Iowa Legalizes Gay Marriage (revolution, independence, solution, military)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think the future of our country resides in the pragmatic yet progressive values of the Midwest.
The other regions are often too rooted in ideology to see beyond the limitations of any one worldview. Midwesterners have taken their beating with the collapse of industrialism, but it's really the one place that melds the values of the Northwest, Northeast, and deep South into an egalitarian pragmatism that utilizes the best of all of them to push us forward.
They may not be on the forefront of ushering in new ideas, but when it was obvious that Obama was what we needed right now, they rallied behind him because it was the pragmatic thing to do. They are really pushing for this green economy because it's the pragmatic way to solve many of our problems. This gay marriage decision is another example and there are many more.
This is why I love the midwest (I'm in Illinois). Yes our weather sucks, but we tend to be more pragmatic and fair-minded. We are not prone to extremism as the coasts and the south sometimes are. Barack Obama is the epitome of this healthy balance that you describe above.
As you may recall, Obama's presidency was launched in Iowa. After winning that Iowa caucus, the Obama rocket never looked back. Obama went on to sweep the midwest in November 4 with the exception of Missouri which he lost by the narrowest of margins.
Feel free to have sex with what ever adult person or animal you wish.
Don't feel free to tread on the definition of Marriage or to make gay sex out to be anything other than a choice.
who I have sex with is none of your business, but who I love and want to share my life liberty and persuit of happiness with is the person that i am in love with.. and if that person has a vagina or a penis doesn't matter....
You seem to be fixated on what kind of equipment People have downstairs, and forget to see that PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE..
you're the one that sounds like a jack-ass...
Sexuality cannot be chosen any more than race can be... you should inform yourself before you come in here throwing your brains out on the ground and kicking them around sounding like a toad....
You're a mess.... get it together or get pushed aside... the world doesn't have time for people like you anymore....
Again.. Have a nice day...
These wills are not always respected by the family members and there have been examples where [1] families have gone to court, despite there being a will, and won their decease's family member's $, property, etc even though there was a will.
[2] I agree that a piece of paper shouldn't keep people together and I don't need a piece of paper to keep my relationship stable.
[3] I guess all those heterosexual couples getting married so they can put their spouse on their health care plan, put them on the auto insurance, give them their Social Security benefits, etc are greedy too?
I've known many people who just married someone so they can be put on their health insurance.
[1] That's quite reasonable. Since the law always recognizes blood claims to property when there are no progeny to inherit.
[2] Though marriage is a right, under the right to contract, the terms of the contract are NOT what you think. Remember, marriage is a JOINING of two people's property rights for the benefit of progeny. Until homosexual couples can genetically join and produce progeny, a marriage contract is a nullity.
[3] What you are citing is the consequence of national socialism, and has no bearing on law.
I perceive that you feel wronged by inequities of social insurance, but you are not aware that all insurance is abominable, because it shifts the responsibility for the guilty to the innocent.
Those who never get ill nor otherwise benefit from entitlements, are forced to pay for those who do.
Voluntary charity is a blessing.
Involuntary charity is a curse.
[2] Though marriage is a right, under the right to contract, the terms of the contract are NOT what you think. Remember, marriage is a JOINING of two people's property rights for the benefit of progeny. Until homosexual couples can genetically join and produce progeny, a marriage contract is a nullity.
So infertile heterosexual couples shouldn't have the right to marry?
Back when pro-creation was the only purpose for most people's sense of existing, marriage by that definition might have made sense.
Times change. Marriage changed. It's now about love, first and foremost. We have over 6 billion people. We don't need progeny, we need love. Join us.
Your interpretation and conclusion are wrong.
From antiquity, marriage was for passing property to the next generation.
Remember, an illegitimate child can always inherit from his mother. A marriage endowed the children with the father's property.
The predominance of arranged marriages, world wide, was a recognition of this fact. Two families sought suitable spouses for their children (and thus grandchildren) that made "economic" sense - since they were joining their property, via marriage.
Frankly, whether you think such a practice is barbaric is immaterial. Even modern parents will not endow marriages that they feel are "wrong". Wouldn't you feel reluctant to give your property to an in-law you despise and distrust? If you feel that is reasonable, then you concur with the wisdom of parental approval for marriage.
The only thing that has "changed" over time, is that the U.S.A. suffered a socialist revolution, in 1935. Thus the enumerated socialist peons ceased to absolutely own private property. Once there was nothing to pass to the next generation, and the government could levy "estate" and "death" taxes on the property of the deceased. That is evidence that "things changed".
