Personally, I support gay marriage for a multitude of reasons. My biggest thing is that the only reason we were denying them marriage, is because religion says marriage is between a man and a woman... but religion really doesn't have a place in government- not in the United States, anyway. And so, their ruling that the ban was unconstitutional seems correct to me.
Let me know what you think and why!
I would debate the premise that the only reason we're against it is because of religion. I can make a case against gay marriage in an entirely secular manner. I just want to calm down about the issue before I do (plus I'm working right now...oops...).
ReplyDeleteIf Ryan was a non-religious person making a reasonable argument against it in a supposedly "entirely secular manner," I would be far more inclined to believe it.
ReplyDeleteWell I am against "gay marriage" because I dont believe there is such a thing. There is only civil marriage - which the supreme court just declared must be equal today. The experts on our law voted unanimously against using religion as weapon to discriminate against others, and I must agree.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have nothing personal against gay people, i'm friends with several. My only problem with this is that marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman (at least for the reason that two men or two women can't procreate). Personally, with how liberal our country has gotten in recent years, it won't be very long before the whole Union comes under this same umbrella of "Equal Civil Rights" for gays, etc. I'm just disappointed that Iowa is one of the first few because we're typically fairly conservative and with the way the presidential election went, I fear people are more concerned with being part of history and doing the popular "progressive" thing rather than looking at whether these decisions are intelligent and well-thought-out. Now, you may think of me as a bigot or whatever, but the truth is gay people aren't any different (in terms of being people, whereas their sexual preference is admittedly so) than straight people. I just don't see why they (as in the lobbyists and organizations representing them) must insist upon such things as obtaining marriage licenses for gays. Is it really getting them anywhere? Shouldn't they be more worried about preventing discrimination and improving relations with opposing sides/organizations? To make a long story short, I'm against gay marriage on principle but the more disappointing thing about this is that I feel betrayed that Iowa chose to be like California and Massachusetts in trying to get attention by doing something controversial that I'm sure the majority of the Iowa population wouldn't necessarily support.
ReplyDeletePeace, Love, and Understanding,
- Me
Agreed with JT a few of the points I was going to make earlier:
ReplyDelete1) Don't give me this "equality" stuff. Everyone has the same right to marry one person of the opposite sex at any given time.
2) What next? Return to polygamy? Marry my desk lamp? Where do we draw a line?
3) What is the effect of condoned homosexuality on society, and most importantly on children? We know that children who don't have a father don't tend to do so well. I'd like to see some studies on this (there may already be some, and I just don't know it. This isn't usually a real hot-button issue for me).
4) Why is the government in the marriage business? That's easy: it's in the government's best interest for people to get married and have kids, so they provide incentives for it. There's all kinds of economic reasons behind that. Gay folks aren't going to be procreating for the most part, so that removes any reasoning behind why government sanctions marriage.
5) I realize there's other legal issues that go along with this issue, vis-a-vis next-of-kin, visitation, and other rights. I agree we need legal remedies for that - some sort of power-of-attorney arrangement - not only for homosexuals, but for a host of other arrangements where that type of situation might arise. Think "little old woman with no family who lives by herself and is taken care of by neighbors," for instance. This is a remedy to the gay marriage issue that hasn't hardly even been talked about, let alone attempted outside of the larger scope of civil unions.
Maybe getting the government out of the marriage business all together and just turning them into some sort of legal framework that anybody can apply for is the way to go. I'd certainly be open to exploring the possibilities that are open in that direction.
One thing's for sure: we haven't seen the end of this debate in Iowa. There will be a lot of talk over the next week or so about legislative resolutions and constitutional work - who knows where that's going to go. The Governor said just last year that he would defend "one man-one woman" marriage, but whether he'll own up to it or not is another thing. It could get interesting. I'm somewhat disappointed that the voters so far haven't been able to cast one vote in any form on this issue, and have effectively been locked out of the proceedings so far, but that's another discussion for another time.
My 2c. :)
"I'm just disappointed that Iowa is one of the first few because we're typically fairly conservative and with the way the presidential election went, I fear people are more concerned with being part of history and doing the popular "progressive" thing rather than looking at whether these decisions are intelligent and well-thought-out."
ReplyDeleteThe intelligent thing was to reject the incorrect, biblical interpretation that has caused this problem in the first place. Actual science is quite clear that sexual orientation is not a choice, and that it's love that makes a family. The view you are sharing above gets more and more out of touch with reality with each passing year. Save yourself the future shame - actually educate yourself on the issue - then be on the right side of history.
"1) Don't give me this "equality" stuff. Everyone has the same right to marry one person of the opposite sex at any given time."
ReplyDeleteLOL. You will be the first person that I vote to remove marriage rights from. I'll make it so you can only marry someone of the same gender. Then when you whine about wanting your rights back, I'll remind you that you can, in fact, get married. Time to wake up from logical fallacy island and come back to reality... maybe add a dose of the golden rule on the way.
"2) What next? Return to polygamy? Marry my desk lamp? Where do we draw a line? "
ReplyDeleteWow. Even making this statement says more about you than it does about anyone else. Let me know when your desk lamp can sign a marriage license and can actually hold feelings of love. Logical reasoning reminder: slippery slope is a logical fallacy. Try again.
"3) What is the effect of condoned homosexuality on society, and most importantly on children? We know that children who don't have a father don't tend to do so well."
ReplyDeleteThese studies already exist. The evidence is clear - love makes a family. There is no difference between committed, same-sex couples and committed, opposite sex couples when it comes to the productivity and development of their children. In fact, some studies have shown a higher degree of development from children of lesbian couples than that of opposite sex couples, again re-affirming that it is love that makes a family work for children.
