Iowa Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban

[AB_Shorts_Momma]

You missed my point when I referenced the OT (Old Testament).

The OT was around and being read when the constitution was formed. Therfore valid as a reference that homosexuality was around when the Constitution was formed.

Therefore, the creators of the Constitution knew about homosexuality and it is not a new subject.

However it is debated, our forefathers did not see the need to make mention of marriage.

I still do not see the validity of that particular argument in court.

 

[The Other Guy]

However it is debated, our forefathers did not see the need to make mention of marriage.

I still do not see the validity of that particular argument in court.

So technically then there is no right for ANYONE to get married, save for a distant claim through Freedom of Religion. So our forefathers left it open to all, theoretically. The founding fathers clearly wanted to keep the old testament out of it; no laws against touching pig meat either, are there?

 

[mmarsh]

I agree ^^^^.

 

[Rob Henderson]

You missed my point when I referenced the OT (Old Testament).

The OT was around and being read when the constitution was formed. Therfore valid as a reference that homosexuality was around when the Constitution was formed.

Therefore, the creators of the Constitution knew about homosexuality and it is not a new subject.

However it is debated, our forefathers did not see the need to make mention of marriage.

I still do not see the validity of that particular argument in court.

The validity is that if they believed all men are created equal, then they should be treated as such... It's rather simple.


+1 TOG.

 

[AB_Shorts_Momma]

It amazes me how the OT beliefs are being brought into this discussion! I used it as historical reference to DATE homosexuality.

The validity of the OT and beliefs in it are not the topic here.

NOW, how about going back to how the topic of gay marriage might be debated in court?

 

[The Other Guy]

It amazes me how the OT beliefs are being brought into this discussion! I used it as historical reference to DATE homosexuality.

The validity of the OT and beliefs in it are not the topic here.

NOW, how about going back to how the topic of gay marriage might be debated in court?

You were the one who brought it up... Okay, so you dated it. We've had slavery since biblical times; but that doesn't make it right.

In court? Bring up the old testament references. Holocaust. Compare to slavery, or segregation. Or the constitutional right of everyone in America...

 

[Rob Henderson]

It amazes me how the OT beliefs are being brought into this discussion! I used it as historical reference to DATE homosexuality.

The validity of the OT and beliefs in it are not the topic here.

NOW, how about going back to how the topic of gay marriage might be debated in court?

But the date of anything doesn't make it any more or less right. It's the fact that the Founding Fathers didn't reference marriage in any way, leaving it up to the States to decide.

 

[AB_Shorts_Momma]

But the date of anything doesn't make it any more or less right. It's the fact that the Founding Fathers didn't reference marriage in any way, leaving it up to the States to decide.

Rob, sweetie, as I stated, it was used to show that homosexuality was known by the Founding Fathers, nothing more.

I believe it has been left upto the states, and again, when voted on, most people do not want it legalized.

 

[Rob Henderson]

I realize that... But they still didn't make any reference to it in any legal document of this country... So what was the point in saying it?


THE STATES. The office of the State. Not the people... If the people had their way on other issues, this great nation would be VERY different. Segregation, suffrage, minority rights... All these issues were not popular with the majority of the people when they were brought up... But guess what? Now people view them as wrong. The same will happen with homosexual marriage. Sure, people don't "accept" it now, but eventually, they will come around. It's happened before, it'll happen again.

 

[AB_Shorts_Momma]

The point was to refute the Forefather argument that was brought.

Declaration of Independence states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".

Furthermore the 14th Amendment requires that states to guerentee equal protection under the law.

Our goverment was created by the people for the people.

:9mm:

 

[Rob Henderson]

Again... If that was entirely the case, blacks and whites might still have separate bathrooms, drinking fountains, public school systems etc.; women might still not be allowed to own property or vote; Irish, Latin American, and other minorities might still be treated as second-class citizens. The list goes on... Without the government to step in occasionally, the people would make absolutely no progress... Do you believe that blacks, women, and minorities should be treated the same as anyone else? Or do you believe that there was nothing wrong with treating them as sub-human because of their race?

