Iowa court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

[garbon]

I'd rather just play the raving homophobe role that's been laid out for me

You've already done enough.

[derspiess]

You've already done enough.

I have not even started

[dps]

Hate better generates the type of outrage that fuels politics in the US better than love.

My thought on this has always been, "Hey, religious weirdos, get your fucking nose out of other people's bedrooms."

For 30 years or so, people had the idea that what 2 consenting adults do in private is not the business of the state presented to them by the gay rights movement and others who wanted to do away with a lot of conventional sexual morality.  And most people I think have come to agree with that idea.  But from that perspective, now the gay rights movement wants to very much make it the state's business by giving official government sanction to same-sex marriages.

And to answer the question you posed to derspiess, I wouldn't have any problem with doing away with all laws relating to marriage--though I would point out that that would require a lot of revision to tons of laws that don't have anything to do directly with sexual mores or behavior, such as inheritance and tax laws.  (It would actually work out real well with my ideas about how the income tax system should be reformed, but that's a completely differeent story).

[Ed Anger]

GOD DAMN IOWA.

[Martinus]

Hate better generates the type of outrage that fuels politics in the US better than love.

My thought on this has always been, "Hey, religious weirdos, get your fucking nose out of other people's bedrooms."

For 30 years or so, people had the idea that what 2 consenting adults do in private is not the business of the state presented to them by the gay rights movement and others who wanted to do away with a lot of conventional sexual morality.  And most people I think have come to agree with that idea.  But from that perspective, now the gay rights movement wants to very much make it the state's business by giving official government sanction to same-sex marriages.

And to answer the question you posed to derspiess, I wouldn't have any problem with doing away with all laws relating to marriage--though I would point out that that would require a lot of revision to tons of laws that don't have anything to do directly with sexual mores or behavior, such as inheritance and tax laws.  (It would actually work out real well with my ideas about how the income tax system should be reformed, but that's a completely differeent story).

The "state should get out of marriage business" argument is a strawman. It will never happen.

There are many rights and privileges awarded to married couples, because the state sees stable monogamous relationships of two people as important building blocks of the society.

If you consider homosexuality to be wrong, evil, sinful, immoral or otherwise undesirable, then yes, you should be against gay marriage, and possible should join up with the Westboro Baptist Church, because they are at least honest in what they feel and do.

If you think that being gay is ok, then there is really no rational argument against allowing same-sex couples the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples enjoy.

Reducing same sex relationships to sexual conduct is also quite moronic - and to be honest I expected more of you. You are married, aren't you? Do you consider your relationship with your wife to be limited to what you do "in the privacy of your home"? Do you not wear a wedding ring? Do you never mention your wife (or kids, if any) to anyone? Do you never hold hands with your wife in public? Etc.

Heterosexual couples are NOT limiting themselves to the privacy of their homes when it comes to expressing their status. If the best the public can offer same sex couples is doing what we want "in the privacy of our homes", then go fuck yourself. We don't want to be second class citizens.

[Caliga]

The "state should get out of marriage business" argument is a strawman. It will never happen.

I agree... I was merely thinking wishfully.

[Ed Anger]

The "state should get out of marriage business" argument is a strawman. It will never happen.

I agree... I was merely thinking wishfully.

Libertarians shall never rule. BWHAHAHAHA!

[Martinus]

The "state should get out of marriage business" argument is a strawman. It will never happen.

I agree... I was merely thinking wishfully.

I disagree. I think the society has a vested interest in promoting stable relationships between people (as long as it does not lose sight of individual rights of people involved and does not force them to stay in relationships against their will). This interest is there whether the couple of same sex or different sex.

[derspiess]

That was a Grade A Marty rant.  Well, it's a B+ anyway. 

[derspiess]

I disagree. I think the society has a vested interest in promoting stable relationships between people (as long as it does not lose sight of individual rights of people involved and does not force them to stay in relationships against their will). This interest is there whether the couple of same sex or different sex.

