Iowa court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

[Valmy]

Looks like a bunch of God-Emperors reading some magic tea leaves and divining completely new laws.  There's a place for this and it's called the legislature.  They're supposed to make laws.

I know we just should have waited until the Southern Legislatures integrated the schools themselves.  Next thing you know gays and Lesbians are going to use the same logic to demand equal rights.

[dps]

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).

Actually you are quite wrong.

I had simply never met the right person before. I used to think it's impossible or at least will never happen to me.

I'm pretty sure that you've posted stuff to that effect before, which was what I was basing my statement on.

Link me baby.

Uh, if you know a way to link to the stuff on the old forum, please, do tell.

[dps]

I think Hans just wants a second wife.

Why would someone want that?

If Bmollson were still here, you could ask him.

[Martinus]

Actually, a gay polygamous  (or should it be polyandrous?) marriage would probably make more sense than a heterosexual one. It's for the same reasons as gay group sex makes more sense than hetero one: in hetero group sex (especially if you have three people) someone always gets shafted.

[garbon]

Actually, a gay polygamous  (or should it be polyandrous?) marriage would probably make more sense than a heterosexual one. It's for the same reasons as gay group sex makes more sense than hetero one: in hetero group sex (especially if you have three people) someone always gets shafted.

Generally people get shafted in gay sex as well, and it can be only one if there is only one bottom.

[Martinus]

Actually, a gay polygamous  (or should it be polyandrous?) marriage would probably make more sense than a heterosexual one. It's for the same reasons as gay group sex makes more sense than hetero one: in hetero group sex (especially if you have three people) someone always gets shafted.

Generally people get shafted in gay sex as well, and it can be only one if there is only one bottom.

Yeah but in gay sex people enjoy getting shafted.

[Neil]

Actually, a gay polygamous  (or should it be polyandrous?) marriage would probably make more sense than a heterosexual one. It's for the same reasons as gay group sex makes more sense than hetero one: in hetero group sex (especially if you have three people) someone always gets shafted.

Generally people get shafted in gay sex as well, and it can be only one if there is only one bottom.

Yeah but in gay sex people enjoy getting shafted.

People enjoy heterosexual sex as well.  Even more than gay sex, actually.

[Martinus]

Actually, a gay polygamous  (or should it be polyandrous?) marriage would probably make more sense than a heterosexual one. It's for the same reasons as gay group sex makes more sense than hetero one: in hetero group sex (especially if you have three people) someone always gets shafted.

Generally people get shafted in gay sex as well, and it can be only one if there is only one bottom.

Yeah but in gay sex people enjoy getting shafted.

People enjoy heterosexual sex as well.  Even more than gay sex, actually.

A heterosexual dude having sex with a chick and another dude is probably not going to have his experience improved compared to a situation if he was just one-on-one with the chick (and probably will feel worse for it). The same goes for a hetero chick in a threesome with another chick.

In a gay threesome, everybody will be having fun, because they will all be (at least in theory) sexually attracted to each other.

[Faeelin]

Anyway, it will get repealed by referendum because the religious groups of America have made it clear they'd rather spend hundreds of millions of dollars to stop people from being happy rather than, you know, feed the hungry.

What will get repealed by referendum?  The Iowa constitution?

No, the right to gay marriage will be repealed in 2012 or 2013.

Anyway, Hans fails to understand the basic working of American jurisprudence; board is stunned.

[Faeelin]

Looks like a bunch of God-Emperors reading some magic tea leaves and divining completely new laws.  There's a place for this and it's called the legislature.  They're supposed to make laws.

I know we just should have waited until the Southern Legislatures integrated the schools themselves.  Next thing you know gays and Lesbians are going to use the same logic to demand equal rights.

But this is different, because God, and Hans, hate fags.

Anyway Hans, let's turn this around. Persuade me why this is different than interracial marriages. After all, you can marry anybody you want of the same race; it had little precedent in American culture before the civil rights movement; and many religious people were against it, by virtue of religious beliefs; just as some people, by virtue of their beliefs, were for it.

[Neil]

A heterosexual dude having sex with a chick and another dude is probably not going to have his experience improved compared to a situation if he was just one-on-one with the chick (and probably will feel worse for it). The same goes for a hetero chick in a threesome with another chick.

In a gay threesome, everybody will be having fun, because they will all be (at least in theory) sexually attracted to each other.

Quite the contrary.  Double-teaming a woman is great for building camraderie.  It also helps that nothing that's happening is evil.

[Caliga]

I think Hans just wants a second wife.

Why would someone want that?

Because then you've got two chicks competing to please you.  HOTT.

At least in theory