"I just don't see why they (as in the lobbyists and organizations representing them) must insist upon such things as obtaining marriage licenses for gays."
ReplyDeleteI just dont see why black people want rights. Why must they insist on such things? It's just soooo annoying!
"1) Don't give me this "equality" stuff. Everyone has the same right to marry one person of the opposite sex at any given time."
ReplyDeleteRight. And it used to be that anyone could marry anyone of the same religion. And it used to be that anyone could marry anyone of the same race. Equal, right? I coul've married a white person just like a black could've married a black. Surely that's not discrimination.
"2) What next? Return to polygamy? Marry my desk lamp? Where do we draw a line? "
RETURN to polygamy? I thought traditional marriage was one man and one woman?? Besides, who gives a shit about polygamy, as long as they're all fully-informed, consenting adults, I don't care. Oh, and your desk lamp can't give consent. Well, and it doesn't even like you. But that cute stapler across the desk...
"3) What is the effect of condoned homosexuality on society, and most importantly on children? We know that children who don't have a father don't tend to do so well.I'd like to see some studies on this (there may already be some, and I just don't know it..."
Wow. So you put forth a scare tactic generalized question and then want to see evidence you didn't even take the time to research. As Scott pointed out, you're quite right. There ARE studies that you (apparently) didn't know about, and family structure is no different. Actually, gay families have been shown to be somewhat better providers in that on average, homosexual couples have greater income. A child needs a mother and a father to do best, this is true. However, these are social roles, not biological ones, easily filled by people of the same sex. You need a mother FIGURE and father FIGURE.
4) Why is the government in the marriage business? That's easy: it's in the government's best interest for people to get married and have kids, so they provide incentives for it. There's all kinds of economic reasons behind that. Gay folks aren't going to be procreating for the most part, so that removes any reasoning behind why government sanctions marriage.
This is such a contradiction I don't know where to start. Okay, so you ask why government is in the marriage business. Then you give an answer and suggest the conclusion this answer provides should logically lead government to stop sanctioning marriage? But you're right. Our orphanages aren't quite full yet, we ought to keep adoptions to those nice married straights instead of gay couples who actually WANT the children they can't have, much like, say, an infertile couple or elderly couple.
"I'm somewhat disappointed that the voters so far haven't been able to cast one vote..."
Right. Because putting a minority's rights to majority's votes is such a grand idea.
I don't know how to possibly fully describe with adequate measure just how antiquated and terrible these arguments are.
Now, onto this JT character. I've only got one really kind of iconic quote from him/her:
"Shouldn't they be more worried about preventing discrimination and improving relations with opposing sides/organizations? To make a long story short, I'm against gay marriage..."
Ah yes, preventing discrimination. You mean like they've tried to do in plenty of states to which people respond, "Why do they need protection for a chosen lifestyle" or "They don't want protection, they want special rights" etc etc. Or maybe because that battle, at least in Iowa, has largely been won.
As for the why they have to focus on getting marriage licenses when they could be improving relations with opponents... Maybe our society could and should be structured in a way where they don't have to prove a single (@^%#@ thing to you, a private citizen. You can think whatever you want, but you don't have any bearing on what legal rights and privileges a person has just because you disagree. Do you want to start having to convince your boss that God exists before you can ask for Christmas vacation?
Damn...and here I thought I was being conciliatory...
ReplyDeleteThe fact is that there are a ton of people that are going to be pissed off if gay marriage is allowed, and there's a ton of people that are going to be pissed off if gay marriage were banned. There's not a ton of middle ground there. That means compromising - coming up with a plan that may not go all the way for everybody, but goes far enough for most. That's what our whole system is built on, and we've done it throughout history.
Outright marriage for gay folks isn't a compromise, and most of the right won't be contented with that. The left won't jive too well with a ban. However, the gay community needs some legal recourses...I, as well as many on the right, will readily admit that. There's definitely a middle road to be trod, and I definitely don't feel like enough people are trodding it. Yesterday's decision is going to cause a lot of divisiveness, which isn't pretty. A ban also causes a lot of divisiveness, also equally ugly. Somewhere there's always a solution that's workable for a majority of people, we just need the will to find it - something that I'm not sure either side is willing or prepared to do, to the detriment of all sides. I'm against gay marriage, yes, but I'm not against helping them get what they need - some legal means by which to secure certain rights and abilities. I just want to be clear on that - against gay marriage and for an amendment that defines marriage (that way we don't repeat this flammable episode), but for finding solutions that are agreeable to most.
What I find tragic is that this is going to soak up a week of the General Assembly's time, when they desperately need to be working on the budget, which is still $1B in the hole. It's not inconceivable that this gay marriage stuff could logjam the legislature for quite sometime, stymie bipartisanship (what little there has been in the General Assembly this year), and lead to fiscal issues with a rushed budget and possibly government shutdowns, etc. Not good for anybody. Again, just my 2c.
Interesting points, though I still stick with my original argument
ReplyDeleteIf there was a reason to compromise, I would agree. However, there is absolutely no reason that marriage should be limited to one group of people and not another.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the separation of church and state. I think gay marriage as a legal institution should be granted. I think society as a whole needs to start accepting gay couples as "normal." However, I hope people don't start attacking churches for being against gay marriage. It is a church's right to believe and support what it wants. Allow them their rights as well.
ReplyDeleteI think the Sultan in Disney's Aladdin was right. "Well, am I sultan, or am I sultan? From this day forth, the princess shall marry whomever she deems worthy!" I don't think he ever specified anything beyond that. :)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete