Iowa approves same sex marriage

[KittenKoder]

It's funny that they still consider this passing a law ... when it's just enforcing a law already passed really. The laws of contractual agreements.

Really? So, a whole group of people could sign a contract that they're all married to eachother and it's legal then? Two men and a woman could marry? Two women and a man? I wonder why polygamists haven't just been 'making legal contracts' all these years then? All they needed was a damn contract!!!

Um ... if they all enter into a contract then why should they be allowed to break it? No matter how you spin religious views into it, you are still putting religious views into law by not allowing two consenting adults enter into the contract. The polygamy laws are financially sound, it abuses the tax privileges and therefore harms us directly. Why are you so against the courts enforcing contracts? No wonder our country is failing in business, contracts mean nothing to too many people now, like you.

 

[Valerie]

Oh Let's see, it's a contract which due to moral prudence can only me entered into by one example of each of the two distincts genders... Marriage is, even legally, vastly more than a contract... it is a joining of two human beings, each one unique in their respective genders, into one legal entity.

Now again, you want to limit the scope of marriage to a strict legal interpretation and to rinse from it's measure, the moral imperative which it serves.

But when one considers that in strict legal terms, a Corporation provides for the joining of mulitple individuals into one legal entity... and despite the many years of debates where innumerable people have advanced this legal certainty that the simple forming of a Corporation by those who want to share insurance, inherent pensions, enjoy a legal right to visit those represented within that legal entity who are in hospital... NOT ONE queer has ever adhered to this certainty.

So given that indisputable fact, reason requires that there is MUCH more than a pendatic interpretaton of a legal definition in the fight of the sexual devients to undermine the not so high moral threshold required to marry.

They want to use Marriage as a means to validate their sexual deviency... to normalize the abnormal; to undermine the culture; Homosexuals want to redefine marriage to rationalize that the CULTURE needs to accept their deviency to allow them to 'feel better about THEMSELVES.'

Which, I suppose, IF that were possible; IF normalizing deviency COULD make the deviency normal... and thus in so doing make them 'feel better about themselves'... what would be the problem? But normalizing deviency will not make deviency normal, and allowing queers to marry will NOT make them feel better about themselves... it merely subverts the cultural thresholds which sought to reduce the number of people who engage in devient behavior and as a result would feel bad about themselves; meaning that more people will, as a result of the subverting of these thresholds, engage in sexual deviency and FEEL BAD ABOUT THEMSELVES...

Good call dumbass!

Moral ... so you are all for the government telling people what religious views we should have as well as think it's illegal for the courts to enforce legal binding contracts based on gender.

ROFL... so you come to the point in only two posts... (It's easy to see how the secularist is boyed by the Runaway secularism at play today.)

Notice friends, how the Member's position has come from a stand upon thewhat they imply is a moral imperative; equal outcome citing Constitutional mandates which they erroneously feel requires such... to the demand that the government has no place in the enforcement of morality, implying such to be the simple opinion of the superstitious; being part and parcel of their religious views.

Notice too, how she COMPLETELY set aside the point wherein ANY TWO PEOPLE CAN ENTER INTO A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT, INCORPORATING their common interests, providing each will be LEGALLY RECOGNIZED as one ENTITY; where each respective party within that CORPORATION can will be able to design how proceeds from insurance and pensions and other such legal instruments can be distributed... and notice how, DESPITE HER STATED DESIRE TO LIMIT THE DISCUSSION TO STRICT LEGAL (setting aside the aforementioned misnomer born in the moral imperative of equality of outcome) interpretations CONTRACTS... she shows NO INTERESTS in the means which homosexuals are perfectly, legally entitled to create and which fulfills EVERY FACET of this 'legal contract' farce...

And she does so , because the Advocates of Normalizing Deviency aren't interested in WHAT'S LEGAL... in finding a way to cohabitate together and enjoy the legal rights where the law recognizes them as one legal entity able to share pensions and insurance and visit those in hopistal with the rights and priviledges to which such an entity is entitled.

