Iowa legalizes same-sex marraige!

[Duke87 1,070]

And another could be on the way. The New Hampshire state senate is set to vote on the matter next week, according to USA Today.

[Kevin 101]

Live free or die!

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Cheese89

Live free or die! quote>

Which, for those who don't know, is New Hampshire's slogan that appears on its license plates.

I remember, some years ago, some guy was suing the state because he didn't want that slogan on his license plate.  I wonder what happened to that case?

[belfastuniguy 18]

How fantastic

I doubt a nationwide momentum will commence, but it's pleasant to see some states take a stand and finally respect the right of individuals to marry as they see fit and not have their state legislation restricted by dogma and absurd discriminatory policy.

[belfastuniguy 18]

1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spansquote>

Found that today on facebook, its a sarcastic viewpoint, but some of the basic elements are pretty true.

[Duke87 1,070]

[zane900 1]

yippee!  

[Patricius Maximus 236]

1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spansquote>

Very funny, although it does demonstrate the factual inaccuracy of the arguments from the neoconservative/fascist/religious right movement.

[belfastuniguy 18]

It's just because I have to ask him/her to explain me some little things, like the "only on religion" in USquote>

That's not exactly incorrect.

Christianity is by far the popular religion in America. Aspects of Christian moral it has made its way into laws and influenced policy at local, state and at times federal level. The concept of marriage that most Americans view is a Christian religious ceremony just as policy on abortion has been influenced by religion imo. What if a gay Buddhist couple wanted to marry or indeed what if a gay atheist couple wanted to marry? Their rights have been restricted due to the laws governing marriage that states have put in place.

The list is meant to be sarcastic and hyperbole in some aspects, however, as mentioned it does do the job of highlighting the fallacy of some of the arguements put forward by those opposed to gay marriage.

[Duke87 1,070]

The Quadrangle, Manhattan College's weekly school newspaper, can at times be a source of significant amusement. For one thing, their copy editors suck, typos make it into print quite frequently. Secondly, for a paper from a Catholic college, they can be awfully contrary to Catholicism and Christianity in general. Thirdly, sometimes they can't get their facts straight and come up with some "interesting" choices of words. Exhibit - the following article, from this week's Op/Ed section:

Legalization of Same-Sex Unions Speading

         On April 5^th, Vermont legislators overrode Governor Jim Douglas' veto of a bill, giving same-sex couples statewide the right to marry. After a similar victory on April 3^rd in Iowa, many believe that it is only a matter of time before other states begin legalizing same-sex unions. So why not jump on the bandwagon, New York?

         The issue of whether or not same-sex couples should be allowed to marry has been a heated topic of debate for years. The victory in Vermont was monumental because it was the first time a state legalized same-sex marriage through legislation, not a court ruling. These back-to-back victories in Vermont and Iowa are likely to spark new legislation in other states, as there have been at least nine other legislators {sic} who are considering the issue of same-sex marriage. New Jersey, Maine New Hampshire and New York {sic} are some of the states that are considering these measures.

         New York should definitely follow through with legislation to legalize gay marriage. According to the 2000 census, New York has the second most same-sex couple households in the country; second only to California. New York City is home to the oldest Gay Pride Parade in the nation. With such a large LGBT (lesbian, day {sic}, bisexual, transgender) community, it seems only natural for New York to legalize ame-sex marriages.

         However, there is immensely strong opposition to the legalization of same-sex marriage. The biggest resistance comes from people who quote their religious beliefs. Many religions believe that homosexuality is a sin and because of this, same-sex marriages should never be legal. But what about the idea of separation of church and state?

         While the term "separation of church and state" never actually appears in the Constitution, it does claim that congress is not allowed to pass a law that caters to a certain religion. There's the separation. The problem is, for some reason, religious-types seem to have a deep interest in running of office, so we end up with a bunch of conservatives running our legal system. If government officials want to act fairly and justly in passing legislation, they should be able to separate teir religious views from what is best for the country.

         There is no reason as to why same-sex marriage should not be legalized in New York. Homosexuals are not trying to recruit anyone to their way of life. They are just looking for the same rights as heterosexual couples. In New York allows same-sex couples to marry, we would be setting a president {sic} for the rest of the country to become more open-minded and accepting. quote>

Okay, so, to get it out of the way... let's rip the grammar apart. I've had to employ "sic" four times in retyping that. I hope I don't need to explain what's wrong with any of the things it's marking.

