Gay marriage in Iowa? Who knew?!

[DK II]

 

[drkaje]

Not really, considering that the language used to justify the discrimination is the same now as it was then.

Every single time someone thinks they're being deprived os something the first thing they do is yell racism. Fat people, gays, women, etc have compared themselves to blacks to advance their own causes and exploited racism under the guise of pointing out unfairness.

It's a big lie that people should be challenged on. People who believe/advance the comparison between blacks and gays are either stupid, lying, or just plain don't understand what the argument is really saying.

I'm anti bullshit and the only real benefit I can see to gay marriage being legal is not having to hear people bitch about it anymore. Legitimizing gay marriage will definitely have some cultural impact and affect families but it's doubtful the world will end. We really won't know what the effect of redefining marriage/family is for years after the change so there's really no point speculating.

[Tre]

Every single time someone thinks they're being deprived os something the first thing they do is yell racism. Fat people, gays, women, etc have compared themselves to blacks to advance their own causes and exploited racism under the guise of pointing out unfairness.

Agreed. 

It's a big lie that people should be challenged on. People who believe/advance the comparison between blacks and gays are either stupid, lying, or just plain don't understand what the argument is really saying.

The intellectuals are not equating being gay with being black.  The extremist rhetoric gets the small minds worked up (on all sides of the debate), I do agree. 

I'm anti bullshit and the only real benefit I can see to gay marriage being legal is not having to hear people bitch about it anymore. Legitimizing gay marriage will definitely have some cultural impact and affect families but it's doubtful the world will end. We really won't know what the effect of redefining marriage/family is for years after the change so there's really no point speculating.

We're Americans, and in America, we don't tax one group at the same rate as another group without affording them the same rights, privileges, and protections as the other group.  Well, we're doing it, but it's not a practice that our country stands for. 

The fact of the matter is that there are same-gender couples in neighborhoods all around the U.S. and not a single family (not their own) has been affected by this reality.  They're just another couple down the street, for crying out loud.  I must've asked this question 200 times last year...how does the fact that you have a same-gender couple living next door affect you in any way?

It doesn't. 

You get up and go to work every day, the same as they do. 

NOW, if you were to get rid of the current tax code and the IRS and move directly to a fair tax...you wouldn't be seeing nearly as much conversation from me and some others on this topic.  Marriage isn't my thing, I really don't care about it.  The only reason I'm still in the argument is because of the tax issue.

I've written a lot more on this subject, but will close there for now.

FAIR TAX FOR ALL!

[drkaje]

Agreed. 

The intellectuals are not equating being gay with being black.  The extremist rhetoric gets the small minds worked up (on all sides of the debate), I do agree. 

We're Americans, and in America, we don't tax one group at the same rate as another group without affording them the same rights, privileges, and protections as the other group.  Well, we're doing it, but it's not a practice that our country stands for. 

The fact of the matter is that there are same-gender couples in neighborhoods all around the U.S. and not a single family (not their own) has been affected by this reality.  They're just another couple down the street, for crying out loud.  I must've asked this question 200 times last year...how does the fact that you have a same-gender couple living next door affect you in any way?

It doesn't. 

You get up and go to work every day, the same as they do. 

NOW, if you were to get rid of the current tax code and the IRS and move directly to a fair tax...you wouldn't be seeing nearly as much conversation from me and some others on this topic.  Marriage isn't my thing, I really don't care about it.  The only reason I'm still in the argument is because of the tax issue.

I've written a lot more on this subject, but will close there for now.

FAIR TAX FOR ALL!

The intellectuals are more guilty on this issue than extremists because they know better.

If you want to address a tax issue, try making a percentage of child support deductible.

As far as any 'taxation without representation' argument goes. I'm not certain if that argument holds much water because it assumes every gay person wants to get married and presumes marriage is a right. Marriage is more a cultural norm than a right in my opinion. I'm not certain if changing the culture's definition of marriage to suit a small group makes sense, especially considering how many unmarried couples live together without children that aren't carping about tax benefits.

It'll be interesting to see what happens when gay divorce starts happening among couples who have either adopted, used surrogates, flipped a coin to see who would get knocked up, etc.... Having the exact, same laws applied to same sex couples will leave a lot of hurt feelings. Custodial parent determinations will be very dicey in some cases.

[CastIron]

Forget Iowa all they want is attention. You never here about that state any other time. Unlike Texas, where I live everybody knows about. It's not our fault Bush chose our state ok ok ok!

[drkaje]

Forget Iowa all they want is attention. You never here about that state any other time. Unlike Texas, where I live everybody knows about. It's not our fault Bush chose our state ok ok ok!

Iowa isn't satisfied with attention every 4 years.

From caucus to cock-us, I guess.

[GetItOnNY]

IOWA, MEANS Idoits out wandering around.They should change there name to Giowa, for Gay Idiots wandering around.
I am not homophobic, but our founding fathers who wrote our constitution would have never stood for or allowed gay people to get married.I think gays can do what ever they please, but I dont think that marriage is  not one of them.
Marriage is a unity between a man and a woman, who can produce children.Gay people cannot produce children so its going against the laws of nature.But god gave us freedom of choice so if people want to love someone that is the same sex as them they have that right.But I dont recognize or think people of the same sex should be allowed to marry legally.
If they want to marry one another, just buy each other rings, and make the vows to each other.Thats is all that really matters.Our founding fathers would have no excepted it ,ever.

