http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090403/ap_on_re_us/iowa_gay_marriage
QuoteThe Iowa Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling Friday finding that the state's same-sex marriage ban violates the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian couples, making Iowa the third state where marriage is legal.
In its decision, the court upheld a 2007 district court judge's ruling that the law violates the state constitution. It strikes the language from Iowa code limiting marriage to only between a man a woman.
"The court reaffirmed that a statute inconsistent with the Iowa constitution must be declared void even though it may be supported by strong and deep-seated traditional beliefs and popular opinion," said a summary of the ruling issued by the court.
The ruling set off celebration among the state's gay-marriage proponents.
"Iowa is about justice, and that's what happened here today," said Laura Fefchak, who was hosting a verdict party in the Des Moines suburb of Urbandale with partner of 13 years, Nancy Robinson.
Robinson added: "To tell the truth, I didn't think I'd see this day."
Des Moines attorney Dennis Johnson, who argued on behalf of the gay and lesbian couples, said "this is a great day for civil rights in Iowa."
"We have all of you courageous plaintiffs to thank: Go get married, live happily ever after, live the American dream," he said.
Court rules dictate that the decision will take about 21 days to be considered final, and a request for a rehearing could be filed within that period. That means it will be at least several weeks before gay and lesbian couples can seek marriage licenses.
But Polk County Attorney John Sarcone said the county attorney's office will not ask for a rehearing, meaning the court's decision should take effect after that three-week period.
"Our Supreme Court has decided it, and they make the decision as to what the law is and we follow Supreme Court decisions," Sarcone said. "This is not a personal thing. We have an obligation to the law to defend the recorder, and that's what we do."
The case has been working its way through Iowa's court system since 2005 when Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay rights organization, filed a lawsuit on behalf of six gay and lesbian Iowa couples who were denied marriage licenses. Some of their children are also listed as plaintiffs.
The suit named then-Polk County recorder and registrar Timothy Brien.
The state Supreme Court's ruling upheld an August 2007 decision by Polk County District Court Judge Robert Hanson, who found that a state law allowing marriage only between a man and a woman violates the constitutional rights of equal protection.
The Polk County attorney's office, arguing on behalf of Brien, claimed that Hanson's ruling violates the separation of powers and said the issue should be left to the Legislature.
Lambda Legal scheduled a news conference for early Friday to comment on the ruling. A request for comment from the Polk County attorney's office wasn't immediately returned.
Around the nation, only Massachusetts and Connecticut permit same-sex marriage. California, which briefly allowed gay marriage before a voter initiative in November repealed it, allows domestic partnerships.
New Jersey and New Hampshire also offer civil unions, which provide many of the same rights that come with marriage. New York recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, and legislators there and in New Jersey are weighing whether to offer marriage. A bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in Vermont has cleared the Legislature but may be vetoed by the governor.
Richard Socarides, an attorney and former senior adviser on gay rights to President Clinton, said the ruling carries extra significance coming from Iowa.
"It's a big win because, coming from Iowa, it represents the mainstreaming of gay marriage. And it shows that despite attempts stop gay marriage through right wing ballot initiatives, like in California, the courts will continue to support the case for equal rights for gays," he said.
The ruling in Iowa's same-sex marriage case came more quickly than many observers had anticipated, with some speculating after oral arguments that it could take a year or more for a decision.
Iowa? Oh California, why hast thou forsaken me? :weep:
Iowa?!
Wow I never thought I would see the day. I am so proud of my Great-great-Grandfather's homestate. :cry:
Given that Iowa is rather conservative (though it did vote for Obama) I expect a rather vicious reaction from a large portion of the state's voters.
Quote from: Caliga on April 03, 2009, 09:51:12 AM
Given that Iowa is rather conservative (though it did vote for Obama) I expect a rather vicious reaction from a large portion of the state's voters.
They have nothing to worry about. The head bigot in charge will veto the gay marriage bill and the house has just enough bigot support to uphold the veto.
Quote from: Valmy on April 03, 2009, 09:55:59 AM
Quote from: Caliga on April 03, 2009, 09:51:12 AM
Given that Iowa is rather conservative (though it did vote for Obama) I expect a rather vicious reaction from a large portion of the state's voters.
They have nothing to worry about. The head bigot in charge will veto the gay marriage bill and the house has just enough bigot support to uphold the veto.