This sentence:

While the term "separation of church and state" never actually appears in the Constitution, it does claim that congress is not allowed to pass a law that caters to a certain religion.quote>

is a fine example of a dangling modifier. It reads as though it's the phrase "separation of church and state" claims congress isn't allowed to pass laws catering to a certain religion. From the context, it would seem as though the Constitution was the intended subject there, not the phrase.

The writer is also incapable of being consistent with pronouns:

In New York allows same-sex couples to marry, we would be setting {...}quote>

"New York" isn't first person plural. "It" would be correct, not "we".

Okay, enough making fun of the poor English. Now for the more general problems.

According to the 2000 census, New York has the second most same-sex couple households in the countryquote>

Here we have a nice example of statistical trickery. That may be true, but New York also has the third largest population of any state, behind California and Texas. So, on a per capita basis, I doubt it's quite as high up in ranking.

for some reason, religious-types seem to have a deep interest in running of officequote>

"For some reason". As though the reason isn't obvious. Nice!

religious-types seem to have a deep interest in running of office, so we end up with a bunch of conservatives running our legal system.quote>

...and it was upon reading this that it was a good thing I wasn't drinking anything at the moment, because I would have sprayed it all over the place and ruined the paper. First of all, we've blatantly equated "religious-types" with "conservatives". Holy stereotypes, Batman! "Conservative" also seems to be getting used as a dirty word here.

And beyond that, someone please inform the author that at the moment, we have a Democratic (that is, liberal, not conservative) president, a Democrat majority in both houses of congress... and New York has a Democratic Governor, a Democrat controlled senate, and a Democrat majority assembly. So where exactly are all those conservatives running our legal system?

I'm going to miss this paper after I graduate.

[bobgleason 0]

Same sex marriage is wrong.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Originally posted by: bobgleason

Same sex marriage is wrong.quote>

Wow...

Your reasoning for such a statement has truly overwhelmed me. Such a wonderful display of intellectual debate and a showcase of informed opinion. The Oxford Union would be impressed.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 1, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[bobgleason 0]

What ever happened to the conservative America that my parents and grandparents knew and loved?

[panthersimcity4 162]

I may have said this already, but I feel like saying it anyways: I've been thinking about it, and really. I mean, sure, it might not be "natural" or the "way God intended it", but if we are going by our constitution, which is meant to garauntee equal rights, then gay people should be allowed to be in a union. HOWEVER, religious groups should not be forced to grant marriages to same-sex couples, they should be allowed to deny marrying gay couples.

I also think gay couples should be allowed to adopt kids, because if there are more couples to adopt children, that could also encourage people to stop getting abortions.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Originally posted by: bobgleason

What ever happened to the conservative America that my parents and grandparents knew and loved?quote>

Last time I checked American law was not meant to rule in favour of religious dogma and meant to be fair and equal to all American citizens.

HOWEVER, religious groups should not be forced to grant marriages to same-sex couples, they should be allowed to deny marrying gay couples.

quote>

No-one is saying they should. Gay people have not asked for the right to be married in churches given, simply the right to marry. There is a difference.

[bobgleason 0]

American law shouldnt grant all people the same equal rights becasue many types of people shouldnt have the same rights as me.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Originally posted by: bobgleason

American law shouldnt grant all people the same equal rights becasue many types of people shouldnt have the same rights as me.quote>

ROFL!!!!!!

What's make you special, bar your ignorance?

[bobgleason 0]

If i were ignorant, then i would have voted for a black socialist for president.

[fukuda 351]

Originally posted by: bobgleason

American law shouldnt grant all people the same equal rights becasue many types of people shouldnt have the same rights as me.quote>

[powellinthesouth 0]

Great, I wish NC was also on that list

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

Originally posted by: bobgleason

American law shouldnt grant all people the same equal rights becasue many types of people shouldnt have the same rights as me.quote>

ROFL!!!!!!

What's make you special, bar your ignorance?

quote>

Originally posted by: bobgleason

If i were ignorant, then i would have voted for a black socialist for president.quote>

okay, guys, time out.

