Unanimous ruling: Iowa marriage no longer limited to one man, one woman

[fozzie 41]

I don't speak for them, but I think the anti-gay community is concerned that this is being forced on society as normal and acceptable. I do think that there is some legitimacy to this claim.

Being recognized as a couple who've accepted a contractual agreement, doesn't mean that society as a whole should be forced to accept that agreement. I don't think they should either. Naturally, I doubt the anti-gay community is worried about the government forcing them to establish social relationships with people they don't want to. The issue that would arise about force would be an economic one.

If Barza Woman has a business, I don't believe that she should be forced to do business with anybody that she doesn't desire to. If she is the head of an insurance firm, and she doesn't want to insure gay couples, I don't think she should be forced to.

Eventually, she may find that her selective service process is economically unwise. Because one business's loss is a competitor's gain. But it's her business, and her decision to make, not anyone elses.

But again, I don't speak for the anti-gay crowd, so my assessment may be off the mark.

But surely if homosexuality is not a choice then it IS the same as all other discrimation. If I have a business and don't want to serve black people then I would get into trouble (Just a scenario, not in any way my views). Why? because they cannot choose the color of their skin any more than homosexuals can control their sexuality.

[mRx 16]

I don't speak for them, but I think the anti-gay community is concerned that this is being forced on society as normal and acceptable. I do think that there is some legitimacy to this claim.

Being recognized as a couple who've accepted a contractual agreement, doesn't mean that society as a whole should be forced to accept that agreement. I don't think they should either. Naturally, I doubt the anti-gay community is worried about the government forcing them to establish social relationships with people they don't want to. The issue that would arise about force would be an economic one.

If Barza Woman has a business, I don't believe that she should be forced to do business with anybody that she doesn't desire to. If she is the head of an insurance firm, and she doesn't want to insure gay couples, I don't think she should be forced to.

Eventually, she may find that her selective service process is economically unwise. Because one business's loss is a competitor's gain. But it's her business, and her decision to make, not anyone elses.

But again, I don't speak for the anti-gay crowd, so my assessment may be off the mark.

But surely if homosexuality is not a choice then it IS the same as all other discrimation. If I have a business and don't want to serve black people then I would get into trouble (Just a scenario, not in any way my views). Why? because they cannot choose the color of their skin any more than homosexuals can control their sexuality.

Should you be forced to do business with black people, gays, redheads, white people, etc. if you don't want to? Or any other person that you don't want to make exchanges with? I don't think you should be, and I see no rights being violated in respecting people's right to choose who to conduct business with. However, when an individual is compelled by threat of force to do business with someone, I see that as an overt violation of liberty.

[EstebanTrabajos 7]

Go Iowa! That's not a state I would have picked to do something like this...but good for them!

And I mean no offense to Iowa...I just tend to imagine those midwestern states as mostly super conservative. Don't hate on me because I don't know anything about Iowa!

Naw. They got Senator Tom Harkin. That would be the man in the middle, watching John Kerry shaking hands with Fidel Castro.

Awww google made you stick your foot in your mouth? awww your point wasn't made by connecting Fidel-Kerry-Harkin = socialism-democrats?? BAD GOOGLE BAD GOOGLE!

Fidel Castro great job! who in this world mistakes Fidel Castro for another dude wearing greens? who? oh I know who

Edited April 4, 2009 by TävôLuDô

[Heracles 417]

FFS. Get over this rights issues.

Let the #### get married. Gezz we have more important things to look at than rights issues in this country.

As long as their views are not pushed in schools, I have no problem with it.

[EstebanTrabajos 7]

I mean Ortega is Ortega but is like me saying that this guy in the picture is GOP's celebrity Rumsfeld shaking hands with another dictator Saddam Hussein

Wait a minute this is Rumsfeld and Hussein! OMG! see my point? in politics you shake even the devil's hand if necessary and the job requires it. It's all about kissing A$$

Edited April 4, 2009 by TävôLuDô

[Heracles 417]

I mean Ortega is Ortega but is like me saying that this guy in the picture is GOP's celebrity Rumsfeld shaking hands with another dictator Saddam Hussein

Wait a minute this is Rumsfeld and Hussein! OMG! see my point? in politics you shake even the devil's hand if necessary and the job requires it. It's all about kissing A$$

Saddam was once our friend. We also shared a common enemy, Iran. Things change.

[EstebanTrabajos 7]

I say mind your own business, if you think that gay marriage should not be allowed, you resemble those religious or self-proclaimed paladins of justice from the past that hated the idea of an interracial marriage, worst of all they had the same reasons, and correct me please if I'm wrong.