Apparently it'll take a while to change the constitution. The Iowa House and Senate have to vote for a change in two consecutive sittings and it then has to be approved by a referendum. The earliest is 2012. I think, and hope, that with 3 years of gays getting married and the world not collasping, other people's marriages not meaning less and so on, that it may not get through.
Quote from: Valmy on April 03, 2009, 09:55:59 AMThey have nothing to worry about. The head bigot in charge will veto the gay marriage bill and the house has just enough bigot support to uphold the veto.
:unsure: It sounds like you're describing the situation in Vermont right now, rather than Iowa.
I am sick of people using courts to adjudicate political and economic rights.
Quote from: Caliga on April 03, 2009, 10:03:51 AM
:unsure: It sounds like you're describing the situation in Vermont right now, rather than Iowa.
Ooops you are correct.
Ok well in that case the battle in Iowa is just starting. Good luck to all right thinking Iowans to battling back the backlash.
Quote from: Faeelin on April 03, 2009, 10:04:03 AM
I am sick of people using courts to adjudicate political and economic rights.
Yeah. That cat escaped its bag a long time ago though.
Quote from: Valmy on April 03, 2009, 10:06:22 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on April 03, 2009, 10:04:03 AM
I am sick of people using courts to adjudicate political and economic rights.
Yeah. That cat escaped its bag a long time ago though.
:blink:
I was joking.
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.
Quote from: Faeelin on April 03, 2009, 10:09:57 AM
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.
As well they should. I'd spend huge amounts of money to destroy my enemies too.
Quote from: Faeelin on April 03, 2009, 10:09:57 AM
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.
Hate better generates the type of outrage that fuels politics in the US better than love.
Quote from: Neil on April 03, 2009, 10:14:00 AM
As well they should. I'd spend huge amounts of money to destroy my enemies too.
Well yes but you also consider the poor your enemies.
Quote from: Valmy on April 03, 2009, 10:14:57 AMHate 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."
Quote from: Valmy on April 03, 2009, 09:55:59 AM
Quote from: Caliga on April 03, 2009, 09:51:12 AM
Given that Iowa is rather conservative (though it did vote for Obama) I expect a rather vicious reaction from a large portion of the state's voters.
They have nothing to worry about. The head bigot in charge will veto the gay marriage bill and the house has just enough bigot support to uphold the veto.
Then yea, bigotry! :punk:
Quote from: Caliga on April 03, 2009, 10:18:44 AM
My thought on this has always been, "Hey, religious weirdos, get your fucking nose out of other people's bedrooms."
They need to keep their bedrooms out of our laws... or something :unsure:
Quote from: derspiess on April 03, 2009, 10:23:35 AMThey need to keep their bedrooms out of our laws... or something :unsure:
Would you be in favor of a repeal of ALL laws related to marriage? I would actually prefer that scenario, since it would allow gays to do whatever they want (which I'm in favor of) and just move government one step closer to getting out of the morality legislation business altogether.
Quote from: Caliga on April 03, 2009, 10:26:46 AM
Would you be in favor of a repeal of ALL laws related to marriage?
No.
This is awesome.
Mainly because it means that a state where gay marriage is very unpopular amongst the masses will have to deal with it for some time. And it is coming down from where it *should* come down - as a constitutional issue.
Quote from: derspiess on April 03, 2009, 10:47:46 AM
Quote from: Caliga on April 03, 2009, 10:26:46 AM
Would you be in favor of a repeal of ALL laws related to marriage?
No.
I'm trying to give you an out dude. :(
Quote from: Valmy on April 03, 2009, 10:15:21 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 03, 2009, 10:14:00 AM
As well they should. I'd spend huge amounts of money to destroy my enemies too.
Well yes but you also consider the poor your enemies.
To some extent. They can live if they go about their doomed little lives quietly. Gays refuse to do that, and so must be exterminated. Then, we must cure the genes that cause homosexuality, and thus free the future.
Good for Iowa.
In more local news, a perhaps-less-spectacular court victory, but a victory nonetheless. A Polish high admnistrative court has ruled it is illegal for Polish authorities to refuse to give "certificates of eligibility to marry" (which is like a birth certificate, with some extra info written in) to Polish citizens who want to enter into legal same sex marriages abroad.
In other news, the European Parliament has approved a regulation proposal that will make it illegal to discriminate on the grounds of creed, ethnics, race, gender, sexual orientation and age in access to services and goods, as well as employment (until now it was only illegal to discriminate in employment). The Polish government has stated it will support the adoption of the regulation. When passed it will be illegal for private entities to, e.g. discriminate with respect to offering services or goods, or more importantly, it will also be illegal e.g. to discriminate when it comes to renting accommodations etc.
