Iowa approves same sex marriage

[Article 15]

Only because she's likely to have a gun now.

Um .. no. It's because I'd be thrown in jail.

So basically, because she has a gun. It just happens to be in a cop's hand. That would mean nothing has changed, since you wouldn't have clubbed her in the Stone Age for the same reason: she had a protector who was stronger than you.

You want to change things? Then you do so by the legally-set procedures provided for that purpose. Otherwise, you're just as uncivilized a bully as if you WERE clubbing women of your choosing.

Lawsuits and court rulings are a legally-set procedure, iirc.

Wrong, Sparky. The courts do not have the legal power to make law.

They have the power to interpret the law.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

So?

Things have changed over the course of human history. I don't carry around a club and forcibly take the women of my choosing.

Only because she's likely to have a gun now.

Um .. no. It's because I'd be thrown in jail.

Oh they don't even throw the effeminate in jail when they get their ass beat... even if it's by a woman! They SHOULD... but they don't.

 

[elvis]

What part of "judges don't have the power to make law" am I losing you on?

You didn't answer my question.

Because it's not a relevant question. I actually sort of like you, Elvis, although I think you have your head up your rectum on this subject, so I don't particularly want to have to fight you on every point, especially when you're trying to make a particularly dumb one.

But since you insist . . .

We both know that you're trying to say that if judges are voted into office, that makes their decisions the will of the people. The problem with that is that, even if they are elected, they are NOT elected to make law. The legislature is. THEIR word represents the will of the people concerning what the law is to be, not the judges'. And I shouldn't have to tell you that.

I like you too, Cecilie. I think this is one of the few topics we will disagree on. But is it not the judges' responsibility to decide whether certain things are unconstitutional?

 

[Article 15]

Only because she's likely to have a gun now.

Um .. no. It's because I'd be thrown in jail.

Oh they don't even throw the effeminate in jail when they get their ass beat... even if it's by a woman! They SHOULD... but they don't.

That's a pretty lame comeback, even for you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Um .. no. It's because I'd be thrown in jail.

So basically, because she has a gun. It just happens to be in a cop's hand. That would mean nothing has changed, since you wouldn't have clubbed her in the Stone Age for the same reason: she had a protector who was stronger than you.

Lawsuits and court rulings are a legally-set procedure, iirc.

Wrong, Sparky. The courts do not have the legal power to make law.

They have the power to interpret the law.

Technically, no. They don't. They have the power to APPLY the law. The reason laws are written the way they are is to try to rule out any possibility of "interpretation" at all. Lawmakers tie themselves into verbal pretzels trying to cover every possible eventuality and loophole PRECISELY because they don't want judges "interpreting" anything. Judges are just supposed to read the law and apply it to the case at hand.

 

[DavidS]

The bolded statement is a PERFECT example of tyranny of the minority. Some sheltered, out of touch elitists should decide what the masses need? I think not. The Supreme Court's role is to interpret law, and rule on the Constitutionality of it. The role of making law belongs to the legislature, who ideally, represent the people.

What about slavery, women's suffrage, and segregation? Those were decided by Supreme court against the will of the majority.

Really? Which Supreme Court decision was it that ended slavery? Which Supreme Court decision passed the Nineteenth Amendment? Enquiring minds - which have actually studied history - want to know.

While we're talking about Supreme Courts, which Supreme Court was it that declared marriage a right for ALL Americans?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Which brings the argument back to the Jim Crowe laws, etc. where often times in the case of civil rights the oppressed minority can't win at the ballot box because well, they are an oppressed minority.

But homosexuals are NOT a minority... they're a gaggle of defective beings which desperately want to change the culture to fit their particular KINK... There is no biological distinction betwwen a homosexual and a heterosexual... one can be a homosexual on Monday and a hetero on Tuesday and there is NO DISTINCTION IN THOSE TWO POSITIONS EXCEPT THE TESTIMONY OF THE PERV...

When you girls come up with some DNA that defines Homosexuals as being BIOLOGICALLY DISTINCT... you get back to us.

defective beings? fuck you scumsucker.

Oh... facts are facts sis... if you can't HANDLE the truth, perhaps you need to remove yourself from the discussion, OR PRODUCE AN INTELLECUALLY SOUND, LOGICALLY VALID ARGUMENT WHICH COULD LEAD ONE TO RECOGNIZE THE DESIRE FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION FROM THOSE OF THEIR OWN GENDER, WHERE NATURE HAS OTHERWiSE DESIGNED THE SPECIES TO SEEK SEXUAL GRATIFICATION FROM THE OPPOSITE GENDER, IS NOT AN INDICATION OF A DEFECT FROM THE NATURAL ORDER.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You didn't answer my question.

