Iowa: Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]forlife wrote:

You’re asking the wrong question. It is not whether society needs to create gay marriage, but whether society needs not to allow gay marriage. As pointed out by the Iowa Supreme Court, there is no compelling reason to disallow gays from marrying.[/quote]

Completely incorrect. What you posit is a starting point that gay marriage must be valid unitl proven otherwise - i.e., the burden is for a given legislature to overcome that presumption, but if they can’t (in a court’s eyes), gay marriage has to be recognized.

No such presumption exists, or has existed, until an Iowa Supreme Court invented it.

Under a rational review, all we need to determine is “can a legislature come to a rational conclusion that marriage should be afforded to a union of a man and woman an no one else?” In order to pierce this under a rational review, you would have to show that a legislature could not have any rational reason to have marriage that way.

To suggest that there is no rational reason to restrict marriage is facially absurd to any reasonable person - and you don’t even believe it. How do I know? You said in your next post:

As with most policy decisions, both sides have a valid argument

Correct, and because this is true, that means that there is a rational argument for and against gay marriage. Clearly, someone can come up with a rational reason not to extend marriage to gay persons. As such, there is a rational basis to restrict marriage to its traditional makeup under the law - confirmed by your own opinion of the debate over the issue.

No one said reproduction is “necessary” for marriage - straw man.

182

And let’s have some fun.

Vermont recently enacted gay marriage via its legislature (as it should).

You are a polygamist. You cannot marry the person(s) of your choice, and in Vermont, you are an excluded class for purposes of marriage.

You sue under Equal Protection.

What say the gay marriage advocates on Vermont’s shameful discrimination against polygamists? After all, this is just the next “civil right” at issue in Vermont now that gay marriage has been enacted…?

183

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth wrote:

I’m […] a guy who hasn’t even managed to finish college yet.

What a surprise! Next you’ll tell me you’re older, white, from a rural area, religious, and a closet homosexual yourself!

I guess bigotry IS ok. Just depends on who the target is! Stereotype away, Mr. Gambit. It’s a wonderful illustrion of the “anti-bigotry” bigot.

Some people are bigoted against blacks. Some people are bigoted against homosexuals. Gambit_Lost? He’s bigoted against the bigots!

…I must hate myself…[/quote]

Great, you want to extend marriage to polygamists, gays, and hetero same sex benefit arrangements. Pat yourself on the back.

184

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
What say the gay marriage advocates on Vermont’s shameful discrimination against polygamists? After all, this is just the next “civil right” at issue in Vermont now that gay marriage has been enacted…?[/quote]

Well, the Polygamy orientated have a friend in Gambit.

185

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth wrote:

I’m […] a guy who hasn’t even managed to finish college yet.

What a surprise! Next you’ll tell me you’re older, white, from a rural area, religious, and a closet homosexual yourself!

I guess bigotry IS ok. Just depends on who the target is! Stereotype away, Mr. Gambit. It’s a wonderful illustrion of the “anti-bigotry” bigot.

Some people are bigoted against blacks. Some people are bigoted against homosexuals. Gambit_Lost? He’s bigoted against the bigots!

…I must hate myself…

Great, you want to extend marriage to polygamists, gays, and hetero same sex benefit arrangements. Pat yourself on the back.[/quote]

Awww, come on maaaannnn, “the anti-bigot bigot”? It was a great line! You’ve got to give yourself some props for that one.

186

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
And let’s have some fun.

[/quote]

And let’s have some fun.

I don’t want to stereotype, so I’d better ask. How many of these do you fit into?

[quote]
Studies have consistently shown that people with negative attitudes towards lesbians and gays are more likely to be male, older, religious, politically conservative, have lower education levels,[49] live in more rural areas[49] and have little close personal contact with openly gay individuals,[50] as well as supporting traditional gender roles.[51] [/quote]

Personally, I’ve only got “male” and, perhaps, “religious.” How 'bout you thunderbolt?

187

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth wrote:

I’m […] a guy who hasn’t even managed to finish college yet.

What a surprise! Next you’ll tell me you’re older, white, from a rural area, religious, and a closet homosexual yourself!