The same question applies here... Regardless of whether or not homosexuality is a choice, there is still no reason to deny them their happiness based on that choice. The fact that someone might lose their precious money (which doesn't mean anything AT ALL in the long run, whether you believe in an afterlife or not) is hardly a reason to deny a fellow man his/her happiness.

I'm going to post a story the deacon at my church told us in a sermon not too long ago in the General Chit Chat... I'd suggest yall go read it since you're so keen on taxes and insurance going up.

 

[AZ_Infantry]

Again... If that was entirely the case, blacks and whites might still have separate bathrooms, drinking fountains, public school systems etc.; women might still not be allowed to own property or vote; Irish, Latin American, and other minorities might still be treated as second-class citizens. The list goes on... Without the government to step in occasionally, the people would make absolutely no progress... Do you believe that blacks, women, and minorities should be treated the same as anyone else? Or do you believe that there was nothing wrong with treating them as sub-human because of their race?

The same question applies here... Regardless of whether or not homosexuality is a choice, there is still no reason to deny them their happiness based on that choice. The fact that someone might lose their precious money (which doesn't mean anything AT ALL in the long run, whether you believe in an afterlife or not) is hardly a reason to deny a fellow man his/her happiness.

I'm going to post a story the deacon at my church told us in a sermon not too long ago in the General Chit Chat... I'd suggest yall go read it since you're so keen on taxes and insurance going up.

Does a man have a choice to be black?

Does a woman have a choice to be female?

Until you can PROVE that a person has no choice but to be gay, your argument is infantile and distracting to the adult talking here. The comparison itself shows the maturity of this debate, which is on the negative side of the scale.

You keep asking me to prove a negative.

Here is your chance to win it.

Show me ONE source, a credible, unbiased source, that PROVES that gays are born that way. Like your stipulations, I will accept nothing at all but non-partisan sources. The AMA would be a good start, as would the ASA.

Until then, this argument is lost by your inability to define your facts with credible supplementation. You SAY it is this but you have yet to annotate any credible, reliable, journalistic proof to support your stance.

In the academic world, we call that a failing grade.

 

[Rob Henderson]

Does a man have a choice to be black?

Does a woman have a choice to be female?

Until you can PROVE that a person has no choice but to be gay, your argument is infantile and distracting to the adult talking here. The comparison itself shows the maturity of this debate, which is on the negative side of the scale.

You keep asking me to prove a negative.

Here is your chance to win it.

Show me ONE source, a credible, unbiased source, that PROVES that gays are born that way. Like your stipulations, I will accept nothing at all but non-partisan sources. The AMA would be a good start, as would the ASA.

Until then, this argument is lost by your inability to define your facts with credible supplementation. You SAY it is this but you have yet to annotate any credible, reliable, journalistic proof to support your stance.

In the academic world, we call that a failing grade.

I can direct you to scientific journals that say being gay might be genetic, and I can show you scientific journals that say it might not be genetic... There is no definitive answer, BUT even if it turns out that it is a choice... It wouldn't make me any less of an advocate for gay rights... Because it's not about the reasoning... It's about the principle. The very basic idea that you would deny someone their happiness because of your own opinion. You said homosexuality is detrimental to society... You have yet to supply sources for that claim even after mmarsh and I asked you to... You say tax increases and insurance are reason enough to deny them the same opportunities being given to other heterosexual couples, yet you rant and rave naught about the divorce rate in the United States. A side note, married couples are now a minority in the United States... But men and women are still getting married, and you say nothing about that.... Please, go read that story about money in General Chit Chat... I think you'd find it will really put things in a different perspective as far as money is concerned.



