Iowa legalizes same-sex marraige!

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 1, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[MattShizzle 11]

I tend to be strongly against the concept of "states rights" as only people should have rights. "States rights" has also been the excuse for lots of horrible and/or bigoted laws in the history of the country. I also see a lot of people seem to think that it violates their rights if they are prevented from violating the rights of others:

[DCMetro34 577]

@MattShizzle, not all people are Christian, and God did give us free will.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

An expression of freedom, but I always believed that marriage had something to do with reproduction of the species.

[DCMetro34 577]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

An expression of freedom, but I always believed that marriage had something to do with reproduction of the species.

quote>

Yes, I agree. I am not all for same sex marriage, but I do believe a couple has a choice.

[MattShizzle 11]

Yet we do allow people too old to have babies and those who physically are unable and those who are certain they never want kids to marry...

[DCMetro34 577]

Originally posted by: MattShizzle

Yet we do allow people too old to have babies and those who physically are unable and those who are certain they never want kids to marry...quote>

Not all marriages have to have kids. The world is rapidly becoming overpopulated as we speak, it's ok if some couples don't have kids; it's their choice.

[timcravey 169]

Gay people have kids too.

But modern marriage customs have very little to do with reproduction and are mostly used to determine the legal distribution of property when partnerships dissolve.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: MattShizzle

I tend to be strongly against the concept of "states rights" as only people should have rights. "States rights" has also been the excuse for lots of horrible and/or bigoted laws in the history of the country.quote>

Let's be honest, here though: same sex marriage is legal in four states right now. Were the matter decided federally, it would no doubt be legal in zero.

States rights may seem to be an "excuse" for bigotry at times, but it also helps combat it this way. It can be a double edged sword, yes, but it's not without its benefits. It allows the people of two different states to each do things their own way without either forcing their way on the other. The point of states rights is not to deemphasize the rights of people, it is merely to define boundaries between what powers lie with the people of individual states versus the people of the whole country.

Beyond that, the Constitution firmly establises the principle of states rights in the 10th amendment. And as the supreme law of our land, we must respect it even if it may seem inconvenient to do so. Thus, if done properly, the issue of same sex marriage will continue to be addressed on a state by state basis. The only thing that ought to happen on the federal level is that the Defnse of Marriage Act be done away with.

Now, let's address the idea of "bigoted laws". First of all, bear in mind that morality is subjective. You would say it's immoral to deny same sex couples rights that opposite sex couples enjoy, and I would agree with you... but many other people would say that it's immoral to engage in homosexual behavior or be tolerant and permissive of it. And you know what? They have just as much of a right to that opinion as we do to ours. Universally speakling, neither opinion is right or wrong, they're just two differing points of view.

You really can't just say "that's discriminatory, and thus it's wrong". Discrimination is an unavoidable part of life. A company can't hire everyone who applies for a job, regardless of whether or not they're qualified. They need to discriminate based on those qualifications. And indeed, the Dallas Cowboys aren't going to be hiring a paraplegic quarterback anytime soon - also discriminatory.

The question is not whether any law or policy is discriminatory - it's whether it's unfairly and unnecessarily discriminatory. And that question isn't always an easy one to answer. Some would argue that homosexuality is eroding the ethical fabric of our society and disturbing to our children, and thus not permitting it is necessary discrimination. I could easily point to a million other things that are more detrimental to societal ethics and well being, but that's me and it's just my opinion. I'm not "right" because I don't see homosexuality as a problem, I'm merely in agreement with those who also think so and in disagreement with those who do not.

[MattShizzle 11]

Realistically the only way to get it legal is through the courts - the same as civil rights did. I notice the arguments against it are a lot similar to those used against interracial marriage in the 1960s. I'm really hoping a few of the worst Supreme Court Justices die (ie Scalia and Thomas or the 2 Bush appointees)) while Obama is president so he can replace them - hopefully with the most liberal possible ones he can find. As far as my politics go, I make Ralph Nader look like Rush Limbaugh.

[astronelson 339]

Originally posted by: Duke87

The only thing that ought to happen on the federal level is that the Defnse [sic] of Marriage Act be done away with. quote>

I agree with you there, but perhaps for a different reason.

