Iowa approves same sex marriage

[elvis]

From the lack of response I am guessing straight people don't marry for love ... well then, we should pair them up for genetic compatibility only, those who will produce the strongest, smartest, and best offspring will only be allowed to marry, all others tough.

I married for love. sorry for the lack of response. I've been engaged in a fiery debate.

 

[elvis]

I'm only this bitchy when people are being this stupid. Ignorance and deliberate obtuseness make me cranky.

And yes, it DOES mean it's the will of the people. Because unlike judges, representatives have to be responsive to the people who elected them. Judges, who for the most part are not elected, don't have to give a rat's ass what the people say. If the people don't like an amendment, trust me, it doesn't get passed. Look at the ERA.

And yes, I do think the people DID choose to limit the terms of the President, precisely because they thought debacles like FDR were a bad idea. How much choice do you really think the people were given at the ballot box while he was around? Did the Republicans even bother to put up viable candidates against him?

How did the judges in Iowa come to power?

You think that every time Congress makes a decision, it reflects the will of the people?

It does if the people are stupid enough to let it stand and let the idiots who did it remain in power.

How did the judges in Iowa come to power?

 

[Article 15]

From the lack of response I am guessing straight people don't marry for love ... well then, we should pair them up for genetic compatibility only, those who will produce the strongest, smartest, and best offspring will only be allowed to marry, all others tough.

I married for love. sorry for the lack of response. I've been engaged in a fiery debate.

You mean you didn't marry to force your lifestyle down the throat of everyone else?

 

[Cecilie1200]

From the lack of response I am guessing straight people don't marry for love ... well then, we should pair them up for genetic compatibility only, those who will produce the strongest, smartest, and best offspring will only be allowed to marry, all others tough.

I married for love. sorry for the lack of response. I've been engaged in a fiery debate.

I didn't marry for love, because I recognized that the most anyone really feels at the beginning of a relationship is infatuation, which is a silly damned reason to get married. Love is what you get after years of living and working together as a team. The first time I looked at my husband, thoroughly pissed off and fed up at him, ready to either divorce him or kill him, and realized that I was going to stay with him and make it work anyway, is the day I knew I really loved him.

 

[Article 15]

For starters, because the people don't want it, and I sure as hell don't want to see our system of government brought down even faster by more rampant judicial usurpation of power. I didn't sign on to live under an oppressive, tyrannical, unelected oligarchy, and I don't appreciate you and your cohorts forcing it on me because at the moment, it happens to fit your own personal view of cosmic justice.

Get your lazy asses out there and win at the ballot box by convincing people you're right, instead of just forcing it down their throats, and then we'll talk about any other reasons I might have.

Blatant deflection and dodge.

The question isn't about anybody but yourself, what "people" want isn't relevant to the question and I doubt you are the kind of person who lets others do your thinking for you. This is personal. If YOU had a vote why would YOU, Cecilie, cast a vote against it?

No deflection or dodging. You asked me why I oppose it, and I told you. Who the hell are you to tell me what MY reasons can and can't be?

I oppose it because I don't like the methods being used to promote it. Like it or ******* lump it, but that is my reason, and you don't get to tell me it isn't.

I voted against it in the last election, not that it's any of your business. My state, Arizona, was one of three - including Caifornia - which passed an amendment to its state Constitution barring homosexual "marriage", and I voted to pass that amendment. No one has ever given me sufficient reason to believe it should be legally sanctioned, and as I've said, they've given me one HELL of a good reason to oppose it.

What you gave me was a cheap cop out.

Would you prefer they ask you nicely?

 

[Sherry]

From the lack of response I am guessing straight people don't marry for love ... well then, we should pair them up for genetic compatibility only, those who will produce the strongest, smartest, and best offspring will only be allowed to marry, all others tough.

Hitler's going to sprout a woody from the grave.

 

[Cecilie1200]

From the lack of response I am guessing straight people don't marry for love ... well then, we should pair them up for genetic compatibility only, those who will produce the strongest, smartest, and best offspring will only be allowed to marry, all others tough.

I married for love. sorry for the lack of response. I've been engaged in a fiery debate.

You mean you didn't marry to force your lifestyle down the throat of everyone else?

