Judge: Same-sex couples can wed in Iowa

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Going by the OP article - I'd say things are inching toward change. The fact that this keeps cropping up in various states suggests to me at least that the issue isn't going away. Inconvenient as that might be.

Being gay is not going to cease to exist becuase they are unable to marry. Therefore, I expect this to be an ongoing issue for sometime to come... Agreed!!!

Seems a shame to ignore it then.

[Sheriff Uling 3]

More specifically, the Sheriff appears unable to recognize a CIVIL RIGHTS issue facing him -- when it doesn't make his life personally more agreeable but challenges his (private) beliefs.

Marriage in the United States of America is a civil institution and confers a lot of civil rights. If our spouses -- heaven forbid -- get hit by a car, we have a legal right to be by the bedside. But my son, who cannot marry his sweet heart, experiences this as a privilege depending on just what ambulance the hospital takes his beloved to. Is this a proper disposition of rights by the State? It think not, and apparently the Sheriff disagrees.

If my wife and I (who are too old to have biological children) decide to adopt, and subsequently split up and she gets custody, I can reasonably be required to pay child support. My son, in the same predicament, is 100% on his own.

My wife will be able to collect my social security if I die before her, which is likely since women outlive men. My son will have no such civil benefit.

In the USA, marriage is a civil, not primarily a religious institution. But, to me, it is incredible that those who benefit from substantial advances in civil rights in the past 60 years are so fast to deny it to those that they consider different.

The Sheriff, and those like him, are, plain and simple, bigots whose views, were the nation to regain the enlighenment we achieved 50 years ago, would be shunned.

Having a different opinion does not make me and others bigots... I just don't agree with gay people being afforded that liberty... I not a gay basher... I don't put down gay people... I treat everyone the same no matter who they are or what their sexual orientation is, but that does not mean that I have to agree with what people do. That's life and not bigotry... I don't agree with you and I don't have too. That does not make me a bad person or a bigot. It seems convenient to label people as bad or awful to achieve your own means or to get others to sympathize with your position. Do yourself and others a favor and stick to your issues and leave the judging to those more qualified. Judges and God... Now, does incorrectly or automatically labeling people as bigots that disagree with you make you a bad person. Of course not…!!! So how dare you, but then again... it's your right! So be my guest!!!

Edited September 2, 2007 by Sheriff Uling

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

More specifically, the Sheriff appears unable to recognize a CIVIL RIGHTS issue facing him -- when it doesn't make his life personally more agreeable but challenges his (private) beliefs.

Marriage in the United States of America is a civil institution and confers a lot of civil rights. If our spouses -- heaven forbid -- get hit by a car, we have a legal right to be by the bedside. But my son, who cannot marry his sweet heart, experiences this as a privilege depending on just what ambulance the hospital takes his beloved to. Is this a proper disposition of rights by the State? It think not, and apparently the Sheriff disagrees.

If my wife and I (who are too old to have biological children) decide to adopt, and subsequently split up and she gets custody, I can reasonably be required to pay child support. My son, in the same predicament, is 100% on his own.

My wife will be able to collect my social security if I die before her, which is likely since women outlive men. My son will have no such civil benefit.

In the USA, marriage is a civil, not primarily a religious institution. But, to me, it is incredible that those who benefit from substantial advances in civil rights in the past 60 years are so fast to deny it to those that they consider different.

The Sheriff, and those like him, are, plain and simple, bigots whose views, were the nation to regain the enlighenment we achieved 50 years ago, would be shunned.

Having a different opinion does not make me and others bigots... I just don't agree with gay people being afforded that liberty... I not a gay basher... I don't put down gay people... I treat everyone the same no matter who they are or what their sexual orientation is, but that does not mean that I have to agree with what people do. That's life and not bigotry... I don't agree with you and I don't have too. That does not make me a bad person or a bigot. It seems convenient to label people as bad or awful to achieve your own means or to get others to sympathize with your position. Do yourself and others a favor and stick to your issues and leave the judging to those more qualified. Judges and God... Now does incorrectly labeling people that disagree with you make you a bad person. Of course not…!!! So how dare you, but then again... it's your right! So be my guest!!!