They're interested in VALIDATING THEIR DEVIENCY, to normalize the abnormal; for no other purpose than to make themselves FEEL BETTER ABOUT THEIR MORAL DEPRAVITY...

Their pupose is to undermine the cultural standards, to impart THEIR MORALITY upon the rest of us... and they intend to do so, NOT through the legislative process, which has REJECTED THEIR MORALITY TIME AND TIME AGAIN... but by fiat projected by the judicial oligarchy of the radical left; who 'interpret' the constitution by whatever they damn well please... as they're in NO WAY bound to interpret that Constitution through the words of those who WROTE IT!

This member would LOVE you to beleive that she is standing for 'EQUAL RIGHTS and THE LAW!' But what she's standing for is a misguided, invalid understanding of 'equality' and MANIPULATION OF THE LAW to thrust the SECULAR MORALITY upon a nation which rejects it.

That's your emotional response. Some homosexuals react emotionally as well, expressing wanting to be validated and recognized, sure. Doesn't mean it has anything to do with the legal arguments involved? The legal points stand alone, aside from such random individual emotional responses on either side.

Rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States

According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are 1,138[1] statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. It should be noted that these rights and responsibilities apply only to male-female married couples, as the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines marriage as between a man and a woman and thus bars same-sex couples from receiving any federal recognition of same sex marriage or conveyance of marriage benefits to same sex couples through federal marriage law.

Prior to the enactment of DOMA, the General Accounting Office (as the GAO was then called) identified 1,049[2] federal statutory provisions in which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status or in which marital status is a factor. An update was published in 2004 by the GAO covering the period between September 21, 1996 (when DOMA was signed into law) and December 31, 2003. The update identified 120 new statutory provisions involving marital status, and 31 statutory provisions involving marital status repealed or amended in such a way as to eliminate marital status as a factor.

See below for a partial list of these provisions of federal law.
Rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Newby]

It's funny that they still consider this passing a law ... when it's just enforcing a law already passed really. The laws of contractual agreements.

Really? So, a whole group of people could sign a contract that they're all married to eachother and it's legal then? Two men and a woman could marry? Two women and a man? I wonder why polygamists haven't just been 'making legal contracts' all these years then? All they needed was a damn contract!!!

Um ... if they all enter into a contract then why should they be allowed to break it? No matter how you spin religious views into it, you are still putting religious views into law by not allowing two consenting adults enter into the contract. The polygamy laws are financially sound, it abuses the tax privileges and therefore harms us directly. Why are you so against the courts enforcing contracts? No wonder our country is failing in business, contracts mean nothing to too many people now, like you.

I haven't said a damn thing about religion. The only people that I've seen talk about religion in this entire thread are you and several others with the same view as you. Everyone has morals, can you say where yours stem or originate from? So, if yours don't originate in religious belief then that allows you to legislate your morals for everyone else to follow then? Is that the logic? So it's only morals that come from religious belief that cannot be legislated? What about murder? Isn't that a religious moral? Should we then make it legal then so that we're not mixing the state with religion? Why you assume that everyone who opposes homosexual marriage is doing so for religious moral reasons I have no idea, seems like an awfully big assumption on your part.

What happens when the next group comes along that demands their rights? Group marriages? Polygamists? How about someone that wants to marry their dog? (They are out there)? Since it's just a 'legal contract' what 'moral' reasons are you going to use to deny them? Or is it just going to turn into a free for all, and the idea of marriage and what it has stood for for hundreds of years just doesn't matter any more? Maybe the idea of 'family' is a stale concept as well? How far are you willing to take it?

 

[Valerie]

Really? So, a whole group of people could sign a contract that they're all married to eachother and it's legal then? Two men and a woman could marry? Two women and a man? I wonder why polygamists haven't just been 'making legal contracts' all these years then? All they needed was a damn contract!!!