No, because HIS marriage was already legal and absolutely no change whatsoever in the way things have been done for the whole of human history.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

No, I don't have all the rights you do, and I won't shut up about it until I do.

Really? You don't have the right to a legal marriage with a member of the opposite sex? I'm pretty sure you do. Go try it, and let me know how it works out.

Cecilie, get a grip. You've posted a zillion posts in five minutes.

Sky has made it clear she's in a long term committed relationship with a woman.

Are you able to demonstrate a legitimate reason why they shouldn't be able to share the legal benefits of marriage? What are you so afraid of?

I'm sure she can... and I damn well KNOW I CAN...

First there is NOTHING STOPPING HOMOSEXUALS FROM 'sharing the legal benefits of marriage'; as I've stated MANY TIMES ON THIS THREAD: queers can form a corporation
wherein they are entitled to share insurance benefits, pension benefits and ANY OTHER LEGAL distribution... Incorporation proves EVERY LEGAL BENEFIT of marriage... without exception; as incorporating provides for the means of distinct individuals to represent themselves as a DISTINCT, WHOLLY SEPARATE ENTITY...

But of course the queer lobby does not WANT to even CONSIDER THIS... because the queers want the VALIDATION which marriage would represent... the normalization of the abnormal... the normalization of their deviency...

Of course it would NOT MAKE the abnormal, normal, but they believe it would and are willing to sacrifice the culture to make themselves FEEL BETTER.

But that's the nature of the idiot, isn't it?

 

[KittenKoder]

I married for love. sorry for the lack of response. I've been engaged in a fiery debate.

You mean you didn't marry to force your lifestyle down the throat of everyone else?

No, because HIS marriage was already legal and absolutely no change whatsoever in the way things have been done for the whole of human history.

However it is not him I was originally asking ... so it applies more to you, you did not marry out of love, therefore, your marriage should have been under the complete control of the government, unless you want to afford the right for others to marry who they love ...

 

[Article 15]

I married for love. sorry for the lack of response. I've been engaged in a fiery debate.

You mean you didn't marry to force your lifestyle down the throat of everyone else?

No, because HIS marriage was already legal and absolutely no change whatsoever in the way things have been done for the whole of human history.

So?

Things have changed over the course of human history. I don't carry around a club and forcibly take the women of my choosing.

 

[Valerie]

I didn't marry for love

Freak.


WHY does your marriage deserve special legal rights and privileges that Skydancer's does not???

WHY? Can you post ONE legitimate reason?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Blatant deflection and dodge.

The question isn't about anybody but yourself, what "people" want isn't relevant to the question and I doubt you are the kind of person who lets others do your thinking for you. This is personal. If YOU had a vote why would YOU, Cecilie, cast a vote against it?

No deflection or dodging. You asked me why I oppose it, and I told you. Who the hell are you to tell me what MY reasons can and can't be?

I oppose it because I don't like the methods being used to promote it. Like it or ******* lump it, but that is my reason, and you don't get to tell me it isn't.

I voted against it in the last election, not that it's any of your business. My state, Arizona, was one of three - including Caifornia - which passed an amendment to its state Constitution barring homosexual "marriage", and I voted to pass that amendment. No one has ever given me sufficient reason to believe it should be legally sanctioned, and as I've said, they've given me one HELL of a good reason to oppose it.

What you gave me was a cheap cop out.

Would you prefer they ask you nicely?

What I gave you was the truth. You just think it was a cop out because it wasn't what you wanted to hear. I'm not your wife, so I'm not obliged to tell you what you want to hear. Whether or not you like that I'm concerned about trying to preserve the nation I love and the system of government that goes with it, that's the truth.

And what I would prefer they do is observe the legal procedures in place for enacting legislation. Is that too damned much to ask? If you can't win at the ballot box, you don't deserve to win.

 

[elvis]

How about you just move to a country where homosexual "marriage" is legal?

so you're saying you support making homosexuality illegal?

No, amazingly enough, I still don't give a rat's ass what homosexuals do, anymore than I did when I first said it, as long as they don't drag the rest of us into it via the courts.

You, on the other hand, do support homosexual "marriage", so why don't you just go hunt it down and stop bothering us? I'm sure the Netherlands would love the influx of taxpayers, so shoo.