As I see it - while you're dressing it up in PC language you're refusing to elaborate on the rationale behind your views. It's not hard to imagine why...

If you've been mis-represented - please take the opportunity to elaborate.

What is the reasoning behind your dislike of homosexuality?

What is the reasoning behind denying a gay couple the ability to get joint health-insurance?

What is the reasoning behind denying a gay couple the right to joint tax exemption and joint property rights?

What is the reasoning behind denying a gay couple the right to next of kin status?

Edited September 2, 2007 by Number 6

[Sheriff Uling 3]

Sheriff - out of curiosity. Why specifically is it that you find homosexuality 'wrong'?

The better question is what about homosexuality is right? Like I have written before, I am not attempting to change your mind about how you feel, interpret, or rationalize homosexuality. It's your right... Just like it's mine to stand up for what for what I believe is right and just...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Sheriff - out of curiosity. Why specifically is it that you find homosexuality 'wrong'?

The better question is what about homosexuality is right? Like I have written before, I am not attempting to change your mind about how you feel, interpret, or rationalize homosexuality. It's your right... Just like it's mine to stand up for what for what I believe is right and just...

And its "right and just" to deny gays equal rights under the law?

Personally speaking - I'm indifferent to homosexuality. I'm not gay, it doesn't affect me - as far as that goes I really don't care.

That said, I believe in fairness - and I honestly can't rationalise how people with no self-interest in the homosexual lifestyle (i.e. you're not gay) should be dead set on denying yet another minority group the rights enjoyed by everyone else.

It stinks IMO.

Edited September 2, 2007 by Number 6

[Sheriff Uling 3]

Do I have to agree with you (rhetorical question)? No!

It's not something that I would support. Just as prohibiting gays from sharing the same liberties as heterosexuals is not something you would support. That does not make me wrong and it’s not PC. That’s how I feel about it period. You don’t have to agree with me. It's both our right! Just as you have to right to support and fight for it. I have the same right to fight against it. Just as your voice shall be heard, mine shall be heard as well. Hopefully, this entire exercise has not been to change my POV because I'm not trying to change yours. The only reason that I have even continued to post in this thread is because the notion that everyone who opposes gay marriage are bigots or bad people is just ridiculous. That's the only thing that I have really wanted to convey. Your stance on gay marriage is irrelevant to me. Just as my stance against it is irrelevant to you. BUT how dare you and others, unjustly label good people because we don't agree with you. Yes, there are some folks out there who are, but I'm more offended that you overarch the bigot label to all that do not agree with your decision to support gay marriage. Why should I truly care, that’s your right to support, under the umbrella of the law, that which you deem right and just.

In life, there will always be someone with a different POV. That doesn't make them wrong or bad people. Moreover, they don't have to agree with you or follow you because you believe it to be right and just.

Edited September 2, 2007 by Sheriff Uling

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Do I have to agree with you (rhetorical question)? No!

It's not something that I would support. Just as prohibiting gays from sharing the same liberties as heterosexuals is not something you would support. That does not make me wrong and it’s not PC. That’s how I feel about it period. You don’t have to agree with me. It's both our right! Just as you have to right to support and fight for it. I have the same right to fight against it. Just as your voice shall be heard, mine shall be heard as well. Hopefully, this entire exercise has not been to change my POV because I'm not trying to change yours. The only reason that I have even continued to post in this thread is because the notion that everyone who opposes gay marriage are bigots or bad people is just ridiculous. That's the only thing that I have really wanted to convey. Your stance on gay marriage is irrelevant to me. Just as my stance against it is irrelevant to you. BUT how dare you and others, unjustly label good people because we don't agree with you. I'm more offended by that then your position to support gay marriage. Why should I truly care, that’s your right to support, under the umbrella of the law, that which you deem right and just.