I guess bigotry IS ok. Just depends on who the target is! Stereotype away, Mr. Gambit. It’s a wonderful illustrion of the “anti-bigotry” bigot.

Some people are bigoted against blacks. Some people are bigoted against homosexuals. Gambit_Lost? He’s bigoted against the bigots!

…I must hate myself…

Great, you want to extend marriage to polygamists, gays, and hetero same sex benefit arrangements. Pat yourself on the back.

Awww, come on maaaannnn, “the anti-bigot bigot”? It was a great line! You’ve got to give yourself some props for that one.

[/quote]

For someone who is clearly so proud of his superior education, I’ve yet to see anything from you but trolling. In fact, I can’t seem to recall any contribution from you that would lead me to believe you’re capable of anything more than bad jokes. Would you care to actually explain why you want to open state recognized marriage to polygamists, homosexuals, and any other arrangement that can be thought up by consenting adults? I’m sure you’ll dazzle us all with the superior intellect you’ve kept well hidden so far. Well hidden, indeed.

188

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth wrote:

I’m […] a guy who hasn’t even managed to finish college yet.

What a surprise! Next you’ll tell me you’re older, white, from a rural area, religious, and a closet homosexual yourself!

I guess bigotry IS ok. Just depends on who the target is! Stereotype away, Mr. Gambit. It’s a wonderful illustrion of the “anti-bigotry” bigot.

Some people are bigoted against blacks. Some people are bigoted against homosexuals. Gambit_Lost? He’s bigoted against the bigots!

…I must hate myself…

Great, you want to extend marriage to polygamists, gays, and hetero same sex benefit arrangements. Pat yourself on the back.

Awww, come on maaaannnn, “the anti-bigot bigot”? It was a great line! You’ve got to give yourself some props for that one.

For someone who is clearly so proud of his superior education, I’ve yet to see anything from you but trolling. Would you like to actually explain why you want to open state recognized marriage to polygamists, homosexuals, and any other arrangement that can be thought up by consenting adults?[/quote]

“clearly!”

Haven’t we done this 10000000000 times before? Let’s stay serious!

Anyway, although I’ve perhaps been sarcastic, you’ve yet to comment (understand?) the natural law bit. How 'bout you deal with that first?

189

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth wrote:

I’m […] a guy who hasn’t even managed to finish college yet.

What a surprise! Next you’ll tell me you’re older, white, from a rural area, religious, and a closet homosexual yourself!

I guess bigotry IS ok. Just depends on who the target is! Stereotype away, Mr. Gambit. It’s a wonderful illustrion of the “anti-bigotry” bigot.

Some people are bigoted against blacks. Some people are bigoted against homosexuals. Gambit_Lost? He’s bigoted against the bigots!

…I must hate myself…

Great, you want to extend marriage to polygamists, gays, and hetero same sex benefit arrangements. Pat yourself on the back.

Awww, come on maaaannnn, “the anti-bigot bigot”? It was a great line! You’ve got to give yourself some props for that one.

For someone who is clearly so proud of his superior education, I’ve yet to see anything from you but trolling. Would you like to actually explain why you want to open state recognized marriage to polygamists, homosexuals, and any other arrangement that can be thought up by consenting adults?

“clearly!”

Haven’t we done this 10000000000 times before? Let’s stay serious!

Anyway, although I’ve perhaps been sarcastic, you’ve yet to comment (understand?) the natural law bit. How 'bout you deal with that first?[/quote]

Dealt with. You charged me with determining natural law for everyone else. I explained that I had no hand in the development of human reproduction. Next?

190

And, I’d still like to hear why you think Polygamy, and any other consenting arrangement that can be dreamed up, should be propped up by the state.

191

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Answered already. [/quote]

No, you haven’t.

You were trying to claim that infertile straight couples modeling marriage as having a purpose beyond reproduction wasn’t a big issue, since there are relatively few of them, and thus the impact on public perceptions would be small.

I applied the identical logic to gay couples modeling marriage, and you have yet to address it.

Why do you think allowing gay couples to marriage presents a bad model for society, when they apparently represent only a tiny percentage of the population?