Um ... if they all enter into a contract then why should they be allowed to break it? No matter how you spin religious views into it, you are still putting religious views into law by not allowing two consenting adults enter into the contract. The polygamy laws are financially sound, it abuses the tax privileges and therefore harms us directly. Why are you so against the courts enforcing contracts? No wonder our country is failing in business, contracts mean nothing to too many people now, like you.

I haven't said a damn thing about religion. The only people that I've seen talk about religion in this entire thread are you and several others with the same view as you. Everyone has morals, can you say where yours stem or originate from? So, if yours don't originate in religious belief then that allows you to legislate your morals for everyone else to follow then? Is that the logic? So it's only morals that come from religious belief that cannot be legislated? What about murder? Isn't that a religious moral? Should we then make it legal then so that we're not mixing the state with religion? Why you assume that everyone who opposes homosexual marriage is doing so for religious moral reasons I have no idea, seems like an awfully big assumption on your part.

What happens when the next group comes along that demands their rights? Group marriages? Polygamists? How about someone that wants to marry their dog? (They are out there)? Since it's just a 'legal contract' what 'moral' reasons are you going to use to deny them? Or is it just going to turn into a free for all, and the idea of marriage and what it has stood for for hundreds of years just doesn't matter any more? Maybe the idea of 'family' is a stale concept as well? How far are you willing to take it?

So you would not oppose homosexual marriage if it weren't for that slippery slope that would presumably lead to polygamy or people wanting to marry their dogs? If the law defined a civil marriage as between any two consenting adults, you would be okay with that?

With the murder example, the obvious difference is there is no harm in two consenting adults committing their lives to each other.

 

[KittenKoder]

Really? So, a whole group of people could sign a contract that they're all married to eachother and it's legal then? Two men and a woman could marry? Two women and a man? I wonder why polygamists haven't just been 'making legal contracts' all these years then? All they needed was a damn contract!!!

Um ... if they all enter into a contract then why should they be allowed to break it? No matter how you spin religious views into it, you are still putting religious views into law by not allowing two consenting adults enter into the contract. The polygamy laws are financially sound, it abuses the tax privileges and therefore harms us directly. Why are you so against the courts enforcing contracts? No wonder our country is failing in business, contracts mean nothing to too many people now, like you.

I haven't said a damn thing about religion. The only people that I've seen talk about religion in this entire thread are you and several others with the same view as you. Everyone has morals, can you say where yours stem or originate from? So, if yours don't originate in religious belief then that allows you to legislate your morals for everyone else to follow then? Is that the logic? So it's only morals that come from religious belief that cannot be legislated? What about murder? Isn't that a religious moral? Should we then make it legal then so that we're not mixing the state with religion? Why you assume that everyone who opposes homosexual marriage is doing so for religious moral reasons I have no idea, seems like an awfully big assumption on your part.

What happens when the next group comes along that demands their rights? Group marriages? Polygamists? How about someone that wants to marry their dog? (They are out there)? Since it's just a 'legal contract' what 'moral' reasons are you going to use to deny them? Or is it just going to turn into a free for all, and the idea of marriage and what it has stood for for hundreds of years just doesn't matter any more? Maybe the idea of 'family' is a stale concept as well? How far are you willing to take it?

You don't have to mention religion for it to be seen that it's what you are basing it on. Legally any consenting adults can enter into a contract, it was the religious people who say only specific "types" of people can do so, and only when the laws were made clearer were they finally corrected, now we have to make the law clearer again this time between gay partners. Religious polygamy IS legal, there can just be no benefits of such an arrangement, it's not illegal to have more than one partner nor commitment, it's a myth to say it's illegal. Many still practice it even, they just have no legally binding contract with more than one partner. "Family" was not something you think it is, for thousands of years before the religious change in what it meant in our country and Europe it was a huge group of many people that made up a "family" and most did not even have blood relations. Some stayed home and cared for the offspring while others went out to hunt or work. Family as you want it to be is not a true family, it is a pod, a small collection of a specific blood relation. Healthy families are larger families, and blood connections are never a deciding factor, so that blows your whole "100 year" bullshit out of the water.