- It is not natural

- Our children are going to follow the example

- The bible said it is against it

- It will cheapen the marriage

- How am i supposed to explain my child why that white man married that black woman? or vice versa

And more...

Moreover, if this stupid law against interracial marriage would be in place nowadays some of us in this forum wouldn't had been able to get married on the first place. Banning gay marriage is archaic and shouldn't exist. EQUALITY FOR "ALL" not just for those that SHARE my same opinion, religion, sexual preference or color of skin.

Edited April 4, 2009 by TävôLuDô

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Sucks that there is so much bigotry on this issue.

[mRx 16]

Sucks that there is so much bigotry on this issue.

A bigot is a person who is intolerant of or takes offense to the opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own. So, if you take offense to bigotry, wouldn't that make you a bigot as well?

[Heracles 417]

Sucks that there is so much bigotry on this issue.

A bigot is a person who is intolerant of or takes offense to the opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own. So, if you take offense to bigotry, wouldn't that make you a bigot as well?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I don't speak for them, but I think the anti-gay community is concerned that this is being forced on society as normal and acceptable. I do think that there is some legitimacy to this claim.

Being recognized as a couple who've accepted a contractual agreement, doesn't mean that society as a whole should be forced to accept that agreement. I don't think they should either. Naturally, I doubt the anti-gay community is worried about the government forcing them to establish social relationships with people they don't want to. The issue that would arise about force would be an economic one.

If Barza Woman has a business, I don't believe that she should be forced to do business with anybody that she doesn't desire to. If she is the head of an insurance firm, and she doesn't want to insure gay couples, I don't think she should be forced to.

Eventually, she may find that her selective service process is economically unwise. Because one business's loss is a competitor's gain. But it's her business, and her decision to make, not anyone elses.

But again, I don't speak for the anti-gay crowd, so my assessment may be off the mark.

But surely if homosexuality is not a choice then it IS the same as all other discrimation. If I have a business and don't want to serve black people then I would get into trouble (Just a scenario, not in any way my views). Why? because they cannot choose the color of their skin any more than homosexuals can control their sexuality.

There is the real question, and why certain groups resent the LGBT community usurping the banner of civil rights. Does women's suffrage, racism, and dicrimination against the disabled equal sexual preference? We all have urges and curiosities that we don't act upon for either moral reasons, or because of social pressure. As much as I may want to prance down Main Street wearing a pink tutu, I just don't do it!

Now, a tolerant society may make exceptions for activities that appear to do no harm to a reasonable person. For my situation, I live in a very diverse community, and either I can learn to accept that community, or move somewhere else. Economics do enter into the equation, as one poster stated. I could refuse to due business with all the LGBT's and hippies and the illegal immigrants and the snooty nuevo rich and all the rest, but I would quickly run out of clients.

Damn, I love the area, and I love driving around a resort area fixing recreational vehicle. So, although I feel like a voice crying in the wilderness at times, they have come to accept me only as well as I have come to accept them.

[mawilson 2,133]

How has your life changed since Same sex marriage was legalized? I especially like the answer of the old lady at 4:25

####### were those Muslims saying?

I don't see a right missing. Marriage is not a right, it's a privilege.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I mean Ortega is Ortega but is like me saying that this guy in the picture is GOP's celebrity Rumsfeld shaking hands with another dictator Saddam Hussein

Wait a minute this is Rumsfeld and Hussein! OMG! see my point? in politics you shake even the devil's hand if necessary and the job requires it. It's all about kissing A$$

Que pasa amigo? You trying to pick a fight? Can't Rumsfeld, Kerry, and Harkin all be wrong for doing what they did? Please excuse me if I did not read the article that I stripped the photo from. It did serve to answer the post I was replying to, as to whether Iowa could be considered a consevative state only.

Edited April 4, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[mawilson 2,133]

Why are you so dismissive of traditional definitions of marriage? Why are you so anxious to change what has been a social norm for centuries? Are there any unintended consequences to consider if this should change across the country?

A lot of stupid аss-backwards ####### has been a social norm for centuries. Including the idea that

sexuality is some kind of sacrament and should be limited to the bounds of marriage.

Edited April 4, 2009 by mawilson

[one...two...tree 2,762]

How has your life changed since Same sex marriage was legalized? I especially like the answer of the old lady at 4:25

####### were those Muslims saying?

They weren't Muslim....they are Sikhs. You live in NY and have never seen a Sikh?