[Tre]

The reality is that states shouldn't be in the marriage business in the first place.  But, since they are, let's transition everything to 'civil unions' (or domestic partnerships, whatever) and leave 'marriage' to the religious institutions and the people they control. 

[drkaje]

The reality is that states shouldn't be in the marriage business in the first place.  But, since they are, let's transition everything to 'civil unions' (or domestic partnerships, whatever) and leave 'marriage' to the religious institutions and the people they control. 

Marriage is a state issue.

[Tre]

Marriage is a state issue.

But most of the rhetoric on the issue has come from churches and only a few of them have any sense.

[Tre]

The intellectuals are more guilty on this issue than extremists because they know better.

If you want to address a tax issue, try making a percentage of child support deductible.

As far as any 'taxation without representation' argument goes. I'm not certain if that argument holds much water because it assumes every gay person wants to get married and presumes marriage is a right. Marriage is more a cultural norm than a right in my opinion. I'm not certain if changing the culture's definition of marriage to suit a small group makes sense, especially considering how many unmarried couples live together without children that aren't carping about tax benefits.

It'll be interesting to see what happens when gay divorce starts happening among couples who have either adopted, used surrogates, flipped a coin to see who would get knocked up, etc.... Having the exact, same laws applied to same sex couples will leave a lot of hurt feelings. Custodial parent determinations will be very dicey in some cases.

LOL @ know better!

The argument does not presume that every gay person wants to get married any more than the current laws presume that every person - gay or not - wants to get married. 

Each adult should have the right to enter a committed (for lack of a better term, because this could spark a million tangential debates) relationship with another consenting adult.  It's the government that established that couples who unite in 'marriage' would receive financial incentives for doing so. 

Taking it a step further, I'm even fine with that couple choosing to accept additional consenting adults into the relationship.  If the state then says, "We're not going to allow multi-marriage families to adopt children", it would probably be a long time before I'd be willing to join that fight.

BUT, on the issue of two-parent couples adopting, there's only one common sensical answer - children are much better off in a stable, loving home than they are in the care of state or private agencies. 

It's 100% bullshit for certain groups (many of them religious) to argue that children are better off in group homes than they would be in a home with two fathers or two mothers.  'Protecting the children', my ass. 

Custody cases are already complicated and the standard rules have long been antiquated, which is why the advocacy movement for the rights of fathers is growing.  Custody issues will not be any more or less complicated with same-gender couples than they are now.  If we're talking about more-than-two-parent families, yes, I would agree with your position, but not with just two parents. 

[drkaje]

LOL @ know better!

The argument does not presume that every gay person wants to get married any more than the current laws presume that every person - gay or not - wants to get married. 

Each adult should have the right to enter a committed (for lack of a better term, because this could spark a million tangential debates) relationship with another consenting adult.  It's the government that established that couples who unite in 'marriage' would receive financial incentives for doing so. 

Taking it a step further, I'm even fine with that couple choosing to accept additional consenting adults into the relationship.  If the state then says, "We're not going to allow multi-marriage families to adopt children", it would probably be a long time before I'd be willing to join that fight.

BUT, on the issue of two-parent couples adopting, there's only one common sensical answer - children are much better off in a stable, loving home than they are in the care of state or private agencies. 

It's 100% bullshit for certain groups (many of them religious) to argue that children are better off in group homes than they would be in a home with two fathers or two mothers.  'Protecting the children', my ass. 

Custody cases are already complicated and the standard rules have long been antiquated, which is why the advocacy movement for the rights of fathers is growing.  Custody issues will not be any more or less complicated with same-gender couples than they are now.  If we're talking about more-than-two-parent families, yes, I would agree with your position, but not with just two parents. 

When an 'intellectual' uses "there was a time when blacks couldn't marry whites" or some other race associated nonsense there are counting on the listener's brain to shut off. Someone foolish will hear it and assume disagreeing means they're racist even though gays aren't a separate race. But the biggest trick is playing to the majority's own racist thoughts because the true meaning of that statement always comes back to "How can you let blacks have more rights than us?".

Since courts always assume children are better served staying with the mother, it'll be interesting to see how the social experiment works out.

[nodeal]

being gay is a horrible, horrible choice...

[Deicide]

being gay is a horrible, horrible choice...

It's not a choice.

[bigdumbbell]

prior to 1850 the only public school was boston latin. that's when they started the racket of public education and in the 1890's local governments began taxing for school assessed rates.  that shit needs to stop.  if you want fairness and reform  dont make taxpayer educate your little monsters.  THAT'S WELFARE

[Deicide]

prior to 1850 the only public school was boston latin. that's when they started the racket of public education and in the 1890's local governments began taxing for school assessed rates.  that shit needs to stop.  if you want fairness and reform  dont make taxpayer educate your little monsters.  THAT'S WELFARE

Interesting...

[Tre]

prior to 1850 the only public school was boston latin. that's when they started the racket of public education and in the 1890's local governments began taxing for school assessed rates.  that shit needs to stop.  if you want fairness and reform  dont make taxpayer educate your little monsters.  THAT'S WELFARE

A more educated populace is a more productive populace.