I don't think you really want that. I'm a registered republican.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

You mean you didn't marry to force your lifestyle down the throat of everyone else?

No, because HIS marriage was already legal and absolutely no change whatsoever in the way things have been done for the whole of human history.

However it is not him I was originally asking ... so it applies more to you, you did not marry out of love, therefore, your marriage should have been under the complete control of the government, unless you want to afford the right for others to marry who they love ...

ROFLMNAO.. SWEET NON SEQUITUR!


Do another one... this could be used for a one of those Video rental ads...

"What comes first?"

"Socks, then underwear!"

"THAT'S RIGHT!"

 

[Cecilie1200]

You mean you didn't marry to force your lifestyle down the throat of everyone else?

No, because HIS marriage was already legal and absolutely no change whatsoever in the way things have been done for the whole of human history.

So?

Things have changed over the course of human history. I don't carry around a club and forcibly take the women of my choosing.

Only because she's likely to have a gun now.

You want to change things? Then you do so by the legally-set procedures provided for that purpose. Otherwise, you're just as uncivilized a bully as if you WERE clubbing women of your choosing.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I didn't marry for love

Freak.


WHY does your marriage deserve special legal rights and privileges that Skydancer's does not???

WHY? Can you post ONE legitimate reason?

It does NOT... and she's not said anything which could even POTENTIALLY lead to such a conclusion... DUMBASS!

 

[Article 15]

No deflection or dodging. You asked me why I oppose it, and I told you. Who the hell are you to tell me what MY reasons can and can't be?

I oppose it because I don't like the methods being used to promote it. Like it or ******* lump it, but that is my reason, and you don't get to tell me it isn't.

I voted against it in the last election, not that it's any of your business. My state, Arizona, was one of three - including Caifornia - which passed an amendment to its state Constitution barring homosexual "marriage", and I voted to pass that amendment. No one has ever given me sufficient reason to believe it should be legally sanctioned, and as I've said, they've given me one HELL of a good reason to oppose it.

What you gave me was a cheap cop out.

Would you prefer they ask you nicely?

What I gave you was the truth. You just think it was a cop out because it wasn't what you wanted to hear. I'm not your wife, so I'm not obliged to tell you what you want to hear. Whether or not you like that I'm concerned about trying to preserve the nation I love and the system of government that goes with it, that's the truth.

And what I would prefer they do is observe the legal procedures in place for enacting legislation. Is that too damned much to ask? If you can't win at the ballot box, you don't deserve to win.

Which brings the argument back to the Jim Crowe laws, etc. where often times in the case of civil rights the oppressed minority can't win at the ballot box because well, they are an oppressed minority.

 

[Cecilie1200]

so you're saying you support making homosexuality illegal?

No, amazingly enough, I still don't give a rat's ass what homosexuals do, anymore than I did when I first said it, as long as they don't drag the rest of us into it via the courts.

You, on the other hand, do support homosexual "marriage", so why don't you just go hunt it down and stop bothering us? I'm sure the Netherlands would love the influx of taxpayers, so shoo.

I don't think you really want that. I'm a registered republican.

I'm not, so what do I care?

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, because HIS marriage was already legal and absolutely no change whatsoever in the way things have been done for the whole of human history.

However it is not him I was originally asking ... so it applies more to you, you did not marry out of love, therefore, your marriage should have been under the complete control of the government, unless you want to afford the right for others to marry who they love ...

ROFLMNAO.. SWEET NON SEQUITUR!


Do another one... this could be used for a one of those Video rental ads...

"What comes first?"

"Socks, then underwear!"

"YOUR RIGHT!"

I will never understand why people I've had on ignore for months are still addressing posts to me. I'm always very clear about telling these twits when they drop off the end of my patience.

 

[elvis]

No, amazingly enough, I still don't give a rat's ass what homosexuals do, anymore than I did when I first said it, as long as they don't drag the rest of us into it via the courts.

You, on the other hand, do support homosexual "marriage", so why don't you just go hunt it down and stop bothering us? I'm sure the Netherlands would love the influx of taxpayers, so shoo.

I don't think you really want that. I'm a registered republican.

I'm not, so what do I care?

How did those Iowa judges come to power?