Gay Marriage Arrives In Iowa

• Monday, April 27, 2009, 4:34
• Iowa, News Center
• 829 views
• 71 comments

• Share
  Delicious Digg Design Float Mixx Reddit StumbleUpon Technorati
• Printable version

About the Author

71 Comments on “Gay Marriage Arrives In Iowa”

• 
  Deace voted for Obama wrote on 27 April, 2009, 5:15

  Deace is not going to be happy with you.
• 
  Conservative Demo wrote on 27 April, 2009, 6:03

  110,000 out-of-towners over the next three years?!!!! Oh my gosh, the traffic problems that’s going to impose on our sleepy streets.

  My friendly local HyVee coffee shop, where we gather to read the morning DesMoines Register over coffee and old-folk conversation about the heavy morning dew and other matters of grave import, will become crowded and noisy with the hustle and bustle of outsiders. Our whole world is set to change!
• 
  Nick wrote on 27 April, 2009, 6:56

  Those damned out-of-state couples and their useless out-of-state currencies!
• 
  Eric wrote on 27 April, 2009, 7:25

  Where was the Senate Minority Leader? –He was silent.
• 
  steve right wrote on 27 April, 2009, 7:56

  Is this the part where you GOP folks turn on each other? I’ve been waiting for this part all year.
• 
  Jeff wrote on 27 April, 2009, 8:00

  > Is this the part where you GOP folks turn on each other? I’ve been waiting for this part all year.

  It once was a Grand Old Party. Now it’s just dominated (not full of) by narrow minded town criers.

  I saw a great bumper sticker the other day that I’d love to put on my car next to my John McCain sticker…”I may be straight, but I’m not narrow”
• 
  that'sthetruth wrote on 27 April, 2009, 8:05

  Jeff, that sticker would be perfect next to the John RINO McCain sticker.
• 
  Peggy wrote on 27 April, 2009, 8:12

  Other than the handful of token, militant couples who will storm the county courthouses where there’s a TV camera today, the hubbub won’t amount to much.

  How about milking this financial boon – which the sympathizers have promised wil happen – for all it’s worth?

  Since an out-of-state hunting license costs ten times what it does for a resident, shouldn’t we apply the same logic to marriage licenses? If a marriage license for a resident couple is $30, let’s make it an even $1,000 for the interlopers.

  Also, we should be doing blood tests to see how many of these folks have an infectious disease before allowing them to marry.
• 
  EchoBuster wrote on 27 April, 2009, 8:42

  What are the residency laws in Connecticut, Vermont and Massachusetts?
• 
  Cory wrote on 27 April, 2009, 9:33

  “Also, we should be doing blood tests to see how many of these folks have an infectious disease before allowing them to marry.”

  Why? I see two reasons that this is useless: 1) Although gay men are more vulnerable to venereal disease, lesbians are virtually free of it. The “diseased homo” stereotype is just that–a stereotype. 2) It is impossible for STD contraction rates to rise as a result of more marriages. Monogamy has the opposite effect: it lessens the spread of STDs.
• 
  Timmy wrote on 27 April, 2009, 11:54

  Eric, he was busy doing all that he possibly could have done, not constantly running off at the mouth like a certain talk-show host that has done absolutely nothing to help stop it either, but spread discord and try to divide us whenever possible. Think about it!!!
• 
  Peggy wrote on 27 April, 2009, 12:20

  Cory,

  Monogamy among so-called committed gay couples, especially men, is largely a myth.

  Here’s a telling quote from gay activist Bruce Voeller taken from THE ADVOCATE on July 12, 1979, for you to chew on:
  “We should put an end to our embarrassment about transcending monogamy, for by moving beyond it we have also transcended the possessiveness and jealousy adopted from traditional heterosexual relationships in which males “own” women, who are in turn dependent. By openly and honestly incorporating recreational sex into our relationships we have tapped a rich quarry of “resistance,” that essential quality needed for rewarding, ongoing sexuality….”

  Don’t be naive, Cory; the push for same sex ‘marriage’ has NOTHING to do with monogamy.
• 
  Silence Dogood wrote on 27 April, 2009, 13:35

  wow, over 100,000 people coming to Iowa and spending money, sounds like a stimulus package to me, the smart republicans will start to businesses to take advantage of this, like a photography studio, the dumb ones will just keep complaining and playing chicken little, guess which group the republicans on this website fall into???