Let's go over it again:  

-  Discuss the issues, not each other

-  Stay on topic.  (at least remotely on topic)

[Eastwinn 6]

Don't feed the troll.

Duke: Isn't it widely accepted that interjecting your opinion as a journalist into an article is a terrible reporting practice, or am I just crazy? If so, where was this writer when that memo was passed out? At that, where were all of his/her peers when this memo was passed out? It was worth the laugh though.

[Guido78 0]

I'm sure a lot of you are thinking "Iowa, of all places." I live in Iowa and I thought the same thing. Some of you might even be suprised to hear we have gay people in Iowa.

The truth is Iowa is alot more liberal than you might think. Bush in 2004 is the only republican to carry Iowa in a presidential election since Reagan in 1984. The city I live in is a union town and a democratic stronghold. Our congressman, one of our senators, our governor, and the majority of our state legislature are all democrats. Who would have thunk it. At least we haven't elected any wrestlers or comedians to office yet.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Eastwinn

Isn't it widely accepted that interjecting your opinion as a journalist into an article is a terrible reporting practice, or am I just crazy? If so, where was this writer when that memo was passed out? At that, where were all of his/her peers when this memo was passed out?quote>

Maybe you missed it, but I did mention that that article was on the Op/Ed page.

[tone1981 0]

Originally posted by: panthersimcity4

I may have said this already, but I feel like saying it anyways: I've been thinking about it, and really. I mean, sure, it might not be "natural" or the "way God intended it", but if we are going by our constitution, which is meant to garauntee equal rights, then gay people should be allowed to be in a union. HOWEVER, religious groups should not be forced to grant marriages to same-sex couples, they should be allowed to deny marrying gay couples.

I also think gay couples should be allowed to adopt kids, because if there are more couples to adopt children, that could also encourage people to stop getting abortions.quote>

Now here is something to think about. I agree you shouldn't force churches to perform same-sexed marriages. Marriage is still a legal bond between 2 people, not a pact between man, woman, and God. Remember that divorce is considered a sin. So how is it that the church would won't excomunicate those that do? Well I'm not going to go off on a long rant, just wanted to put that out there to all the people that say same-sex marraige is wrong.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 1, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Meg 368]

These discussions tend to ignore the major financial stakeholders in this debate:  insurance companies.

Most insurance companies offer coverage to a legal spouse.   By recognizing same-sex marriage, there is suddenly a large number of legal spouses.   Some insurance companies waive the "pre-existing condition" clause for a new spouse.

Which means that the insurance companies would suddenly be carrying a large number of people whether they want to or not.  and some of this new population need a large quantity of expensive drugs.

 

Anytime someone asks "Why don't they . . . .?", the answer is usually money.

 

Please note that I'm not saying that this is right or fair.  I'm just saying it is a factor.

 

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Most insurance companies offer coverage to a legal spouse.   By recognizing same-sex marriage, there is suddenly a large number of legal spouses.   Some insurance companies waive the "pre-existing condition" clause for a new spouse.

Which means that the insurance companies would suddenly be carrying a large number of people whether they want to or not.  and some of this new population need a large quantity of expensive drugs.

 

Anytime someone asks "Why don't they . . . .?", the answer is usually money.quote>

Not to mention social security survivorship benefits.

...which, actually, brings up an interesting point. If you're legally married to your gay lover in Massachustts and they die, how does the SSA handle that?

[ShortStraw 1]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Most insurance companies offer coverage to a legal spouse.   By recognizing same-sex marriage, there is suddenly a large number of legal spouses.   Some insurance companies waive the "pre-existing condition" clause for a new spouse.

Which means that the insurance companies would suddenly be carrying a large number of people whether they want to or not.  and some of this new population need a large quantity of expensive drugs.

 

Anytime someone asks "Why don't they . . . .?", the answer is usually money.quote>

Not to mention social security survivorship benefits.

...which, actually, brings up an interesting point. If you're legally married to your gay lover in Massachustts and they die, how does the SSA handle that?

quote>

Apparently the federal government does not recognize gay marriage. 

Check into the "Defense of Marriage Act", a summary of which can be found here. . . http://www.federaltimes.com/index.php?S=3995552

From the act-

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, 
regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and 
agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal 
union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 
'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or 
a wife."quote>