better served by putting traditional marriage in a special place. I believe that America is a strong place because of it's core values,freedom,individual responsibility,and institutions like TRADITIONAL marriage which foster common goals.
E PLURIBISUNAM,OUT OF MANY ONE
some activist judges would like to tear that philosophy down,but they have no right to decide how this country operates and what the law should be.The people decide that by voting. In the case of gay marriage in California they decided that marriage should be between a man and a woman and also most of these voters were african american that also voted for Obama, and that decision should be respected.

What is traditional marriage? Please define it for me. Because according to the Bible (the source "traditional marriage" people tend to use) it includes having multiple wives and taking on a few whores if your wife isn't putting out or giving kids. Ever heard of Abraham? Or we could go to medieval marriage, which didn't really exist for most people as they were too poor. Or we could go to our forefathers in Rennaisance and Victorian England, when marriage had nothing to do with love or affection and was solely a business contract. Is that what you're hoping for?

Oh, right. What you mean by "traditional marriage" is that thing popularized by tv shows in the 50's, where married couples slept in separate beds and all. I hate to be the guy pissing on your parade, but unfortunately, that kind of marriage never existed outside of tv world and Norman Rockwell paintings. Welcome to reality.

why do you have to be so condescending ?
1 man+1 woman=traditional marriage .

I'm not condescending, I'm asking you a legitimate question. You made the statement, let's see you back it up. How is that a traditional marriage? Why isn't polygamy traditional? It's been around a hell of a lot longer than 1 man + 1 woman. If we're talking traditional here... that's one old tradition. Or buying a wife... that's a good, solid tradition with a lot of history too. What tradition are you talking about here? Arranged marriages to secure wealth and political power? Incestuous marriages were also very traditional up until about 100 years ago. Which tradition are you talking about here? Why is yours the "correct" tradition and the others are wrong? Step up to the plate culture warrior... let's see some reason.

WaveCameCrashin

I think you know what tradition I'm referring to.If you don't well....
the institution of whereby one man and one woman joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family. were your folks not married and just so you know I could care less if gays want to get married or any other kind of lifestyle for that matter. I just happen to disagree with it . and besides the pieces dont fit. Not to mention Im a christian and It's against what I believe in and that's my god given right I dont bash you for your beliefs so dont bash me

soulsinging

prfctlefts wrote:

I think you know what tradition I'm referring to.If you don't well....
the institution of whereby one man and one woman joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family. were your folks not married and just so you know I could care less if gays want to get married or any other kind of lifestyle for that matter. I just happen to disagree with it . and besides the pieces dont fit. Not to mention Im a christian and It's against what I believe in and that's my god given right I dont bash you for your beliefs so dont bash me

I know exactly what tradition you're referring to. My point is why is that tradition something we should stick to while other traditions (like buying wives, having multiple wives, or using arranged marriages) should all be discarded? Who decides which traditions we stick to and how do they decide? All of those options I listed were in the Bible... yet I don't hear you arguing that it's ok for a man to take a second wife like Abraham did, though you do argue that homosexuality is wrong because of a Bible passage. How do you decide which Christian values are still good and which ones we can ignore because they're outdated?

decides2dream

i think the most important area of focus in this type of discussion is simply - what is LAWFUL, what follows the constitution? in this case, what follows iowa state's constitution? THAT is where it all lies, or at least it should...and in this case, it did.

personal religious beliefs are just that; personal......religious.....beliefs. while they are important to YOU, and to how you choose to live your life, and rightly so.....they really have absolutely ZERO business comingling with our laws for ALL. for a country based on religious freedom, it sure does seem that SOME people's religious beliefs get to, or try to, hold far too much sway/influence in our government. that is wrong. that also does not mean we have no morality, our laws are our morality....but they also need to support independence and personal freedoms of choice.

as far as the government is concerned, marriage is a LEGAL CONTRACT. whatever else significance marriage may have, is OUTSIDE the governement, and in your church, your personal commitment ceremony, whatever. homosexuals are just as much entitled to the legal protections/responsibilities of marriage as heterosexuals. 'family' may or may not come into it, at all. there are PLENTY of heterosexual married couples who are child-free, and by choice.....so marriage is about legal marriage.....family may or may not be a by-product of such. two consenting adults choosing to live their lives together, choosing to unite, legally, for the protections it afford their partner, etc.....it's a personal choice, it has no bearing on anyone else, and it should absolutely be legal across the board, regardless of sexual orientation.

soulsinging

soulsinging wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

I think you know what tradition I'm referring to.If you don't well....
the institution of whereby one man and one woman joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family. were your folks not married and just so you know I could care less if gays want to get married or any other kind of lifestyle for that matter. I just happen to disagree with it . and besides the pieces dont fit. Not to mention Im a christian and It's against what I believe in and that's my god given right I dont bash you for your beliefs so dont bash me

I know exactly what tradition you're referring to. My point is why is that tradition something we should stick to while other traditions (like buying wives, having multiple wives, or using arranged marriages) should all be discarded? Who decides which traditions we stick to and how do they decide? All of those options I listed were in the Bible... yet I don't hear you arguing that it's ok for a man to take a second wife like Abraham did, though you do argue that homosexuality is wrong because of a Bible passage. How do you decide which Christian values are still good and which ones we can ignore because they're outdated?

*chirp*chirp*crickets*crickets*

Figured as much.

Cosmo

prfctlefts wrote:

... I have to disagree .. gays being able to get married and poeple being lynched?

...
There you go again... taking the extreme (lynching) as an example in a failed attempt to support your point.
In order for your point to be true... the following would have had to be in effect:
A. All people with prejudiced (segragationist) views in 1965 would have had to have lynched a black person in their life time.
B. Lynching would have had to have been a legal act in 1965. (Just as freely expressing your opinions in 2009 about Gay Marriage is legal)
We both know that neither is true.
...
My point is the people of 1965 in the South were NOT bad people. Their opinions of black people were what they were used to. If left up to their vote... it is more than likely they would have voted against de-segregation and would have preferred things to go on as they had been.
If you take the opposing view of this... it would mean that you disagree with me and believe that the people of 1965 WOULD have voted for de-segregation.
Nothing to do with comparing Gay Marriage and murder.

Jimmydean55

prfctlefts wrote:

sorry but I think there's a pretty big gap between the two.

prfctlefts wrote:

I have to disagree .. gays being able to get married and poeple being lynched?

It's basic human rights. Blacks wanted to be free and end segregation, just like gays want to be free to choose to marry. That's the correlation...

Jimmydean55

prfctlefts wrote:

Not to mention Im a christian and It's against what I believe in and that's my god given right

You think god gave you rights? Hahaha. If god gave you your rights, wouldn't he have given you the right to some food everyday, a roof over your head, etc. god would have been looking out for you. And why did he give us a certain number of rights? The bill of rights has 10 stipulations. But, apparently, god was doing sloppy work that week because we've had to amend the bill of rights an additional 17 times. So god forgot a couple of things, like....Slavery! Just slipped his mind, huh??

But if you think you do have rights, go to wikipedia and type in "Japanese American's 1942" and you'll find out all about your precious rights....

Thanks G.C.

WaveCameCrashin

Jimmydean55 wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

Not to mention Im a christian and It's against what I believe in and that's my god given right

You think god gave you rights? Hahaha. If god gave you your rights, wouldn't he have given you the right to some food everyday, a roof over your head, etc. god would have been looking out for you. And why did he give us a certain number of rights? The bill of rights has 10 stipulations. But, apparently, god was doing sloppy work that week because we've had to amend the bill of rights an additional 17 times. So god forgot a couple of things, like....Slavery! Just slipped his mind, huh??

But if you think you do have rights, go to wikipedia and type in "Japanese American's 1942" and you'll find out all about your precious rights....

Thanks G.C.

it was a figure of speech jeeez. But we all have rights and you sound like a typical left wing loon, you're for freedom of speech until you disagree with someone and then they are a bigot or a racist or Im an Idot b/c I believe in a higher power.

Jimmydean55

prfctlefts wrote:

Jimmydean55 wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

Not to mention Im a christian and It's against what I believe in and that's my god given right

You think god gave you rights? Hahaha. If god gave you your rights, wouldn't he have given you the right to some food everyday, a roof over your head, etc. god would have been looking out for you. And why did he give us a certain number of rights? The bill of rights has 10 stipulations. But, apparently, god was doing sloppy work that week because we've had to amend the bill of rights an additional 17 times. So god forgot a couple of things, like....Slavery! Just slipped his mind, huh??

But if you think you do have rights, go to wikipedia and type in "Japanese American's 1942" and you'll find out all about your precious rights....

Thanks G.C.

it was a figure of speech jeeez. But we all have rights and you sound like a typical left wing loon, you're for freedom of speech until you disagree with someone and then they are a bigot or a racist or Im an Idot b/c I believe in a higher power.

If we all have rights, where were the rights of the Japanese Americans in 1942?
Where were the rights of African Americans prior to 1964?
If we all have rights, don't gay Americans have the right to marry?

You're right, I am a left wing loon. I think all people should be treated as equal. Crazy, huh?

flywallyfly

I like Iowans.