No, it's a legal and binding contract, if not then there should be NO government involved at all, no tax credits, no legal rights to medical care, no estates, nothing. Once there is a legal contract involved then gender, belief, and personal life are no longer a determination of what is enforceable. Unless you want the government telling you what religious beliefs you are also allowed to follow.

 

[Sherry]

DES MOINES, Iowa -- The Iowa Supreme Court announced its ruling in a landmark same-sex marriage case Friday morning.

The court's written ruling was to be issued on the Iowa Supreme Court's Web site, but traffic to the site crashed the server and took down the Web site.

The court ruled in favor of six same-sex couples who sought to get marriage licenses, but were denied. The ruling means same-sex couples in Iowa can now get married under state law.

another atrocity for the tea baggers to protest!

Way to assume and attempt to diminish their actual objective by throwing this issue at their feet as well.

 

[Valerie]

DES MOINES, Iowa -- The Iowa Supreme Court announced its ruling in a landmark same-sex marriage case Friday morning.

The court's written ruling was to be issued on the Iowa Supreme Court's Web site, but traffic to the site crashed the server and took down the Web site.

The court ruled in favor of six same-sex couples who sought to get marriage licenses, but were denied. The ruling means same-sex couples in Iowa can now get married under state law.

another atrocity for the tea baggers to protest!

Way to assume and attempt to diminish their actual objective by throwing this issue at their feet as well.

I agree with you, Sherry. The "tea party" has to do with taxes and government spending and it's not fair to throw this issue at their feet.

 

[Ravi]

another atrocity for the tea baggers to protest!

Way to assume and attempt to diminish their actual objective by throwing this issue at their feet as well.

I agree with you, Sherry. The "tea party" has to do with taxes and government spending and it's not fair to throw this issue at their feet.

I disagree. The marriage thing also has to do with taxes...but of course, these teabaggers don't care about equalizing the tax law, do they, they simply want to protest what bugs them...namely that Palin isn't president.

 

[KittenKoder]

No, the anti-gay marriage have two fears:

Equal taxes with gay couples.

Gay couples making them look like whores because they would likely have lower divorce rates.

 

[dilloduck]

Way to assume and attempt to diminish their actual objective by throwing this issue at their feet as well.

I agree with you, Sherry. The "tea party" has to do with taxes and government spending and it's not fair to throw this issue at their feet.

I disagree. The marriage thing also has to do with taxes...but of course, these teabaggers don't care about equalizing the tax law, do they, they simply want to protest what bugs them...namely that Palin isn't president.

Oh man Ravi---you're really certifiable. where do you get this crap ?

 

[Valerie]

Way to assume and attempt to diminish their actual objective by throwing this issue at their feet as well.

I agree with you, Sherry. The "tea party" has to do with taxes and government spending and it's not fair to throw this issue at their feet.

I disagree. The marriage thing also has to do with taxes...but of course, these teabaggers don't care about equalizing the tax law, do they, they simply want to protest what bugs them...namely that Palin isn't president.

I think you're making generalizations about your political opponents because it is convenient to do so. I could be wrong, can you show me where those who are protesting in the April 15th "Tea Party" have mentioned that opposing gay marriage is part of their agenda?

 

[Ravi]

I agree with you, Sherry. The "tea party" has to do with taxes and government spending and it's not fair to throw this issue at their feet.

I disagree. The marriage thing also has to do with taxes...but of course, these teabaggers don't care about equalizing the tax law, do they, they simply want to protest what bugs them...namely that Palin isn't president.

I think you're making generalizations about your political opponents because it is convenient to do so. I could be wrong, can you show me where those who are protesting in the April 15th "Tea Party" have mentioned that opposing gay marriage is part of their agenda?

