Iowa Strikes Down Same Sex Marriage Ban

[thessalonian]

www.cnn.com

[Groo the Wanderer]

Dear God, forgive us our sins as our country turns away from you. Mother Mary, lead us back to your Son.

[StColette]

Sometimes I think there is no hope for this country until Jesus comes back and gives us a swift kick in the rear end!

[The Bus Station]

[quote name='StColette' post='1823353' date='Apr 3 2009, 11:12 AM']Sometimes I think there is no hope for this country until Jesus comes back and gives us a swift kick in the rear end![/quote]

iawtc.

[Brother Adam]

I'm surprised there isn't a constitutional amendment yet overturning any ban on abortion or same sex marriage. Catholics and some evangelicals oppose them, but society, especially our politicians, support them.

[thessalonian]

Lord have mercy, christ have mercy, lord have mercy

[Thomist-in-Training]

Holy cow. Not a good news day
breaking news cnn.com

At least four people were killed Friday when a man opened fire in a building in Binghamton, New York, a law enforcement source close to the situation said. The source said more than a dozen were wounded. The local newspaper, the Press & Sun-Bulletin, said on its Web site that at least four people were shot and 41 people had been taken hostage.

Edited April 3, 2009 by Thomist-in-Training

[track2004]

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='track2004' post='1823517' date='Apr 3 2009, 01:42 PM'] [/quote]

Might want to hold the victory clap. It was a state law that was struck down. The next step is to change the state constitution. Would not be surprised to see in the next election, a change proposed to the state constitution to define marriage between a man and a women.

This war is far from over.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='track2004' post='1823517' date='Apr 3 2009, 01:42 PM'] [/quote]

ya great. The romans and greeks allowed gay sex and their societies went down the tubes. Guess you want the US to go away.

[Winchester]

So why aren't polygamy and incest legal? I can't believe the unjust exclusion continues to this day--if consenting adults want to be married, who should stand in their way?

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1823652' date='Apr 3 2009, 02:14 PM']ya great. The romans and greeks allowed gay sex and their societies went down the tubes. Guess you want the US to go away.[/quote]
Christendom had Catholicism as it's official religion, so to speak, but it no longer exists. Coincidence?

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1823804' date='Apr 3 2009, 04:42 PM']So why aren't polygamy and incest legal? I can't believe the unjust exclusion continues to this day--if consenting adults want to be married, who should stand in their way?[/quote]
Slippery slope fallacy.

Fail.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1823971' date='Apr 3 2009, 08:06 PM']Slippery slope fallacy.

Fail.[/quote]
How is this slippery slope?
Bob and Jack = gay men = consenting adults :. can now be legally married.
Frank and Laura = siblings = consenting adults ... but can't be married.
Adam and Delilah and Margaret = consenting adults ... but can't be married.

All consenting adults, with different rights. If we're pushing for equal "rights" here, then let's have equal rights!
Now, had he used bestiality or pædophilia, then yes, slippery slope; he didn't.

Edited April 4, 2009 by USAirwaysIHS

[Aloysius]

it's not a slippery slope fallacy, it's a demand for consistency. the legal principal ought to be applied equally to the entire population. previously, the legal principal employed was that the state would recognize any union between one man and one woman of legal age. the legal principal employed here is that the state will recognize any union between any couple of consenting adults. there is no principal of legal fairness which would permit that legal principal to exist without taking away the necessity of the word "couple" on the same grounds that the sex distinctions were removed from the legal principal.

I am absolutely serious, too. When it comes to the law, if it can't be the law that I think it ought to be, I honestly believe it ought to at least be consistent. I don't think we must legalize incest to be consistent, but I do believe that if we are legalizing homosexual marriage, then to be consistent polygamy must also be legalized.

this is not slippery slope scare tactic "oh if they do x then next thing you know they will do y"... I am well aware that they could very easily end at x, the slippery slope fallacy would be if I thought that because they did x that proves they'll do y and that's why they shouldn't do x; this is logical argument "if they do x, then they should also do y if they wish to be consistent; and I think they should do neither x nor y"