Since you read the examples, you also must have read that I said there is as much harm in denying a person happiness based on a choice that person makes... As long as that choice is within reason... But to express love for one another isn't someone who says "I'm a rapist, and that's what makes me happy, so it should be allowed." So the whole precedent thing isn't really valid here either. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" were the words of one of the most influential Enlightenment leaders that directly influenced the Founding Fathers. Have we forgotten those words, or do we ignore them to suit our own opinions?

 

[AB_Shorts_Momma]

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

Is someone actually arguing that if gay people cannot get legally married they are unable to persue happiness?

 

[Rob Henderson]

If that is what would make them happy, wouldn't denying them that be denying them happiness? Seems rather simple to me......


So, in answer to your question, yes. I AM arguing that denying homosexuals the right (excuse me, privilege, just like it is for everyone else) to marry is interfering with their pursuit of happiness.

 

[AB_Shorts_Momma]

I disagree with your opinion. Although my family member does believe that there should be gay marriage, that member would also tell you that their opinion is that it does not hinder happiness. I don't know a lot of gays, but the ones I do know, it isn't the end-all be-all to their happiness.

But I will give you that arguement would be valid in court. at least as a start. I think it would take more than that to make the court go against the will of the voters.

 

[Rob Henderson]

Obviously it's not the be-all-end-all... That wouldn't make sense... I'm not saying that this is all it's going to take to shut up gay right activist groups for all eternity... I'm just saying that if something as simple as marriage would make them happy (and it would make the vast majority of gays happy) then why deny them the opportunity to screw up just like the rest of us?

 

[AB_Shorts_Momma]

Well, one arguement could be that it is the PURSUIT of happiness. The legality of marriage will not change that.

 

[Rob Henderson]

Hahaha. You could be a lawyer twisting phrases like that.

 

[AZ_Infantry]

I can direct you to scientific journals that say being gay might be genetic, and I can show you scientific journals that say it might not be genetic... There is no definitive answer, BUT even if it turns out that it is a choice... It wouldn't make me any less of an advocate for gay rights... Because it's not about the reasoning... It's about the principle. The very basic idea that you would deny someone their happiness because of your own opinion. You said homosexuality is detrimental to society... You have yet to supply sources for that claim even after mmarsh and I asked you to... You say tax increases and insurance are reason enough to deny them the same opportunities being given to other heterosexual couples, yet you rant and rave naught about the divorce rate in the United States. A side note, married couples are now a minority in the United States... But men and women are still getting married, and you say nothing about that.... Please, go read that story about money in General Chit Chat... I think you'd find it will really put things in a different perspective as far as money is concerned.



Since you read the examples, you also must have read that I said there is as much harm in denying a person happiness based on a choice that person makes... As long as that choice is within reason... But to express love for one another isn't someone who says "I'm a rapist, and that's what makes me happy, so it should be allowed." So the whole precedent thing isn't really valid here either. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" were the words of one of the most influential Enlightenment leaders that directly influenced the Founding Fathers. Have we forgotten those words, or do we ignore them to suit our own opinions?

Ah, I get it. You have no facts to back your statement. That I provided facts earlier doesn't matter.

That you want happiness for one sect and deny happiness for another is the liberal tenet, isn't it? And that is why the military detests civilians going to college that refuse to put their short hairs on the line as we did.

Why are you here Rob? This is, after all, International MILITARY Forums. Are you military? Nope. Were you? Nope. Will you ever be? According to your last post to me, no.

So you're just here for... what? Please explain as your professor tells you to.

I have supplied all sources. That you refuse to go back and find them only makes me laugh all the more at you.

Have you noticed that only liberals and Europeans are defending this thread? Have you noticed that THIS country, the US of A, doesn't listen to 18-year old college students that don't have the curly hairs to serve?

Tell you what, gay lover - serve this nation in an 8-year contract in a Combat Arms MOS, and I may take your opinion with a grain of salt after you tun 30 or so. Until then, you need to learn to listen to the people that have their awards in serving this nation.

Or do our opinions not count any more?