That isn't what I meant. One of the reasons, I think, gays would like to be able to marry is so they enjoy the same tax benefits as straight couples. Therefore, it would seem logical that the teabaggers would support that since they are up in arms about taxes. But they don't.

 

[RodISHI]

Um ... if they all enter into a contract then why should they be allowed to break it? No matter how you spin religious views into it, you are still putting religious views into law by not allowing two consenting adults enter into the contract. The polygamy laws are financially sound, it abuses the tax privileges and therefore harms us directly. Why are you so against the courts enforcing contracts? No wonder our country is failing in business, contracts mean nothing to too many people now, like you.

I haven't said a damn thing about religion. The only people that I've seen talk about religion in this entire thread are you and several others with the same view as you. Everyone has morals, can you say where yours stem or originate from? So, if yours don't originate in religious belief then that allows you to legislate your morals for everyone else to follow then? Is that the logic? So it's only morals that come from religious belief that cannot be legislated? What about murder? Isn't that a religious moral? Should we then make it legal then so that we're not mixing the state with religion? Why you assume that everyone who opposes homosexual marriage is doing so for religious moral reasons I have no idea, seems like an awfully big assumption on your part.

What happens when the next group comes along that demands their rights? Group marriages? Polygamists? How about someone that wants to marry their dog? (They are out there)? Since it's just a 'legal contract' what 'moral' reasons are you going to use to deny them? Or is it just going to turn into a free for all, and the idea of marriage and what it has stood for for hundreds of years just doesn't matter any more? Maybe the idea of 'family' is a stale concept as well? How far are you willing to take it?

You don't have to mention religion for it to be seen that it's what you are basing it on. Legally any consenting adults can enter into a contract, it was the religious people who say only specific "types" of people can do so, and only when the laws were made clearer were they finally corrected, now we have to make the law clearer again this time between gay partners. Religious polygamy IS legal, there can just be no benefits of such an arrangement, it's not illegal to have more than one partner nor commitment, it's a myth to say it's illegal. Many still practice it even, they just have no legally binding contract with more than one partner. "Family" was not something you think it is, for thousands of years before the religious change in what it meant in our country and Europe it was a huge group of many people that made up a "family" and most did not even have blood relations. Some stayed home and cared for the offspring while others went out to hunt or work. Family as you want it to be is not a true family, it is a pod, a small collection of a specific blood relation. Healthy families are larger families, and blood connections are never a deciding factor, so that blows your whole "100 year" bullshit out of the water.

No, it's a legal and binding contract, if not then there should be NO government involved at all, no tax credits, no legal rights to medical care, no estates, nothing. Once there is a legal contract involved then gender, belief, and personal life are no longer a determination of what is enforceable. Unless you want the government telling you what religious beliefs you are also allowed to follow.

You do have a certain point about contracts KK.

Yet a society does have a right to decide witch types of contracts are acceptted and legal to enter into.

Now as far as the belief in what the Bible says about how to treat those who fit into that immoral category...the last three chapters at the end of the book covers it. "Let him be".

What people in a society have a right to decide is where does "let him be" cross the line into infringing on their own rights and where they will draw the lines to say what is or is not legal?

Here in Iowa if you have a business where you own the property and another enters onto that property the state has control. That is you cannot allow smoking on your property or in your own place of business even though you own it. Where that goes is "you are now public property" like it or not. You have enter into a police state and the police state will now decide how you will live your life.

Personally I really could care less what you or another do. You should have the right to make that choice. Simply keep it on your side of the fence.

 

[Sherry]

Way to assume and attempt to diminish their actual objective by throwing this issue at their feet as well.

I agree with you, Sherry. The "tea party" has to do with taxes and government spending and it's not fair to throw this issue at their feet.

I disagree. The marriage thing also has to do with taxes...but of course, these teabaggers don't care about equalizing the tax law, do they, they simply want to protest what bugs them...namely that Palin isn't president.