Because it's not a relevant question. I actually sort of like you, Elvis, although I think you have your head up your rectum on this subject, so I don't particularly want to have to fight you on every point, especially when you're trying to make a particularly dumb one.

But since you insist . . .

We both know that you're trying to say that if judges are voted into office, that makes their decisions the will of the people. The problem with that is that, even if they are elected, they are NOT elected to make law. The legislature is. THEIR word represents the will of the people concerning what the law is to be, not the judges'. And I shouldn't have to tell you that.

I like you too, Cecilie. I think this is one of the few topics we will disagree on. But is it not the judges' responsibility to decide whether certain things are unconstitutional?

No. The Constitution does not at any point give the judiciary that power. That power was conferred on the judiciary BY the judiciary in Marbury vs. Madison, a breathtakingly blatant usurpation of power.

 

[Ravi]

From the lack of response I am guessing straight people don't marry for love ... well then, we should pair them up for genetic compatibility only, those who will produce the strongest, smartest, and best offspring will only be allowed to marry, all others tough.

I married for love. sorry for the lack of response. I've been engaged in a fiery debate.

I didn't marry for love, because I recognized that the most anyone really feels at the beginning of a relationship is infatuation, which is a silly damned reason to get married. Love is what you get after years of living and working together as a team. The first time I looked at my husband, thoroughly pissed off and fed up at him, ready to either divorce him or kill him, and realized that I was going to stay with him and make it work anyway, is the day I knew I really loved him.

lol, you've posted enough about your personal life that it is quite clear you are in a loveless marriage setting a bad example for your kids...I can only imagine that you are so bitter you want no one else to have joy in their lives.

 

[KittenKoder]

I will never understand why people I've had on ignore for months are still addressing posts to me. I'm always very clear about telling these twits when they drop off the end of my patience.

When you make such ridiculous posts you open yourself up to ridicule.

So you can't speak to the point? Is that what you're saying? You can't actually show that your non sequitur is somehow distinct from that otherwise demonstrated?

ROFL... Color me SHOCKED!
Ridicule away asshat, the one immutable truth which is proven by this exercise is that I OWN YOU... and the rest of these morons.

I know you gals felt like ya had some potential to take Cic down, and while she is PERFECTLY capable of taking you down, COLLECTIVELY... the calvary's here and this fitht is over...

BRING IT... I've got all night and you're so outclassed as to make it LAUGHABLE...

I await your next volley of the stupifyingly absurd.

Me ... out classed by a Pubicus ... here's three things you fail at: love, compassion, and humanity. Proof is in your posts, you display none of these, you do not understand these nor their meanings, and you have no actual thoughts only the regurgitation of fancy terms you read in various wingnut blogs and wiki-crapedia. I however use my brain, don't need to rely on such hollow and shallow semantics and parroting. So answer this, do you believe straight people marry for love, sex, or procreation?

 

[DavidS]

I married for love. sorry for the lack of response. I've been engaged in a fiery debate.

I didn't marry for love, because I recognized that the most anyone really feels at the beginning of a relationship is infatuation, which is a silly damned reason to get married. Love is what you get after years of living and working together as a team. The first time I looked at my husband, thoroughly pissed off and fed up at him, ready to either divorce him or kill him, and realized that I was going to stay with him and make it work anyway, is the day I knew I really loved him.

lol, you've posted enough about your personal life that it is quite clear you are in a loveless marriage setting a bad example for your kids...I can only imagine that you are so bitter you want no one else to have joy in their lives.

Ravi, I've quickly lost a great deal of respect for her and I understand your frustration with her, but this is wayyyy over the line. We can all just agree to disagree, but come on... aren't you getting a little too personal here?

 

[Ravi]

What I gave you was the truth. You just think it was a cop out because it wasn't what you wanted to hear. I'm not your wife, so I'm not obliged to tell you what you want to hear. Whether or not you like that I'm concerned about trying to preserve the nation I love and the system of government that goes with it, that's the truth.

And what I would prefer they do is observe the legal procedures in place for enacting legislation. Is that too damned much to ask? If you can't win at the ballot box, you don't deserve to win.

Which brings the argument back to the Jim Crowe laws, etc. where often times in the case of civil rights the oppressed minority can't win at the ballot box because well, they are an oppressed minority.

But homosexuals are NOT a minority... they're a gaggle of defective beings which desperately want to change the culture to fit their particular KINK... There is no biological distinction betwwen a homosexual and a heterosexual... one can be a homosexual on Monday and a hetero on Tuesday and there is NO DISTINCTION IN THOSE TWO POSITIONS EXCEPT THE TESTIMONY OF THE PERV...