In life, there will always be someone with a different POV. That doesn't make them wrong or bad people. Moreover, they don't have to agree with you or follow you because you believe it to be right and just.

Sure - but it says something about a person when they don't have the courage of their convictions to actually substantiate the reasoning behind their entrenched position. That causes people to wonder what you might be hiding. IMHO.

[Sheriff Uling 3]

Do I have to agree with you (rhetorical question)? No!

It's not something that I would support. Just as prohibiting gays from sharing the same liberties as heterosexuals is not something you would support. That does not make me wrong and it’s not PC. That’s how I feel about it period. You don’t have to agree with me. It's both our right! Just as you have to right to support and fight for it. I have the same right to fight against it. Just as your voice shall be heard, mine shall be heard as well. Hopefully, this entire exercise has not been to change my POV because I'm not trying to change yours. The only reason that I have even continued to post in this thread is because the notion that everyone who opposes gay marriage are bigots or bad people is just ridiculous. That's the only thing that I have really wanted to convey. Your stance on gay marriage is irrelevant to me. Just as my stance against it is irrelevant to you. BUT how dare you and others, unjustly label good people because we don't agree with you. I'm more offended by that then your position to support gay marriage. Why should I truly care, that’s your right to support, under the umbrella of the law, that which you deem right and just.

In life, there will always be someone with a different POV. That doesn't make them wrong or bad people. Moreover, they don't have to agree with you or follow you because you believe it to be right and just.

Sure - but it says something about a person when they don't have the courage of their convictions to actually substantiate the reasoning behind their entrenched position. That causes people to wonder what you might be hiding. IMHO.

My point has not been to defend my position, but rather just to state where I stand. Like I wrote before, I am more offended that you and others have labeled everyone that has an opposing position as bigots. That's ridiculous and unrealistic. Not to mention immature! That’s what I’m offended by. Putting down others or labeling them something awful seems more convenient then to purely express where you stand and let that be that...

FYI - You have not truly substantiated your position beyond pointing at heterosexual to say gays should enjoy that right as well, and to someday see your gay son marry the man he loves and enjoy the fruits that heterosexuals do. However, I don't care about your position, and I'm for dahamn sure that you don't give a rat's ####### about mine. So let's cut the #######. It would become another circular conversation of defending and supporting both of our positions. This is not the forum for that... IMO! Not to mention, I’m not interested in having that dialog because that’s not my intent or purpose.

I have therefore reiterated my point several times now and will close the book on my end.

Cheers!!!

Sheriff Uling

Edited September 2, 2007 by Sheriff Uling

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Do I have to agree with you (rhetorical question)? No!

It's not something that I would support. Just as prohibiting gays from sharing the same liberties as heterosexuals is not something you would support. That does not make me wrong and it’s not PC. That’s how I feel about it period. You don’t have to agree with me. It's both our right! Just as you have to right to support and fight for it. I have the same right to fight against it. Just as your voice shall be heard, mine shall be heard as well. Hopefully, this entire exercise has not been to change my POV because I'm not trying to change yours. The only reason that I have even continued to post in this thread is because the notion that everyone who opposes gay marriage are bigots or bad people is just ridiculous. That's the only thing that I have really wanted to convey. Your stance on gay marriage is irrelevant to me. Just as my stance against it is irrelevant to you. BUT how dare you and others, unjustly label good people because we don't agree with you. I'm more offended by that then your position to support gay marriage. Why should I truly care, that’s your right to support, under the umbrella of the law, that which you deem right and just.

In life, there will always be someone with a different POV. That doesn't make them wrong or bad people. Moreover, they don't have to agree with you or follow you because you believe it to be right and just.

Sure - but it says something about a person when they don't have the courage of their convictions to actually substantiate the reasoning behind their entrenched position. That causes people to wonder what you might be hiding. IMHO.