Is Yi rioting in the streets?
Nice. Midwest? That should stir things up. :D
Nice work Iowa :)
Quote from: katmai on April 03, 2009, 12:13:12 PM
Is Yi rioting in the streets?
Give me just a few minutes more to finish my giant puppet.
Quote from: Caliga on April 03, 2009, 10:51:12 AM
I'm trying to give you an out dude. :(
I'd rather just play the raving homophobe role that's been laid out for me ;)
Quote from: derspiess on April 03, 2009, 01:05:00 PM
I'd rather just play the raving homophobe role that's been laid out for me ;)
You've already done enough. :hug:
Quote from: garbon on April 03, 2009, 01:09:55 PM
You've already done enough. :hug:
I have not even started ;)
Quote from: Caliga on April 03, 2009, 10:18:44 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 03, 2009, 10:14:57 AMHate 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).
GOD DAMN IOWA.
Quote from: dps on April 03, 2009, 01:52:56 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 03, 2009, 10:18:44 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 03, 2009, 10:14:57 AMHate 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.
Quote from: Martinus on April 03, 2009, 02:44:24 PMThe "state should get out of marriage business" argument is a strawman. It will never happen.
I agree... I was merely thinking wishfully.
Quote from: Caliga on April 03, 2009, 02:46:34 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 03, 2009, 02:44:24 PMThe "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!
Quote from: Caliga on April 03, 2009, 02:46:34 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 03, 2009, 02:44:24 PMThe "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.
That was a Grade A Marty rant. Well, it's a B+ anyway.
Quote from: Martinus on April 03, 2009, 02:49:59 PM
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.
Quote from: derspiess on April 03, 2009, 02:51:10 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 03, 2009, 02:49:59 PM
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.
Quote from: derspiess on April 03, 2009, 02:50:05 PM
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!'.
Quote from: Martinus on April 03, 2009, 02:44:24 PM
Quote from: dps on April 03, 2009, 01:52:56 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 03, 2009, 10:18:44 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 03, 2009, 10:14:57 AMHate 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.
Quote from: derspiess on April 03, 2009, 02:51:10 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 03, 2009, 02:49:59 PM
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).
Iowa. What a dump.
May 1 will see legal gay marriage in Sweden. :x
Quote from: derspiess on April 03, 2009, 02:51:10 PM
So you think gays are so weak-minded that they need government to encourage them to enter stable relationships? Interesting.
Weak-minded? I think it is a question of priorities.
Quote from: dps on April 03, 2009, 03:11:01 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 03, 2009, 02:51:10 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 03, 2009, 02:49:59 PM
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).
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.
However, in my mind's eye I can easily picture myself wearing a matching tux with my groom. And it would be the full blown thing, not some quick trip to the mayor. So there. :P
See, you assume too much about me.
Quote from: Martinus on April 03, 2009, 03:15:50 PM
Quote from: dps on April 03, 2009, 03:11:01 PMI 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.
Quote from: dps on April 04, 2009, 11:02:13 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 03, 2009, 03:15:50 PM
Quote from: dps on April 03, 2009, 03:11:01 PMI 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.
Quote from: Faeelin on April 03, 2009, 10:09:57 AM
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?
Quote from: grumbler on April 04, 2009, 04:23:59 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on April 03, 2009, 10:09:57 AM
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?
First we repeal the constitution then we can do anything!
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.
It won't be long before the Mormons and the muslims use the same argument for a constitutional right to poligamy. The logic is inescapable.
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 04, 2009, 05:02:44 PM
It won't be long before the Mormons and the muslims use the same argument for a constitutional right to poligamy. The logic is inescapable.
Given that Muslims and Mormons would be asking for the exact same treatment under the law as non-Muslims and non-Mormons, what they would get is a right to monogamous marriage, which they already have.
The logic says any other conclusion is inescapably moronic.
Quote from: grumbler on April 04, 2009, 06:30:13 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 04, 2009, 05:02:44 PM
It won't be long before the Mormons and the muslims use the same argument for a constitutional right to poligamy. The logic is inescapable.
Given that Muslims and Mormons would be asking for the exact same treatment under the law as non-Muslims and non-Mormons, what they would get is a right to monogamous marriage, which they already have.
