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

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I haven't mentioned religion as an element of my opposition. Some of you have attributed it to me, but not I.

It's not a stretch to think that religion plays a part in your reason for opposition, based ont he quote below.

I'm sick to death of the mindless and godless interfering in matters of law, and calling it compassion. When you don't believe in God, you'll believe in anything. . . like gay rights.

It's not a stretch to assert anything that allows stereotyping. What was I responding to by posting that? Two posts quoting me, but no post quoting the impetus for that response.

[LaL 418]

I haven't mentioned religion as an element of my opposition. Some of you have attributed it to me, but not I.

It's not a stretch to think that religion plays a part in your reason for opposition, based ont he quote below.

I'm sick to death of the mindless and godless interfering in matters of law, and calling it compassion. When you don't believe in God, you'll believe in anything. . . like gay rights.

It's not a stretch to assert anything that allows stereotyping. What was I responding to by posting that? Two posts quoting me, but no post quoting the impetus for that response.

Are you saying this was just a snide reply to the posts that preceded it, and not in any way indicative of your feelings on the subject? Yes, I took it out of context, because I didn't believe that this was only a sarcastic reply.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Since no one was honest enough to include the entire exchange, I'll do it myself:

i am sick to death of religion interfering in matters of law. it has no place and the agenda of hatred sold to millions by the religious right is disgusting. as they say, hate is not a family value.

I'm sick to death of the mindless and godless interfering in matters of law, and calling it compassion. When you don't believe in God, you'll believe in anything. . . like gay rights.

Are you saying this was just a snide reply to the posts that preceded it, and not in any way indicative of your feelings on the subject? Yes, I took it out of context, because I didn't believe that this was only a sarcastic reply.

Now, tell me. Does the original poster, by injecting religion into the debate as a negative influence, represent all of your liberal viewpoints as anti-faith, allowing me to determine that it is a lack of religion that fuels the pro-gay marriage side?

Edited April 5, 2009 by Barza Woman

[mr and mrs 187]

The interesting about that is, without realizing it, you took the very same tone to me.

You're welcome anyway.

i dont think that was condescending. possibly dismissive, but im okay with that! : D (<-- thats not condescending either, its cheeky!)

[Sofiyya 1,687]

The interesting about that is, without realizing it, you took the very same tone to me.

You're welcome anyway.

i dont think that was condescending. possibly dismissive, but im okay with that! : D (<-- thats not condescending either, its cheeky!)

Then I must be cheeky, too.

[mr and mrs 187]

im gonna stop for the moment, because i get too wound up. ill check back in when we see what happens with the vermont vote. i think the governor will veto monday and the re-vote for the 2/3 majority will be tuesday.

be nice to each other. <3

Edited April 5, 2009 by mr and mrs

[dalegg 143]

What do they say at the end of one of these ceremonies anyway?

"I now pronounce you man and husband"? "I now pronounce you woman and wife"? woman and woman, husband and husband? It sounds goofy.

I propose a compromise- They can call themselves married, but they can't call themselves husbands and wives. We need to come up with a new word or words for them.

Someone in congress needs to let go of some of their not-so-important work and get on writing up a bill and figuring out what to call them.

[Danno 1,228]

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.

You have throw out this concept that Homos are "born this way", last time I checked, there is no agreement on this theory.

There is a difference between "Not choosing" something and "not being born" a certain way.

Example, Few people "Choose" to be an alcoholic or even a pedophile. ..Are they born that way as well?

To me it's not that relevant an issue but you keep repeating this suggestion about being born gay as if "the Jury is in" and I don't think it is.

[Danno 1,228]

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

Are you serious? Where else would they push their ideas... at the Rotary Club?

Homos are not the first social/political movement to realize; Shaping the hearts and minds of youth is -pound for pound, dollar for dollar- the most effective means to achieve change.

Gay marriage is not nearly as much about Marriage as it is about getting homosexuality "normalized".

Without Gay-marriage, how can one even begin to consider ones lifestyle "Normal"?

With Gay marriage, the final tumbler to the school house lock is complete and proper re- training

of children can begin with throwing off that yoke of "old morality" their parents and history would place around their necks and replacing it with a "New morality".

Not only are they going to be pushing it in the school house, but they are going to be paid to do it with public funds , in fact they already are.

http://massresistance.com/media/video/brainwashing.html

Edited April 5, 2009 by Danno

[PB&JAM 1]

Are you serious? Where else would they push their ideas... at the Rotary Club?

Homos are not the first social/political movement to realize; Shaping the hearts and minds of youth is -pound for pound, dollar for dollar- the most effective means to achieve change.

Gay marriage is not nearly as much about Marriage as it is about getting homosexuality "normalized".

Without Gay-marriage, how can one even begin to consider ones lifestyle "Normal"?

With Gay marriage, the final tumbler to the school house lock is complete and proper re- training

of children can begin with throwing off that yoke of "old morality" their parents and history would place around their necks and replacing it with a "New morality".

Not only are they going to be pushing it in the school house, but they are going to be paid to do it with public funds , in fact they already are.

http://massresistance.com/media/video/brainwashing.html

[Marina-Del 10]

I'm sick to death of the mindless and godless interfering in matters of law, and calling it compassion. When you don't believe in God, you'll believe in anything. . . like gay rights.

I am most certainly NOT Godless. I belong to a religion that is generally considered to be quite "anti-gay". While I may or may not (I am okay with gayness but that's beside the point for my argument) agree with gayness, that has nothing to do with my want for gay people to be allowed to marry. It shouldn't matter if you personally think that being gay is a sin or if you personally think that being gay is wrong. God gave us free will and part of that free will is choosing who we love or (possibly in your opinion) how we sin.

Our country is founded on a set of amendments that have been ordered in order of importance! The FIRST, meaning the most important, amendment in the United States constitution says that everyone is free to worship whomever they please! If this is the case, the United States government cannot impose laws on the people based on certain religious beliefs -like being gay is wrong.

If you want to be a good Christian then you can go ahead and try to "change" all the gays you want (if that is your opinion about the matter and it seems to be. Although I repeat, it is NOT mine!). But if they have the legal right to marry then so be it. That is their choice and at least they are getting all of the rights as outlined under the constitution.

But please, don't assume that just because some of us have minds open enough to read the constitution that we do not have God.

And I apologize if this argument has already been made. I didn't finish reading the thread after I read that and felt I just had to respond!

[Marina-Del 10]

The government should get out of the marriage business altogether. Let the govt recognize only civil unions, whether they be gay or straight, and the rights affecting both be the same.

Religious organizations should handle marriages, and marriages should have no meaning when it comes to legal rights. If people disagree with their religious organizations approach to gay marriage, they can work within that organization to seek change, but gay couples in civil unions would still have the same legal rights as straight couples in civil unions.

The so-called definition of marriage is preserved, and well all have equal treatment/rights under the law.

Totally agree! Well said!

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

What do they say at the end of one of these ceremonies anyway?

"I now pronounce you man and husband"? "I now pronounce you woman and wife"? woman and woman, husband and husband? It sounds goofy.

pitcher and catcher

[EstebanTrabajos 7]

You fail to explain your views or answer any questions about them. This leaves us to speculate as to your motives. I guess thats the way you wanted it so that you could play victim.

troll anyone?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

About sums it up.