When you girls come up with some DNA that defines Homosexuals as being BIOLOGICALLY DISTINCT... you get back to us.

Hey, that reminds me...you think gays are defective, you think workers are a liability, you welsh on bets....are you a typical Republican?

 

[elvis]

But homosexuals are NOT a minority... they're a gaggle of defective beings which desperately want to change the culture to fit their particular KINK... There is no biological distinction betwwen a homosexual and a heterosexual... one can be a homosexual on Monday and a hetero on Tuesday and there is NO DISTINCTION IN THOSE TWO POSITIONS EXCEPT THE TESTIMONY OF THE PERV...

When you girls come up with some DNA that defines Homosexuals as being BIOLOGICALLY DISTINCT... you get back to us.

defective beings? fuck you scumsucker.

Oh... facts are facts sis... if you can't HANDLE the truth, perhaps you need to remove yourself from the discussion, OR PRODUCE AN INTELLECUALLY SOUND, LOGICALLY VALID ARGUMENT WHICH COULD LEAD ONE TO RECOGNIZE THE DESIRE FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION FROM THOSE OF THEIR OWN GENDER, WHERE NATURE HAS OTHERWiSE DESIGNED THE SPECIES TO SEEK SEXUAL GRATIFICATION FROM THE OPPOSITE GENDER, IS NOT AN INDICATION OF A DEFECT FROM THE NATURAL ORDER.

First off, you don't tell me shit. And I will NOT have a ANY discussion, logical or otherwise about whether or not homosexuals are DEFECTIVE beings, any more than I will have a discussion about whether or not certain races are inferior. Got it, ADOLF?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Which brings the argument back to the Jim Crowe laws, etc. where often times in the case of civil rights the oppressed minority can't win at the ballot box because well, they are an oppressed minority.

But homosexuals are NOT a minority... they're a gaggle of defective beings which desperately want to change the culture to fit their particular KINK... There is no biological distinction betwwen a homosexual and a heterosexual... one can be a homosexual on Monday and a hetero on Tuesday and there is NO DISTINCTION IN THOSE TWO POSITIONS EXCEPT THE TESTIMONY OF THE PERV...

When you girls come up with some DNA that defines Homosexuals as being BIOLOGICALLY DISTINCT... you get back to us.

And that's what it's all about to you isn't it? It's an emotional reaction to what is strange to you. It feels wrong to you therefor it's abnormal and deviant. Well to them it's perfectly normal.

Strange is where I order a steak rare and it comes to my table well done...

Where one DEVIATES from the natural order; where on desires sexual gratification from those of their own GENDER... where there is no genetic distinction, that is a DEFECTIVE BRAIN... a mental illness. And healthy cultures DO NOT ALTER THE HEALTHY THRESHOLDS OF THAT CULTURE TO ACCOMMODATE THE DEFECTIVE BRAINS.

Thus where its PERFECTLY NORMAL for someone to live out the distinct lives of 16 personalities, we do not consider what is NORMAL TO THEM to be NORMAL TO US and issue them 16 DRIVERS LICENSE... 16 Credit reports; we don't list 16 places to sign on their MORTGAGE...

We DENY THEN EVEN ONE DRIVERS LICENSE, A MORTGAGE AND THEIR CREDIT IS FUCKED WHEN the free spirit they call "TED" Decides who gets paid and TED don't PAY NO ONE THAT DON'T SURF!

 

[elvis]

Which brings the argument back to the Jim Crowe laws, etc. where often times in the case of civil rights the oppressed minority can't win at the ballot box because well, they are an oppressed minority.

But homosexuals are NOT a minority... they're a gaggle of defective beings which desperately want to change the culture to fit their particular KINK... There is no biological distinction betwwen a homosexual and a heterosexual... one can be a homosexual on Monday and a hetero on Tuesday and there is NO DISTINCTION IN THOSE TWO POSITIONS EXCEPT THE TESTIMONY OF THE PERV...

When you girls come up with some DNA that defines Homosexuals as being BIOLOGICALLY DISTINCT... you get back to us.

Hey, that reminds me...you think gays are defective, you think workers are a liability, you welsh on bets....are you a typical Republican?

No, he isn't. He's a typical fascist.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I didn't marry for love, because I recognized that the most anyone really feels at the beginning of a relationship is infatuation, which is a silly damned reason to get married. Love is what you get after years of living and working together as a team. The first time I looked at my husband, thoroughly pissed off and fed up at him, ready to either divorce him or kill him, and realized that I was going to stay with him and make it work anyway, is the day I knew I really loved him.

lol, you've posted enough about your personal life that it is quite clear you are in a loveless marriage setting a bad example for your kids...I can only imagine that you are so bitter you want no one else to have joy in their lives.