Horseshit. I'm no fan of Palin. The tea parties aren't intended to be anti-Obama rallies, even though some will attempt to put that spin on it. People are pissed at ALL of those elected to represent us. This should be a bipartisan issue, but not enough libs have the sac to step up and get involved. They're too busy being on the defensive and worried about protecting Obama's agenda.

 

[Valerie]

I agree with you, Sherry. The "tea party" has to do with taxes and government spending and it's not fair to throw this issue at their feet.

I disagree. The marriage thing also has to do with taxes...but of course, these teabaggers don't care about equalizing the tax law, do they, they simply want to protest what bugs them...namely that Palin isn't president.

Oh man Ravi---you're really certifiable. where do you get this crap ?

I think that part was supposed to make you laugh since Palin was not running for president and not one vote has ever been cast supporting her candidacy as president.


I'm going to have to study this Tea Party agenda and see what they're saying.

Tax Day Tea Party

 

[KittenKoder]

I haven't said a damn thing about religion. The only people that I've seen talk about religion in this entire thread are you and several others with the same view as you. Everyone has morals, can you say where yours stem or originate from? So, if yours don't originate in religious belief then that allows you to legislate your morals for everyone else to follow then? Is that the logic? So it's only morals that come from religious belief that cannot be legislated? What about murder? Isn't that a religious moral? Should we then make it legal then so that we're not mixing the state with religion? Why you assume that everyone who opposes homosexual marriage is doing so for religious moral reasons I have no idea, seems like an awfully big assumption on your part.

What happens when the next group comes along that demands their rights? Group marriages? Polygamists? How about someone that wants to marry their dog? (They are out there)? Since it's just a 'legal contract' what 'moral' reasons are you going to use to deny them? Or is it just going to turn into a free for all, and the idea of marriage and what it has stood for for hundreds of years just doesn't matter any more? Maybe the idea of 'family' is a stale concept as well? How far are you willing to take it?

You don't have to mention religion for it to be seen that it's what you are basing it on. Legally any consenting adults can enter into a contract, it was the religious people who say only specific "types" of people can do so, and only when the laws were made clearer were they finally corrected, now we have to make the law clearer again this time between gay partners. Religious polygamy IS legal, there can just be no benefits of such an arrangement, it's not illegal to have more than one partner nor commitment, it's a myth to say it's illegal. Many still practice it even, they just have no legally binding contract with more than one partner. "Family" was not something you think it is, for thousands of years before the religious change in what it meant in our country and Europe it was a huge group of many people that made up a "family" and most did not even have blood relations. Some stayed home and cared for the offspring while others went out to hunt or work. Family as you want it to be is not a true family, it is a pod, a small collection of a specific blood relation. Healthy families are larger families, and blood connections are never a deciding factor, so that blows your whole "100 year" bullshit out of the water.

No, it's a legal and binding contract, if not then there should be NO government involved at all, no tax credits, no legal rights to medical care, no estates, nothing. Once there is a legal contract involved then gender, belief, and personal life are no longer a determination of what is enforceable. Unless you want the government telling you what religious beliefs you are also allowed to follow.

You do have a certain point about contracts KK.

Yet a society does have a right to decide witch types of contracts are acceptted and legal to enter into.

Now as far as the belief in what the Bible says about how to treat those who fit into that immoral category...the last three chapters at the end of the book covers it. "Let him be".

What people in a society have a right to decide is where does "let him be" cross the line into infringing on their own rights and where they will draw the lines to say what is or is not legal?

Here in Iowa if you have a business where you own the property and another enters onto that property the state has control. That is you cannot allow smoking on your property or in your own place of business even though you own it. Where that goes is "you are now public property" like it or not. You have enter into a police state and the police state will now decide how you will live your life.

Personally I really could care less what you or another do. You should have the right to make that choice. Simply keep it on your side of the fence.

The fence is the problem, where is the fence suppose to be? The government isn't suppose to control morals at all, one way or the other, that's the religious aspect, they are technically only suppose to prevent people from infringing on others morals. However banning gay marriage is infringing on another's morals while allowing it legally is in no way forcing morals on anyone.