They have just as much of a right to that opinion as we do to ours. Universally speakling, neither opinion is right or wrong, they're just two differing points of view. quote>

I agree, but I think that, generally, the point where people, acting on their views, start attacking people is the point said view becomes wrong.

What luck that hasn't happened yet... oh, wait.

You really can't just say "that's discriminatory, and thus it's wrong". Discrimination is an unavoidable part of life.quote>

I find I can say "That discrimination is unfounded, and thus wrong."

Just because discrimination is an unavoidable part of life doesn't make it right. I personally think discrimination based on criteria that are unrelated to someone's ability to perform a task is wrong, but you are free to disagree.

A company can't hire everyone who applies for a job, regardless of whether or not they're qualified. They need to discriminate based on those qualifications. And indeed, the Dallas Cowboys aren't going to be hiring a paraplegic quarterback anytime soon - also discriminatory. quote>

It is discriminatory, however, since a lack of qualifications would severely affect one's ability to do a task, it is permissible. Not hiring someone because you don't like the way they shake hands would be wrong.

Nice comparison between homosexuality and debilitating injuries, by the way.

[/reply to Duke87]

In my opinion, which is undoubtedly influenced by my own bisexuality, since there is no evidence that same-sex marriage is in any way detrimental to society, and since there are several nations that have allowed it with no descent down some sort of slippery slope of immorality, there is no real defensible or logical reason for any state to ban same-sex marriages.

If you find a real defensible and logical reason against same-sex marriage, with supporting evidence, that is not based on your own personal views, feel free to send it to me. In the meantime, I shall stand by my opinion.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Duke87

You really can't just say "that's discriminatory, and thus it's wrong". Discrimination is an unavoidable part of life. A company can't hire everyone who applies for a job, regardless of whether or not they're qualified. They need to discriminate based on those qualifications. And indeed, the Dallas Cowboys aren't going to be hiring a paraplegic quarterback anytime soon - also discriminatory. quote>

That's not discrimination.  Some of the basic job requirements involve standing, running, and throwing.  Anyone who can't met those basic requirements (and then some) is not going to get the job.

 

It's the same with any job.  Every job has a basic skill set.  And any person without those skills is not going to get the job.  or keep it very long if they do get it.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: DCMetro34

Originally posted by: MattShizzle

Yet we do allow people too old to have babies and those who physically are unable and those who are certain they never want kids to marry...quote>

Not all marriages have to have kids. The world is rapidly becoming overpopulated as we speak, it's ok if some couples don't have kids; it's their choice.

quote>

Could not agree more with you, but MattShizzle's reply has echos of Soylen Green.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: MattShizzle

Realistically the only way to get it legal is through the courtsquote>

Not necessarily. See: Vermont.

I'm really hoping a few of the worst Supreme Court Justices die (ie Scalia and Thomas or the 2 Bush appointees)) while Obama is president so he can replace them - hopefully with the most liberal possible ones he can find.quote>

If there's one thing that makes me not have too much faith in the supreme court, it's the fact that it is itself at times politically swayed. The supreme court is supposed to look at and interpret the constitution as objectively as possible in all cases. The fact that there is any such thing as a liberal or conservative supreme court justice is absolutely disgusting. The courts shouldn't have political sway one way or the other, with liberal judges making liberal interpretations and conservative judges making conservative interpretations (see: liberal 1970's court says abortion must be legal, more conservative 2000's court backpedals on the issue somewhat). They need to be neutral.

But since the judges are appointed by people with political sway, they are not, and I fear that is a critical but unfixable flaw with our system.

Also, can we avoid wishing death upon people we disagree with, please?

Originally posted by: astronelson

Nice comparison between homosexuality and debilitating injuries, by the way.quote>

Hey, when you put it like that, you make it sound insulting. The point is not to say that homosexuality is in any way a handicap (it's not), the point is to establish that discrimination comes in many forms, and some are acceptable.

Originally posted by: Meg

That's not discrimination.  Some of the basic job requirements involve standing, running, and throwing.  Anyone who can't met those basic requirements (and then some) is not going to get the job.

 

It's the same with any job.  Every job has a basic skill set.  And any person without those skills is not going to get the job.  or keep it very long if they do get it.quote>

To discriminate merely means to make a distinction or recognize a difference between two or more things. It's a necessary part of any and all decision making. Choosing chocolate ice cream over vanilla ice cream is discrminatory. Voting for one candidate over another in an election is discriminatory. And any person who gets an application rejected for whatever reason can be said to have been "discriminated against". The term usually carries the implication that an unfair prejudice is involved, yes, but strictly speaking it need not be.

[MattShizzle 11]

I don't simply wish death on people I disagree with, I wish death upon them because if they had their way, the United States would truly be a horrible place to live - nearly as bad as Iran. And those 4 have power as strong as that of 4/9 of the congress or hearly half that as the president (as was intended when the constitution was written.) The 4 liberals and the one moderate (Kennedy) are the only thing standing between the US as it currently is (or as it could be if 1 or 2 of the bad ones were gone) and a country I would absolutely not want to live in.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: MattShizzle

...The Buybull ...quote>

Funny how I get in trouble for a lot less.

Originally posted by: MattShizzle I'm really hoping a few of the worst Supreme Court Justices die quote>

Um, you may need professional help. But thanks for displaying the love the Left likes to crow about. Anyway, the SC hasn't ruled on the case, it hasn't had it come up yet. Your hatred is misinformed on the subject of gay marriage. And even a liberal justice will probably throw the whole thing back to the states, it's all they can really do.

Originally posted by: DCMetro34

 The world is rapidly becoming overpopulated as we speak, 

quote>

No, it's not. Not even close. Who keeps spreading/repeating this lie? There's plenty to go around, it's just not getting around. Those of us who live in the industrialized nations should be aware of population collapse.

----------

There's more straw men being put up here than in all the farms in N America.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: MattShizzle

I don't simply wish death on people I disagree with, I wish death upon them because if they had their way, the United States would truly be a horrible place to live - nearly as bad as Iran.quote>

Yup, in no time a conservative supreme court would rule that the president is second to the Grand Ayatollah. Or that no woman can ever be in public with a man she isn't related or married to.

[MattShizzle 11]

No, but they could do things like no longer protecting aboriton, scaling civil rights protection way back, scaling back other things like environnmental protection and business regulation, cutting 1st ammendment protections even worse than Bush did and other things that could make the US the Christian equivalent of Iran. Groups like Focus on Family, Operation Rescue and such are the Christian equivalent of the Taliban. There was a good mid 1980s book written about if those sort of people ever came to power - it's called "The Handmaid's Tale" by Margaret Atwood. I'd recommend it.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Pinoy30 0]

i swear people here so homophobic or they have no knowledge of what is going on gay world!. We are in America , we all should have same rights has anybody else, we shouldnt be second class citizens, we pay our taxes has everybody else. All about EQUAL Rights! im GAY-ASIAN man dam proud of it!

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: MattShizzle

No, but they could do things like no longer protecting aboriton, scaling civil rights protection way back, scaling back other things like environnmental protection and business regulation, cutting 1st ammendment protections even worse than Bush did and other things that could make the US the Christian equivalent of Iran. Groups like Focus on Family, Operation Rescue and such are the Christian equivalent of the Taliban. There was a good mid 1980s book written about if those sort of people ever came to power - it's called "The Handmaid's Tale" by Margaret Atwood. I'd recommend it.quote>

Paranoid much? Yup, that George W. Bin Laden character really brought us into the League of Quasi-Arab Nations, didn't he? Operation Rescue's Tommygun-packing hit squads have killed millions of women so far this year, and Dr Dobson wields a mean 747 full of jihadis. Wasn't it Bush-Laden that set up an anti-1st Amendment snitch line to the White House? Oh wait, that was Obama. And those conservatives, y'know, always trying to violate the 1st Amendment with their silly diatribes against 'hate speech'... which you obviously know something about.

 

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Wow, this thread sure reflared quickly.

[The Bluejay 40]

I know, right? Wish people would just let these threads die, it's the same arguments by the same people over and over again and no one changes their mind