My point has not been to defend my position, but rather just to state where I stand. Like I wrote before, I am more offended that you and others have labeled everyone that has an opposing position as bigots. That's ridiculous and unrealistic. Not to mention immature! That’s what I’m offended by. Putting down others or labeling them something awful seems more convenient then to purely express where you stand and let that be that...

FYI - You have not truly substantiated your position beyond pointing at heterosexual to say gays should enjoy that right as well, and to someday see your gay son marry the man he loves and enjoy the fruits that heterosexuals do. However, I don't care about your position, and I'm for dahamn sure that you don't give a rat's ####### about mine. So let's cut the #######. It would become another circular conversation of defending and supporting both of our positions. This is not the forum for that... IMO! Not to mention, I’m not interested in having that dialog because that’s not my intent or purpose.

I'm not the guy with the gay son. That was somebody else. Novotul I believe...

I'm only interested in what's fair. Fair to me is granting a minority group (perceptions of which have greatly changed over the last 50 years) the legal recognition that should come along with that.

I'm not interested in what you believe. I am interested in why you believe it.

[mendeleev 68]

Do I have to agree with you (rhetorical question)? No!

It's not something that I would support. Just as prohibiting gays from sharing the same liberties as heterosexuals is not something you would support. That does not make me wrong and it’s not PC. That’s how I feel about it period. You don’t have to agree with me. It's both our right! Just as you have to right to support and fight for it. I have the same right to fight against it. Just as your voice shall be heard, mine shall be heard as well. Hopefully, this entire exercise has not been to change my POV because I'm not trying to change yours. The only reason that I have even continued to post in this thread is because the notion that everyone who opposes gay marriage are bigots or bad people is just ridiculous. That's the only thing that I have really wanted to convey. Your stance on gay marriage is irrelevant to me. Just as my stance against it is irrelevant to you. BUT how dare you and others, unjustly label good people because we don't agree with you. I'm more offended by that then your position to support gay marriage. Why should I truly care, that’s your right to support, under the umbrella of the law, that which you deem right and just.

In life, there will always be someone with a different POV. That doesn't make them wrong or bad people. Moreover, they don't have to agree with you or follow you because you believe it to be right and just.

Sure - but it says something about a person when they don't have the courage of their convictions to actually substantiate the reasoning behind their entrenched position. That causes people to wonder what you might be hiding. IMHO.

My point has not been to defend my position, but rather just to state where I stand. Like I wrote before, I am more offended that you and others have labeled everyone that has an opposing position as bigots. That's ridiculous and unrealistic. Not to mention immature! That’s what I’m offended by. Putting down others or labeling them something awful seems more convenient then to purely express where you stand and let that be that...

FYI - You have not truly substantiated your position beyond pointing at heterosexual to say gays should enjoy that right as well, and to someday see your gay son marry the man he loves and enjoy the fruits that heterosexuals do. However, I don't care about your position, and I'm for dahamn sure that you don't give a rat's ####### about mine. So let's cut the #######. It would become another circular conversation of defending and supporting both of our positions. This is not the forum for that... IMO! Not to mention, I’m not interested in having that dialog because that’s not my intent or purpose.

I'm not the guy with the gay son. That was somebody else. Novotul I believe...

I'm only interested in what's fair. Fair to me is granting a minority group (perceptions of which have greatly changed over the last 50 years) the legal recognition that should come along with that.

I'm not interested in what you believe. I am interested in why you believe it.

The Sheriff has already demonstrated that he can't shoot straight. (Self-appointed cops often have that sort of problem, seems to me.)

He also apparently believes that US Citizens should not all be equal under the law. The white folk in the south believed this way, prior to the success of the civil rights movement, they were rightly labelled as bigots and their bigoted beliefs were eventually disowned by the national politic. That will happen with this issue, too, and it may take a long time.

It is interesting that he cannot articulate any reason, other than the reason that he has the force of the majority behind him right now, to justify his position.

