Shame on you, Iowa Supreme Court (health insurance, lawyers, buy)

[tvdxer]

Shame on you, Iowa Supreme Court and supporters, for advancing the degradation of marriage as an institution in our society.

Thanks to this ruling, two men or two women "marrying" will be granted the same rights as if one of the men married one of the women. This is an abomination. Marriage has a purpose - to promote the formation of families and the education of children - and no per se sterile union of sodomy can fulfill this purpose.

This is just another example of where "love" and "rights" are distorted by our sexually sick society beyond their original meanings to signify an "anything goes" attitude. True love for active homosexuals would mean recognizing the immorality of their lifestyle, rather than officially sanctioning it in your legal code and practices.

Shame on you, Iowa Supreme Court.

[PurpleLove08]

So I guess you would be for banning senior citizens getting married, infertile couples, and heterosexual couples who don't want kids?
Seeing as marriage is JUST for creating kids.

Better tell all these unmarried people with kids they're going about it the wrong way.

[tvdxer]

Originally Posted by LiveTodayLez08

So I guess you would be for banning senior citizens getting married, infertile couples, and heterosexual couples who don't want kids?
Seeing as marriage is JUST for creating kids.

Better tell all these unmarried people with kids they're going about it the wrong way.

Senior citizens getting married and infertile couples cannot have children not because they lack the necessary "equipment" but because of an "accident" - that is, their infertility. They are still capable of performing the procreative act. The same cannot be said of same-sex couples, who cannot create children by the very nature of their relationship.

Heterosexual couples who selfishly "don't want kids" are similarly able to have children, and it's not like the state should ask, but in my opinion their marriage is invalid because children are one of the primary goods of marriage.

[krudmonk]

Boo hoo!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ramanboy33]

God bless the Iowa supreme court. What a truly wonderful and affirming decision.

[nate14ri]

Originally Posted by tvdxer

Senior citizens getting married and infertile couples cannot have children not because they lack the necessary "equipment" but because of an "accident" - that is, their infertility. They are still capable of performing the procreative act. The same cannot be said of same-sex couples, who cannot create children by the very nature of their relationship.

Heterosexual couples who selfishly "don't want kids" are similarly able to have children, and it's not like the state should ask, but in my opinion their marriage is invalid because children are one of the primary goods of marriage.

why are heterosexual couples who choose not to have kids selfish? marriage has nothing to do w/ children you know.

[Chicago60614]

Originally Posted by tvdxer

Shame on you, Iowa Supreme Court and supporters, for advancing the degradation of marriage as an institution in our society.

Thanks to this ruling, two men or two women "marrying" will be granted the same rights as if one of the men married one of the women. This is an abomination. Marriage has a purpose - to promote the formation of families and the education of children - and no per se sterile union of sodomy can fulfill this purpose.

This is just another example of where "love" and "rights" are distorted by our sexually sick society beyond their original meanings to signify an "anything goes" attitude. True love for active homosexuals would mean recognizing the immorality of their lifestyle, rather than officially sanctioning it in your legal code and practices.

Shame on you, Iowa Supreme Court.

Oh BOO HOO.

Don't you have something else to worry about than two people who love each other and want to bond that in law?

[mofford]

What's next......harems, polygamy......."We are gathered here today to join this woman and this horse in holy matimony" If we throw out the guidelines for marrage, then thats what we're eventually going to end up with. This decision takes us down the wrong path and goes against thousands of years of tradition. The old rules of marriage and the traditional family unit have served us well, hate to see them go.


Horse stomps twice for "I do"

[grmasterb]

Originally Posted by tvdxer

Shame on you, Iowa Supreme Court and supporters, for advancing the degradation of marriage as an institution in our society.

Thanks to this ruling, two men or two women "marrying" will be granted the same rights as if one of the men married one of the women. This is an abomination. Marriage has a purpose - to promote the formation of families and the education of children - and no per se sterile union of sodomy can fulfill this purpose.

This is just another example of where "love" and "rights" are distorted by our sexually sick society beyond their original meanings to signify an "anything goes" attitude. True love for active homosexuals would mean recognizing the immorality of their lifestyle, rather than officially sanctioning it in your legal code and practices.

Shame on you, Iowa Supreme Court.

I think we heterosexuals have already degraded marriage well enough with our divorce rate. With that in mind, I don't understand why you feel the need to be so worked up about the private lives of others. If homosexuals practice marriage as well as heterosexuals, then at least half of those marriages will end in divorce anyway. So, in the end this is a win for gay couples, but it's an even bigger victory for divorce lawyers.

[jabogitlu]

Wait, wait, tvdxer thinks that straight couples who don't have kids also basically, if not formally, annul their marriages!?

LOL! That's probably the most absurd argument I've heard in all my years of arguing with people about marriage equality. Thanks for taking this to new heights, dude.


It's all a bit silly anyway. It's not like marriage equality changes anything about society. We, as gay people, are going to be married, have children, and be respectable, influential and productive members of society (that is, just as much as any other person) WITH or WITHOUT "legal" sanctions of our marriages.

I will never understand how all these bigots can't understand this. For all intents and purposes, we already HAVE de facto gay marriage. I mean, gay people live all over the United States, and they're married. The government just says they aren't. It's not like legalizing marriage equality is going to spontaneously create gay people out of straight people, as though we were vampires.

It's just that the rights and responsibilities conferred help us out a great deal as far as economics, health insurance, etc. are concerned. And, in reality, they help our children even more.

So, um, shame on you, for depriving married gay people's children of extra money to help them buy food. Um, yeah!