Ravi, I've quickly lost a great deal of respect for her and I understand your frustration with her, but this is wayyyy over the line. We can all just agree to disagree, but come on... aren't you getting a little too personal here?

WOO HOO! CIC... Your stock just went UP! Congrats!

 

[Ravi]

What part of "judges don't have the power to make law" am I losing you on?

You didn't answer my question.

Because it's not a relevant question. I actually sort of like you, Elvis, although I think you have your head up your rectum on this subject, so I don't particularly want to have to fight you on every point, especially when you're trying to make a particularly dumb one.

But since you insist . . .

We both know that you're trying to say that if judges are voted into office, that makes their decisions the will of the people. The problem with that is that, even if they are elected, they are NOT elected to make law. The legislature is. THEIR word represents the will of the people concerning what the law is to be, not the judges'. And I shouldn't have to tell you that.

Judges have a duty to decide if laws are constitutional. In this case, they ruled the law was not constitutional. Your crybaby legislating from the bench talking point has gotten beyond old. Judges don't make laws...the decide if laws are constitutional. You don't have to agree with their decision, but you should be thankful that they have this duty...especially when YOUR rights are in question.

 

[KittenKoder]

I didn't marry for love, because I recognized that the most anyone really feels at the beginning of a relationship is infatuation, which is a silly damned reason to get married. Love is what you get after years of living and working together as a team. The first time I looked at my husband, thoroughly pissed off and fed up at him, ready to either divorce him or kill him, and realized that I was going to stay with him and make it work anyway, is the day I knew I really loved him.

lol, you've posted enough about your personal life that it is quite clear you are in a loveless marriage setting a bad example for your kids...I can only imagine that you are so bitter you want no one else to have joy in their lives.

Ravi, I've quickly lost a great deal of respect for her and I understand your frustration with her, but this is wayyyy over the line. We can all just agree to disagree, but come on... aren't you getting a little too personal here?

I would agree if not for what she is replying to, as I say, if you make a ridiculous post you open yourself to ridicule, Cecilie had in admitting she is in a loveless marriage and thus she has also admitted to destroying the sanctity of marriage herself.

 

[elvis]

But homosexuals are NOT a minority... they're a gaggle of defective beings which desperately want to change the culture to fit their particular KINK... There is no biological distinction betwwen a homosexual and a heterosexual... one can be a homosexual on Monday and a hetero on Tuesday and there is NO DISTINCTION IN THOSE TWO POSITIONS EXCEPT THE TESTIMONY OF THE PERV...

When you girls come up with some DNA that defines Homosexuals as being BIOLOGICALLY DISTINCT... you get back to us.

And that's what it's all about to you isn't it? It's an emotional reaction to what is strange to you. It feels wrong to you therefor it's abnormal and deviant. Well to them it's perfectly normal.

Strange is where I order a steak rare and it comes to my table well done...

Where one DEVIATES from the natural order; where on desires sexual gratification from those of their own GENDER... where there is no genetic distinction, that is a DEFECTIVE BRAIN... a mental illness. And healthy cultures DO NOT ALTER THE HEALTHY THRESHOLDS OF THAT CULTURE TO ACCOMMODATE THE DEFECTIVE BRAINS.

Thus where its PERFECTLY NORMAL for someone to live out the distinct lives of 16 personalities, we do not consider what is NORMAL TO THEM to be NORMAL TO US and issue them 16 DRIVERS LICENSE... 16 Credit reports; we don't list 16 places to sign on their MORTGAGE...

We DENY THEN EVEN ONE DRIVERS LICENSE, A MORTGAGE AND THEIR CREDIT IS FUCKED WHEN the free spirit they call "TED" Decides who gets paid and TED don't PAY NO ONE THAT DON'T SURF!

Would I be considered a conspiracy theorist if I thought Adolf Hitler were still alive and posting on this board?

 

[Cecilie1200]

lol, you've posted enough about your personal life that it is quite clear you are in a loveless marriage setting a bad example for your kids...I can only imagine that you are so bitter you want no one else to have joy in their lives.

Ravi, I've quickly lost a great deal of respect for her and I understand your frustration with her, but this is wayyyy over the line. We can all just agree to disagree, but come on... aren't you getting a little too personal here?

WOO HOO! CIC... Your stock just went UP! Congrats!

Thanks. Did Ravi really say I have a loveless marriage? I'll bet you a dollar Ravi's either divorced, or never been married at all.