 

[Valerie]

I disagree. The marriage thing also has to do with taxes...but of course, these teabaggers don't care about equalizing the tax law, do they, they simply want to protest what bugs them...namely that Palin isn't president.

I think you're making generalizations about your political opponents because it is convenient to do so. I could be wrong, can you show me where those who are protesting in the April 15th "Tea Party" have mentioned that opposing gay marriage is part of their agenda?

That isn't what I meant. One of the reasons, I think, gays would like to be able to marry is so they enjoy the same tax benefits as straight couples. Therefore, it would seem logical that the teabaggers would support that since they are up in arms about taxes. But they don't.

So you think that makes them hypocritical, is that it?

IMO, it would be counterproductive for the Tea Party to place such emphasis on the tax ramifications of gay marriage, or marriage in particular. They have bigger fish to fry. I have to read more about their agenda, but I hope it is presented as a bi-partisan effort that represents ALL citizens who are affected by "big government" taxation.

 

[RodISHI]

You don't have to mention religion for it to be seen that it's what you are basing it on. Legally any consenting adults can enter into a contract, it was the religious people who say only specific "types" of people can do so, and only when the laws were made clearer were they finally corrected, now we have to make the law clearer again this time between gay partners. Religious polygamy IS legal, there can just be no benefits of such an arrangement, it's not illegal to have more than one partner nor commitment, it's a myth to say it's illegal. Many still practice it even, they just have no legally binding contract with more than one partner. "Family" was not something you think it is, for thousands of years before the religious change in what it meant in our country and Europe it was a huge group of many people that made up a "family" and most did not even have blood relations. Some stayed home and cared for the offspring while others went out to hunt or work. Family as you want it to be is not a true family, it is a pod, a small collection of a specific blood relation. Healthy families are larger families, and blood connections are never a deciding factor, so that blows your whole "100 year" bullshit out of the water.

No, it's a legal and binding contract, if not then there should be NO government involved at all, no tax credits, no legal rights to medical care, no estates, nothing. Once there is a legal contract involved then gender, belief, and personal life are no longer a determination of what is enforceable. Unless you want the government telling you what religious beliefs you are also allowed to follow.

You do have a certain point about contracts KK.

Yet a society does have a right to decide witch types of contracts are acceptted and legal to enter into.

Now as far as the belief in what the Bible says about how to treat those who fit into that immoral category...the last three chapters at the end of the book covers it. "Let him be".

What people in a society have a right to decide is where does "let him be" cross the line into infringing on their own rights and where they will draw the lines to say what is or is not legal?

Here in Iowa if you have a business where you own the property and another enters onto that property the state has control. That is you cannot allow smoking on your property or in your own place of business even though you own it. Where that goes is "you are now public property" like it or not. You have enter into a police state and the police state will now decide how you will live your life.

Personally I really could care less what you or another do. You should have the right to make that choice. Simply keep it on your side of the fence.

The fence is the problem, where is the fence suppose to be? The government isn't suppose to control morals at all, one way or the other, that's the religious aspect, they are technically only suppose to prevent people from infringing on others morals. However banning gay marriage is infringing on another's morals while allowing it legally is in no way forcing morals on anyone.

I agree with you the fence is the problem.

In many cases today the government is stepping over the fence an inhibiting freedoms of it's citizens. I don't believe simply locking away addicts in jails is effective either. Nor would legalizing sniffing glue be advantageous to society. Sniffing glue causes brain damage. So society determined that it would be illegal.

You are saying "banning gay marraige" when in fact it is changing marraige to include to people of the same sex. So it is asking for an alteration of what marraige has traditionally been.

Moral behavior regulated by our government can and should be decided by the people.
Why? Because the people as a society do have that right. Should we go into your bedroom/home and decide anything you do is right or wrong? Hell no!! Can we as a society decide where we want to build that fence on moral issues that effect everyone? Absolutely.

I have every right as a property owner to object to a corporate pig farm moving in and trashing up the air and water quality of the enviroment I live in. Although the pig farmer does not think I have that right because he wants to produce pigs. Since that pig farmer can pollute the area I live in I have a right to object to the pig farm being built near where I live. My neighbors and I also have the right to ask for regulations/laws that the pig farmer must abide in.

I sure do not want a topless bar moving in next door. Do I care what they do? No, yet I have a right to say I am opposed to this as I live in the neighborhood too.

That is what you have when you live in a society of people. Each one has a voice and an opinion.

 

[Ravi]

I think you're making generalizations about your political opponents because it is convenient to do so. I could be wrong, can you show me where those who are protesting in the April 15th "Tea Party" have mentioned that opposing gay marriage is part of their agenda?

That isn't what I meant. One of the reasons, I think, gays would like to be able to marry is so they enjoy the same tax benefits as straight couples. Therefore, it would seem logical that the teabaggers would support that since they are up in arms about taxes. But they don't.

So you think that makes them hypocritical, is that it?

IMO, it would be counterproductive for the Tea Party to place such emphasis on the tax ramifications of gay marriage, or marriage in particular. They have bigger fish to fry. I have to read more about their agenda, but I hope it is presented as a bi-partisan effort that represents ALL citizens who are affected by "big government" taxation.

Since Glenn Beck and Michelle Malkin seem to be in charge of it I think your hopes are in vain.

 

[Valerie]

You do have a certain point about contracts KK.

Yet a society does have a right to decide witch types of contracts are acceptted and legal to enter into.

Now as far as the belief in what the Bible says about how to treat those who fit into that immoral category...the last three chapters at the end of the book covers it. "Let him be".

What people in a society have a right to decide is where does "let him be" cross the line into infringing on their own rights and where they will draw the lines to say what is or is not legal?

Here in Iowa if you have a business where you own the property and another enters onto that property the state has control. That is you cannot allow smoking on your property or in your own place of business even though you own it. Where that goes is "you are now public property" like it or not. You have enter into a police state and the police state will now decide how you will live your life.

Personally I really could care less what you or another do. You should have the right to make that choice. Simply keep it on your side of the fence.

The fence is the problem, where is the fence suppose to be? The government isn't suppose to control morals at all, one way or the other, that's the religious aspect, they are technically only suppose to prevent people from infringing on others morals. However banning gay marriage is infringing on another's morals while allowing it legally is in no way forcing morals on anyone.

I agree with you the fence is the problem.

In many cases today the government is stepping over the fence an inhibiting freedoms of it's citizens. I don't believe simply locking away addicts in jails is effective either. Nor would legalizing sniffing glue be advantageous to society. Sniffing glue causes brain damage. So society determined that it would be illegal.

You are saying "banning gay marraige" when in fact it is changing marraige to include to people of the same sex. So it is asking for an alteration of what marraige has traditionally been.

Moral behavior regulated by our government can and should be decided by the people.
Why? Because the people as a society do have that right. Should we go into your bedroom/home and decide anything you do is right or wrong? Hell no!! Can we as a society decide where we want to build that fence on moral issues that effect everyone? Absolutely.

I have every right as a property owner to object to a corporate pig farm moving in and trashing up the air and water quality of the enviroment I live in. Although the pig farmer does not think I have that right because he wants to produce pigs. Since that pig farmer can pollute the area I live in I have a right to object to the pig farm being built near where I live. My neighbors and I also have the right to ask for regulations/laws that the pig farmer must abide in.

I sure do not want a topless bar moving in next door. Do I care what they do? No, yet I have a right to say I am opposed to this as I live in the neighborhood too.

That is what you have when you live in a society of people. Each one has a voice and an opinion.

First of all RodISHI, happy birthday. Now, please tell me you're not equating two consenting adults loving each other with sniffing glue or having a pig farm in your neighborhood? Where is the harm in two people loving each other?