So you think gays are so weak-minded that they need government to encourage them to enter stable relationships?  Interesting.

[Martinus]

I disagree. I think the society has a vested interest in promoting stable relationships between people (as long as it does not lose sight of individual rights of people involved and does not force them to stay in relationships against their will). This interest is there whether the couple of same sex or different sex.

So you think gays are so weak-minded that they need government to encourage them to enter stable relationships?  Interesting.

It seems the government is doing that to heterosexual couples. Are you assuming that gays are in fact exhibiting super-human strength of will, compared to heterosexuals? Interesting.

[Neil]

That was a Grade A Marty rant.  Well, it's a B+ anyway.

Maybe a C, at best.  He didn't sound tearful at all.  A little whiny, but the very best Martinus rants can all be summarized as 'Wahhhh!'.

[dps]

Hate better generates the type of outrage that fuels politics in the US better than love.

My thought on this has always been, "Hey, religious weirdos, get your fucking nose out of other people's bedrooms."

For 30 years or so, people had the idea that what 2 consenting adults do in private is not the business of the state presented to them by the gay rights movement and others who wanted to do away with a lot of conventional sexual morality.  And most people I think have come to agree with that idea.  But from that perspective, now the gay rights movement wants to very much make it the state's business by giving official government sanction to same-sex marriages.

And to answer the question you posed to derspiess, I wouldn't have any problem with doing away with all laws relating to marriage--though I would point out that that would require a lot of revision to tons of laws that don't have anything to do directly with sexual mores or behavior, such as inheritance and tax laws.  (It would actually work out real well with my ideas about how the income tax system should be reformed, but that's a completely differeent story).

The "state should get out of marriage business" argument is a strawman. It will never happen.

There are many rights and privileges awarded to married couples, because the state sees stable monogamous relationships of two people as important building blocks of the society.

If you consider homosexuality to be wrong, evil, sinful, immoral or otherwise undesirable, then yes, you should be against gay marriage, and possible should join up with the Westboro Baptist Church, because they are at least honest in what they feel and do.

If you think that being gay is ok, then there is really no rational argument against allowing same-sex couples the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples enjoy.

Reducing same sex relationships to sexual conduct is also quite moronic - and to be honest I expected more of you. You are married, aren't you? Do you consider your relationship with your wife to be limited to what you do "in the privacy of your home"? Do you not wear a wedding ring? Do you never mention your wife (or kids, if any) to anyone? Do you never hold hands with your wife in public? Etc.

Heterosexual couples are NOT limiting themselves to the privacy of their homes when it comes to expressing their status. If the best the public can offer same sex couples is doing what we want "in the privacy of our homes", then go fuck yourself. We don't want to be second class citizens.

Well, the "state getting out of marriage business" isn't a strawman--it was an answer to a direct question posed to derspiess.  And I agree that it won't happen.

And obviously many rights and priviliges awarded to married couples, which is why I posted that if the state were to get out of the marriage business, then there would have to be revisions to a lot of existing laws if it were to happen (which, again, I agree that it won't--it's a hypothetical).

It's entirely possible to feel that something is wrong, evil, sinful, immoral, or otherwise undesirable without thinking it's an appropriate subject for government regulation--at least if you're a small-government advocate. 

I don't think I posted anything that suggests that same-sex relationships to sexual contact, or things that happen in private.  Sure, I hold hands with my wife in public, but I did that before we were married, too, and same-sex couples don't have to be married to do it either.

[dps]

I disagree. I think the society has a vested interest in promoting stable relationships between people (as long as it does not lose sight of individual rights of people involved and does not force them to stay in relationships against their will). This interest is there whether the couple of same sex or different sex.

So you think gays are so weak-minded that they need government to encourage them to enter stable relationships?  Interesting.

I was going to say that the government would have to force Marty into a stable relationship, not just encourage him, but that's not fair, because it seems like Marty might actually want to a certain extent to be in a stable relationship (though not married). 

[The Brain]

Iowa. What a dump.

May 1 will see legal gay marriage in Sweden.