  Silence
• 
  Anonymous conservative wrote on 27 April, 2009, 13:40

  Peggy is correct, as she is about a number of things, that same-sex marriage is not about monogamy. The homosexual activists are driven by their consuming deviancy to chase their own lusts and attempt to legitimize it and force others to accept it.
• 
  Nick wrote on 27 April, 2009, 13:44

  /Monogamy among so-called committed gay couples, especially men, is largely a myth./

  Who the hell are you to say that “gay monogamy” is a myth??
• 
  RedAlert44 wrote on 27 April, 2009, 16:09

  I am repeating this from other sections, because the same perverts are saying the same lies everywhere here – using different aliases.
  *****
  How boring! The Out-Of-State team of Perveted-Commenters-For-Hire are back, with their pockets full of Tim Gill money, making their rounds of Iowa blogsites!
  Still saying the same worthless and hateful lies, about any and every Conservative that is on the Hate List!
  Is anyone in Iowa still stupid enough to think that these blog saboteurs have any intention, other than disrupting any flow of human communications that they can find?
  These things are brainwashers of the public! Brainwashers of everyone dumb enough to even read the tripe that comes from their fingers!
  I say, ignore their programmed lies! Just keep on having human conversations, and brush off their filth like you would (unpleasant stuff) on your shoes!
• 
  steve right wrote on 27 April, 2009, 16:35

  Alright, I confess.

  My name is Tim Gill, and I am spending my time arguing with you here to help spread my evil gay agenda. In addition to posting on this site, I am also helping with federal Democrats’ socialist agenda to homo-fy the upper midwest. Eventually, we want it to be gay enough to be accepted as Canadians. Once state’s like Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin are drafted into the Canadian Union, our battle will be complete.

  Congratulations to RedAlert and Peggy for finally figuring out my ruse. Your 18th Century value system has once again trumped by well reasoned take on life. Damn YOU!
• 
  Peggy wrote on 27 April, 2009, 17:03

  Steve and Nick,

  For two gay ‘marriage’ sympathizers on the first day of legalized sodomy in the state, you sure are testy!
• 
  Silence Dogood wrote on 27 April, 2009, 17:09

  Again, I can’t believe I can get paid to make you guys look foolish. Who do I need to contact??? UMMMM, Peggy, once again you prove you didn’t read the varnum decision, it legalized gay marriage, not sodomy. Plus, how does legalizing two lesbians getting married equate to legalizing sodomy. I asked emily this too, but what videos are you watching, and do you have any recommendations.

  Silence
• 
  Silence Dogood wrote on 27 April, 2009, 17:10

  Yes anonymous, this is all a plot by gay guys to force you to have sex with them.

  Silence
• 
  Peggy wrote on 27 April, 2009, 17:29

  /once again you prove you didn’t read the varnum decision, it legalized gay marriage, not sodomy/

  UMMMM, Silence, are you suggesting that two ‘committed’ gay men who take the time to skip down to the local courthouse to get pretend-married aren’t going to engage in sexual activity afterwards?

  If this is true, that means the pretend-marriage will never be consummated (not that it ever could have been in the first place, mind you).

  In the end, nature will have its way.
• 
  Nick wrote on 27 April, 2009, 17:38

  /For two gay ‘marriage’ sympathizers on the first day of legalized sodomy in the state, you sure are testy!/

  Actually, sodomy has been legal in most of the US since the 1970s. You lost that battle a long time ago.
• 
  Peggy wrote on 27 April, 2009, 17:39

  I loved the gay dude on WHO Radio news tonight saying that he was married before at the Univeralist Unitarian Utility Uterine Church, they got married again today at the Polk County courthouse, and now they’re going BACK to the UUUU Church to get married again.

  What fools!
• 
  Peggy wrote on 27 April, 2009, 17:40

  We all lost, Nick. Someday you’ll graduate from UNI, grow up and figure that out.
• 
  70s guy wrote on 27 April, 2009, 17:43

  Peggy – do you have any idea how many hetero couples play the sodomy game in the privacy of their own bedrooms? Steve Deace keeps whining about “sodomy marriages” but apparently doesn’t realize that’s been going on in many marriages for over a hundred years.
• 
  perez wrote on 27 April, 2009, 17:54

  Hey Iowans, Do you like the sound of this” San Francisco Central”. Nice ring to it don’t you think?
• 
  Peggy wrote on 27 April, 2009, 17:58

  70’s guy,

  I have no doubt that heteros engage in sodomy but it’s no safer for them than it is for two men; it presents a real health risk. It’s also not open to life so it’s not in keeping with God’s design for our sexuality.