Love never had anything to do with marriage.
Two (or more) people in love, do not need a lifelong binding contract to keep them (and their family property) together.
The BONDS of matrimony were necessary to keep two people who would rather not be together, for the benefit of their progeny, the beneficiaries of the marriage contract.
Contrary to popular belief, the famous "What God has joined, let no man put asunder" was in reference to the children, the consequence of genetic joining of two individuals.
Side note: The "blue laws" that prohibited sexual behaviors that had no injured party, were actually strictly limited in scope. It was the subterfuge of the legal community that led the masses to assume such laws applied to the people at large. Tyrants thrive when ignorance reigns.
So infertile heterosexual couples shouldn't have the right to marry?
You misunderstand the whole point. The "right to contract" is what underpins marriage. The terms of the contract are to endow the children of said marriage with the property of BOTH PARENTS.
A childless couple can contract for marriage, but if there are no children of the marriage, there are no BENEFICIARIES of the contract.
At death, the surviving spouse would not have an automatic claim to the deceased's property. The blood kin would have a superior claim, since there were no children of the marriage.
A homosexual couple who cannot produce children of their union are thus making a contract that has no purpose under the common law.
However, if they eventually do find a way to splice genes and create progeny, by all means, they should contract marriage to endow their progeny.
You misunderstand the whole point. The "right to contract" is what underpins marriage. The terms of the contract are to endow the children of said marriage with the property of BOTH PARENTS.
A childless couple can contract for marriage, but if there are no children of the marriage, there are no BENEFICIARIES of the contract.
At death, the surviving spouse would not have an automatic claim to the deceased's property. The blood kin would have a superior claim, since there were no children of the marriage.
A homosexual couple who cannot produce children of their union are thus making a contract that has no purpose under the common law.
I understand what you're saying, I do. But the logic that you're applying to homosexual couples can still apply to infertile couples. While homosexuals cannot copulate children together, there can still be children produced in the marriage. It's only a matter of time till we have petri-dish children where we can genetically alter the fetus before it matures, anyways.
[1] who I have sex with is none of your business, but who I love and want to share my life liberty and persuit of happiness with is the person that i am in love with.. and if that person has a vagina or a penis doesn't matter....
[2] You seem to be fixated on what kind of equipment People have downstairs, and forget to see that PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE..
[1] This may sound strange, since most Americans have been indoctrinated to accept national socialism since 1935, but your sexual orientation is important. The reason is simple - citizenship is an acceptance of civic duties in exchange for political liberties. For example, conscription is compulsory military duty for all male citizens between 17 and 45. This goes back to 1787, so it not something "new".
Consider that the Declaration of Independence states that governments are instituted among men to (a) secure rights ( i.e., life, liberty, dominion), and (b) govern those who consent.
Common sense tells us that being ordered into battle, to fight and die, if necessary, is the OPPOSITE of securing one's right to life, liberty and property ownership.
Restating - citizenship is voluntary surrender of inalienable rights - in order to exercise political liberty - a PRIVILEGE.
You may have heard it said, that public service is a PRIVILEGE, not a right.
And those who are served, have the right to OBJECT to public servants.
ENTER THE GOVERNED.
Those who accept citizenship, also accept the regulations and rules of said citizenship... which often extended to behaviors that would disgust a sizable percentage of the people.
For example, religions that base their tenets on the Bible, the Quran, and other scriptures, may object to servants who are engaged in "unclean" behavior.
If you were a vegetarian, would you object to the service of a bloody handed carnivore? Or if you were Kosher, would you object to the service of a pig herder? Or if you held the belief that homosexuals were abominations, you'd object to being served by them.
Herein lies the "fine print" - most Americans are ignorant of law and legislative history. Only persons liable are obligated to obey. Not all Americans are "persons liable".
If you are one of the sovereign people, no constitutional law impairs the exercise of any harmless / victimless action you may perform. If you're the king or queen (no pun intended) the servant government has no jurisdiction over you and yours.
But if you are one of the subject citizenry, uh - oh, there are reams and reams of regulations pertaining to you and your behavior.
[2] People are people, but all people are not citizens.
Citizens come from the people, but all people are not citizens.
If you are restored to your status as one of the sovereign people, the servant government is not your master. The president is NOT your leader. He's merely the highest ranking public servant. And Congress (nor any state legislation) can violate your private property rights... if you have them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