192

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Dealt with. You charged me with determining natural law for everyone else. I explained that I had no hand in the development of human reproduction. Next?[/quote]

“Interpreting” my good man, not “developing.” See the difference?

193

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth wrote:

Dealt with. You charged me with determining natural law for everyone else. I explained that I had no hand in the development of human reproduction. Next?

“Interpreting” my good man, not “developing.” See the difference? [/quote]

I’m hoping you “interpreted” the reproductive nature of male and female coupling long ago.

194

[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Answered already.

No, you haven’t.

You were trying to claim that infertile straight couples modeling marriage as having a purpose beyond reproduction wasn’t a big issue, since there are relatively few of them, and thus the impact on public perceptions would be small.
[/quote]
False. That’s not the position I laid out concerning infertile couples. When you’re capable of debating what’s been said, we’ll talk.

195

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Completely incorrect. What you posit is a starting point that gay marriage must be valid unitl proven otherwise - i.e., the burden is for a given legislature to overcome that presumption, but if they can’t (in a court’s eyes), gay marriage has to be recognized.[/quote]

I’m not a legal expert by any means, but isn’t the burden of proof on those advocating a law which would discriminate against a certain class of individuals to demonstrate that allowing the same privilege to that class would cause harm? If it didn’t cause harm, why would you disallow it, given the equal protection clause of the constitution?

At least, this is my understanding of the reasoning behind the Iowa Supreme Court decision. It makes sense to me.

That seems a pretty low bar, since it justifies any law which is supported by a single rational reason. Isn’t the real question whether the rational reason(s) supporting the law are more compelling than the rational reason(s) rejecting the law? Looking at the overall effect on society seems wiser and fairer than taking a myopic view of just one effect on society.

[quote]No one said reproduction is “necessary” for marriage - straw man.
[/quote]

If reproduction isn’t necessary for marriage, then marriage cannot be denied to people on the basis of them being incapable or unwilling to reproduce. That castrates the argument that gays should not be allowed to marry because they are incapable of reproducing.

196

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
What say the gay marriage advocates on Vermont’s shameful discrimination against polygamists?[/quote]

It should be approved/rejected by the legislature and/or supreme court, the same as gay marriage.

197

[quote]Sloth wrote:
False. That’s not the position I laid out concerning infertile couples.
[/quote]

Then you still haven’t answered my original question:

Why are you not concerned about infertile straight couples sending the message that marriage is NOT about procreation?

Making it legal for these couples to marry sends a very clear message that it is ok to get married, even if you don’t intend to, or cannot, have children. Everyone knows this law exists, so you can’t claim ignorance by virtue of not knowing whether a particular couple is infertile or not.

If everyone knows this law exists, why aren’t you concerned that infertile straight couples fly in the face of your claim that marriage is about reproduction?

198

[quote]forlife wrote:

If people commit crimes like murder or child abuse, there is a legal system in place to punish them for those crimes.

You can argue that disallowing criminals to marry would be a new line of punishments to dish out, but you will have to take that up with your legislators.[/quote]

Again, to me there is a distinction between ‘not rewarding’ and punishment. But, aside from the explicit and simplistic Nazi cannibals stuff, I’ve provided my legislators my thoughts on the subject.

Right, if either one were a crime, evil, sin against god and nature, a social injustice, etc. It would presume it to be the sanctioning of Nazi cannibal marriage.

To be clear, it’s acceptable and even favorable to you that misogynists, manic-depressives, child molesters, and Nazi cannibals can get married, just so long as homosexuals can as well?

Then what is the logical cohesiveness of your arguments based around? Your impartiality? Your sobriety? Your ability to use a computer?

I seriously need to start collecting quotes from these forums.

199

[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
False. That’s not the position I laid out concerning infertile couples.

Then you still haven’t answered my original question:

Why are you not concerned about infertile straight couples sending the message that marriage is NOT about procreation?

[/quote]

Answered. Repeatedly.

200

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Answered. Repeatedly.
[/quote]

If that’s the best you can do, I won’t waste my breath any more.