The logic says any other conclusion is inescapably moronic.
They don't want monogamous marriage, in exactly the same way that faggots don't want to marry women.
Hans has defeated you in every way. Feel shame.
Quote from: grumbler on April 04, 2009, 06:30:13 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 04, 2009, 05:02:44 PM
It won't be long before the Mormons and the muslims use the same argument for a constitutional right to poligamy. The logic is inescapable.
Given that Muslims and Mormons would be asking for the exact same treatment under the law as non-Muslims and non-Mormons, what they would get is a right to monogamous marriage, which they already have.
The logic says any other conclusion is inescapably moronic.
Gays have a right to monogamous marriage already. The limit of marriage being defined as being between a man and a woman is certainly no more arbitrary as the limit to the number of marriage partners. At least, unlike gay marriage, polygamie has an actual historic background.
Oh, Hans, you can be so cute. :hug:
I think Hans just wants a second wife.
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 04, 2009, 09:13:04 PM
Gays have a right to monogamous marriage already. The limit of marriage being defined as being between a man and a woman is certainly no more arbitrary as the limit to the number of marriage partners. At least, unlike gay marriage, polygamie has an actual historic background.
No, actually, gays do not. They cannot marry people with whom they are in a loving monogamous relationship. Banning gay marriage is no more an exercise in fairness than banning all marriages but gay ones would be.
And while polygamy may have actual historical background, and I do not oppose it, its legality or illegality is completely unrelated to the issue of whether or not gays should have the right to marry monogamously. If gays were asking for polygamous marriage, then you would have an argument.
Quote from: grumbler on April 04, 2009, 10:14:35 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 04, 2009, 09:13:04 PM
Gays have a right to monogamous marriage already. The limit of marriage being defined as being between a man and a woman is certainly no more arbitrary as the limit to the number of marriage partners. At least, unlike gay marriage, polygamie has an actual historic background.
No, actually, gays do not. They cannot marry people with whom they are in a loving monogamous relationship. Banning gay marriage is no more an exercise in fairness than banning all marriages but gay ones would be.
And while polygamy may have actual historical background, and I do not oppose it, its legality or illegality is completely unrelated to the issue of whether or not gays should have the right to marry monogamously. If gays were asking for polygamous marriage, then you would have an argument.
It's shocking to see you pushing your apples and oranges argument, when you should be feeling shame due to your defeat.
Quote from: PDH on April 04, 2009, 09:33:01 PM
I think Hans just wants a second wife.
Why would someone want that?
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 04, 2009, 05:02:44 PM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2009, 12:55:49 PM
Quote from: dps on April 04, 2009, 11:02:13 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 03, 2009, 03:15:50 PM
Quote from: dps on April 03, 2009, 03:11:01 PMI 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.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2009, 10:38:35 PM
Quote from: PDH on April 04, 2009, 09:33:01 PM
I think Hans just wants a second wife.
Why would someone want that?
If Bmollson were still here, you could ask him.
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. :P
Quote from: Martinus on April 05, 2009, 03:04:39 AM
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. :P
Generally people get shafted in gay sex as well, and it can be only one if there is only one bottom. :P
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2009, 11:09:27 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 05, 2009, 03:04:39 AM
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. :P
Generally people get shafted in gay sex as well, and it can be only one if there is only one bottom. :P
Yeah but in gay sex people enjoy getting shafted. :P
Quote from: Martinus on April 05, 2009, 11:50:23 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2009, 11:09:27 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 05, 2009, 03:04:39 AM
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. :P
Generally people get shafted in gay sex as well, and it can be only one if there is only one bottom. :P
Yeah but in gay sex people enjoy getting shafted. :P
People enjoy heterosexual sex as well. Even more than gay sex, actually.
Quote from: Neil on April 05, 2009, 11:52:27 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 05, 2009, 11:50:23 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2009, 11:09:27 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 05, 2009, 03:04:39 AM
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. :P
Generally people get shafted in gay sex as well, and it can be only one if there is only one bottom. :P
Yeah but in gay sex people enjoy getting shafted. :P
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.
Quote from: grumbler on April 04, 2009, 04:23:59 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on April 03, 2009, 10:09:57 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on April 05, 2009, 01:10:50 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 04, 2009, 05:02:44 PM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on April 05, 2009, 11:56:17 AM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2009, 10:38:35 PM
Quote from: PDH on April 04, 2009, 09:33:01 PM
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 :blush: