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

[DeadPoolX 9]

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.

I know pronounce you Spousal Unit 1 and Spousal Unit 2.

Actually... that'd be pretty neat in an android/gynoid sort of way.

[Danno 1,228]

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!

Are you willing to allow any number of people form a marriage also?

Where in the Constitution does it require a marriage to be only 2 people? In fact it is not and to follow your warped idea of "letting anyone do anything" would strike down so many laws.... as most are influenced by both history and the collective "Christian atmosphere" that was prevalent for most of this countries history.

So tell me should people be allowed to marry in unlimited numbers? Should people be allowed to have sex in public parks, should group-sex be also be taught in school as "an option".

Societies have a right and duty to "collectively" decide what is or is not acceptable in marriage as few other policies will effect the public as a whole, as the prevalent family structure.

If the majority of People WANT alternative type marriages, fine, lets vote on it and if it passes, let "all" people decide for themselves what their families will consist of.

Where your logic might crumble is if you want to say, "religion should have no bearing on the issue" but then suggested we should hang on to the religious tradition of only "TWO" people being in a marriage.

Edited April 5, 2009 by Danno

[fozzie 41]

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!

Are you willing to allow any number of people form a marriage also?

Where in the Constitution does it require a marriage to be only 2 people? In fact it is not and to follow your warped idea of "letting anyone do anything" would strike down so many laws.... as most are influenced by both history and the collective "Christian atmosphere" that was prevalent for most of this countries history.

So tell me should people be allowed to marry in unlimited numbers? Should people be allowed to have sex in public parks, should group-sex be also be taught in school as "an option".

Societies have a right and duty to "collectively" decide what is or is not acceptable in marriage as few other policies will effect the public as a whole, as the prevalent family structure.

If the majority of People WANT alternative type marriages, fine, lets vote on it and if it passes, let "all" people decide for themselves what their families will consist of.

Where your logic might crumble is if you want to say, "religion should have no bearing on the issue" but then suggested we should hang on to the religious tradition of only "TWO" people being in a marriage.

That would be a lifestyle choice!

Being gay isn't.

[Danno 1,228]

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!

Are you willing to allow any number of people form a marriage also?

Where in the Constitution does it require a marriage to be only 2 people? In fact it is not and to follow your warped idea of "letting anyone do anything" would strike down so many laws.... as most are influenced by both history and the collective "Christian atmosphere" that was prevalent for most of this countries history.

So tell me should people be allowed to marry in unlimited numbers? Should people be allowed to have sex in public parks, should group-sex be also be taught in school as "an option".

Societies have a right and duty to "collectively" decide what is or is not acceptable in marriage as few other policies will effect the public as a whole, as the prevalent family structure.

If the majority of People WANT alternative type marriages, fine, lets vote on it and if it passes, let "all" people decide for themselves what their families will consist of.

Where your logic might crumble is if you want to say, "religion should have no bearing on the issue" but then suggested we should hang on to the religious tradition of only "TWO" people being in a marriage.

That would be a lifestyle choice!

Being gay isn't.

That's the best you can do?

I smell a hypocrite.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

Should people be allowed to have sex in public parks, should group-sex be also be taught in school as "an option".

i think that would keep the students awake

[Sofiyya 1,687]

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!

This is at least the third time I've said this in this thread: I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN. I never have been, and never will be. I'm also not the one who keeps raising the issue of religion as part of this discusion.

I responded to your remark about religious people keeping their opinions out of law with an opposite view. You need to remember, while spouting about the Constitution, that religious people have rights, too, and those rights include promoting their values in forming moral law for the whole of the society.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

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?

About sums it up.

These folks clearly can't read.

[c_and_a 0]

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!

Are you willing to allow any number of people form a marriage also?

Where in the Constitution does it require a marriage to be only 2 people? In fact it is not and to follow your warped idea of "letting anyone do anything" would strike down so many laws.... as most are influenced by both history and the collective "Christian atmosphere" that was prevalent for most of this countries history.

So tell me should people be allowed to marry in unlimited numbers? Should people be allowed to have sex in public parks, should group-sex be also be taught in school as "an option".

Societies have a right and duty to "collectively" decide what is or is not acceptable in marriage as few other policies will effect the public as a whole, as the prevalent family structure.

If the majority of People WANT alternative type marriages, fine, lets vote on it and if it passes, let "all" people decide for themselves what their families will consist of.

Where your logic might crumble is if you want to say, "religion should have no bearing on the issue" but then suggested we should hang on to the religious tradition of only "TWO" people being in a marriage.

That would be a lifestyle choice!

Being gay isn't.

That's the best you can do?

I smell a hypocrite.

Actually, you just got owned, how does it feel?

All it takes is a sharp dose of the facts the expose the fearmongering blather that you're posting.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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?

About sums it up.

These folks clearly can't read.

I wonder if you talk in the third person in real life when responding to others. It wouldn't be out of character with what I've come to expect.

All behold Queen barza, holding court with her audience of sycophantic subjects.

Is that enough melodrama for you I wonder?

Probably not.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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!

Are you willing to allow any number of people form a marriage also?

Where in the Constitution does it require a marriage to be only 2 people? In fact it is not and to follow your warped idea of "letting anyone do anything" would strike down so many laws.... as most are influenced by both history and the collective "Christian atmosphere" that was prevalent for most of this countries history.

So tell me should people be allowed to marry in unlimited numbers? Should people be allowed to have sex in public parks, should group-sex be also be taught in school as "an option".

Societies have a right and duty to "collectively" decide what is or is not acceptable in marriage as few other policies will effect the public as a whole, as the prevalent family structure.

If the majority of People WANT alternative type marriages, fine, lets vote on it and if it passes, let "all" people decide for themselves what their families will consist of.

Where your logic might crumble is if you want to say, "religion should have no bearing on the issue" but then suggested we should hang on to the religious tradition of only "TWO" people being in a marriage.

That would be a lifestyle choice!

Being gay isn't.

That's the best you can do?

I smell a hypocrite.

Actually, you just got owned, how does it feel?

All it takes is a sharp dose of the facts the expose the fearmongering blather that you're posting.

Polygamy is wholly impractical in our society for obvious reasons, and the only examples of it that exist in this country are highly structured patriarchal models that put women in a subservient position.

The "if this, why not that" slippery slope argument is a red herring. It adds nothing to the discussion, but gets trotted out all the same on this topic.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Polygamy is wholly impractical in our society for obvious reasons, and the only examples of it that exist in this country are highly structured patriarchal models that put women in a subservient position.

The "if this, why not that" slippery slope argument is a red herring. It adds nothing to the discussion, but gets trotted out all the same on this topic.

It worked pretty well in my younger days, where we were used the hippie communal system of polygamus monogamy. It was sorta of like a never ending, free-form swinger lifestyle, but the couplings might vary weekly, monthly, or seasonally, rather than hourly or nightly. Marriages were a rare event, and something to be celebrated in a totally hedonistic manner! Oh, for the days when STD's were a little concern!

[pedroh 21]

Allowing gay marriage hurts no one.

Denying gay marriage hurts many.

How is it bad, then?

because if children see a gay couple, they automatically thing being gay is cool and will 'turn' gay..

curiously, I watched Milk last night, very very good movie, and it's sad that ideals from that decade -'recruiting' children to be gay, relating them to pedophiles- are still alive today

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But I imagine you've "settled down" since then.

Conventional relationships aren't for everyone, but most people end up with a life partner or two.

Redefining our laws to accept a marriage involving several partners would be almost impossible. Again the reasons for this are obvious.

[Dakine 26]

**

Edited April 5, 2009 by Captain Ewok
removed per TOS. Language such as this is not appropriate on VJ.

[pedroh 21]

ah.. i can see a lock coming.. thanks Haole, with your so so intelligent comment...