A certain political leader made similar justifications in the 30s in Germany, and hundreds of thousands of gay people died a decade later in gas chambers. Before that, he led his nation into unilateral wars of aggression. I hope we do not plumb parallels with that experience beyond those that our nation has shamefully indulged in in the past five years.

[peejay 327]

Going by the OP article - I'd say things are inching toward change. The fact that this keeps cropping up in various states suggests to me at least that the issue isn't going away. Inconvenient as that might be.

For the most part in lilly White, ultra-liberal, upper class venues on the left and right coasts...and on university campuses. Any surprises there?

Civil rights? When did the homophobes sic the dogs and the cops on homosexuals? Do you mean you can actually tell if someone is a homosexual by the way they look?

Not sure where you pulled that one from... What do civil rights have to do with identifying homosexuals 'by sight'? Did anyone actually suggest this?

As I said:

What is the reasoning behind denying a gay couple the ability to get joint health-insurance?

What is the reasoning behind denying a gay couple the right to joint tax exemption and joint property rights?

What is the reasoning behind denying a gay couple the right to next of kin status?

I don't have an answer for these. Do you?

What do civil rights have to do with identifying homosexuals by sight?

Well...the gay marriage movement has been trying to ride on the coat tails of Martin Luther King's civil rights movement in a lame attempt to try to highjack some sort of moral high ground to their cause. As the Sheriff noted earlier...it's about like comparing apples to oranges. He's really being kind. Considering that the gay marriage movement is, for the most part, a lilly White, upper class movement that in no way even comes close the the original civil rights movement of Dr. King in the 1960's, comparing the plight of Blacks in that era to modern day homosexuals is so bogus and lame that it defies comparison.

And since you mentioned illegal aliens earlier...here is a group that has broken into the USA by hiring human smugglers to guide them into the USA in the middle of the night like sneak thieves for thousands of $$$, buying counterfeit/stolen ID from organized criminals for even more $$$ to work/live illegally in the USA against our laws, and have done more to cut the throats of working class Blacks (and other Americans as well). And they have the unmitigated gall to wrap themselves in the civil rights movement of MLK and sing "We Shall Overcome" in Spanish while brandishing photos of MLK. Only the most ignorant of morons that has no inkling of historical perspective would buy into this nonsense.

What is the reasoning behind denying a gay couple the ability to get joint health-insurance?

Marriage is widely defined in the vast majority of the USA as being between one man and one woman. If Michael Dell and his shareholders wish to voluntarily bestow health insurance on homosexual "domestic partners"...well groovy! More power to Dell, Inc. But it harkens back to my original comment...the gay marriage movement is all about the state seal of approval from government and forced validation of homosexuality imposed on a society that has no compelling interest in granting it. With millions of children and full time workers that are without any health care coverage...should I give a ####### whether some gay guy gets his stay-at-home boy toy's health premiums paid for by government mandate? Only a retard without any sense of national priorites would even think this should be #1 on our agenda.

What is the reasoning behind denying a gay couple the right to joint tax exemption and joint property rights?

The first part is "marriage is widely defined in the vast majority of the USA as being between one man and one woman" and have you ever heard of a will? Nobody is denying anything but the state seal of approval and societal validation of homosexuality.

What is the reasoning behind denying a gay couple the right to next of kin status?

"Marriage is widely defined in the vast majority of the USA as being between one man and one woman" and have you ever heard of a will or power of attorney? Nobody is denying anything but the state seal of approval and societal validation of homosexuality.

I've just about played reasons I don't believe gay marriage is not the most pressing issue of our time and why I can't get morally indignant over what is essentially an issue that upper class White liberals have elevated to a level that is not warranted considering the myriad of higher priority issues that really need to be dealt with. While Rome burns Nero plays the violin.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

"Marriage is widely defined in the vast majority of the USA as being between one man and one woman"

That definition is based almost totally on outdated religious doctrines. IMO. Given that there is supposedly a separation between church and state its hard to see how that is justifiable...

Edited September 3, 2007 by Number 6