  On the other hand, hetero couples at least have the option of sex as it was intended to be. And they’re also not inviting the State into their bedrooms to ask its blessing of their perverted acts.
  When Truth is the end-game, there is no double standard.
• 
  Conservative Demo wrote on 27 April, 2009, 18:15

  Peggy sez: “I loved the gay dude on WHO Radio news tonight saying that he was married before at the Univeralist Unitarian Utility Uterine Church, they got married again today at the Polk County courthouse, and now they’re going BACK to the UUUU Church to get married again.”

  Peg, your post brought forth a good belly laugh and shame on me for it as well as perhaps on you for writing it. Whatever one might think of another organized branch of Faith (and the UU _is_ pretty long-lived, dating back to at least the 1700s I think), we do our own Faiths no good by ridiculing the others.

  And for the getting married again, why heck, we Evangelicals reaffirm our vows all the time at regular retreats and the like.

  eh-heh-heh, your post was still funny tho.
• 
  Peggy wrote on 27 April, 2009, 18:23

  Does the UU consider itself to be Christian?
• 
  Conservative Demo wrote on 27 April, 2009, 18:38

  Sorry Peg, I don’t know that. I only do know they’re long-established and accordingly I believe they rate at least polite respect in public commentary.
• 
  Peggy wrote on 27 April, 2009, 18:47

  Actually, they’ve only been around since 1961.

  http://uua.org/visitors/beliefswithin/6633.shtml
• 
  70s guy wrote on 27 April, 2009, 19:00

  “God’s design” ???

  That takes out all of the fun stuff. If I just wanted the Mrs. to crank out babies I’d be a Catholic. (Or one of those Dugger family religion.)
  The problem with this whole issue is people confusing (intentionally or not) civil marriage with religious marriage. When the state got involved – the religious aspect really became irrelevant.
  You want to be upset with marriage getting trashed you should start with Liz Taylor or Larry King.
• 
  Conservative Demo wrote on 27 April, 2009, 19:20

  for Peggy,

  meh, why not allow them the 1793 date that they claim for the senior branch?

  Thanks for the URL, interesting. I’ll still afford them the polite respect tho that I’d expect toward my denomination of choice.
• 
  Timmy wrote on 27 April, 2009, 20:32

  70’s Guy, you won’t get an arguement from me. So called “No-Fault” divorce has done far more damage. There is a whole generation of men my age and younger who either has gone through it or has watched marriages break up over and over again and have become either cynical or bitter. This is why co-habitation has become so popular.
• 
  Peggy wrote on 27 April, 2009, 20:54

  You MEN certainly need to do some homework in the area of human sexuality!

  I am a Catholic, married 17 years and have never used artificial contraceptives of any kind in my life. We have not 17 children but four.

  Timmy, please tell me you’re not condoning shacking up. That’s part of the problem here, too.

  Once sex is reduced to being JUST for pleasure, there is no longer a need for marriage, nor does it matter who or what you’re having sex with. Contracepting married and ’shacking up’ hetero couples have no moral high ground on homosexual couples.

  Again, when Truth is the end-game, there is no double standard. It all makes perfect sense.
• 
  70s guy wrote on 27 April, 2009, 21:59

  Peggy – you need to read the book “unChristian” and see what the future of your stance on these issues is up against. I’m not criticizing your views – but I think you underestimate what the next generation thinks about some of these issues.
• 
  Peggy wrote on 27 April, 2009, 22:08

  70’s guy,

  I know exactly what the majority of people think of the Catholic Church’s teachings but I also know they don’t understand them.

  If they did, they’d conform because it makes so dang much sense!
• 
  Jerry Springnot wrote on 27 April, 2009, 22:15

  peggy, i dont want to hear about your hetero sex romps. steve, i dont want to hear about your gay sex romps. thanks.
• 
  Peggy wrote on 27 April, 2009, 22:21

  Did you just get done ‘consummating’ your same sex pretend-marriage, Jerry?

  I give it three months.
• 
  Timmy wrote on 28 April, 2009, 6:22

  Peggy, I ain’t condoning anything I’m just pointing out the sad fact of why so many men of my generation won’t marry. Things hit a rough patch and the wife decides to play the “I’m not happy” card, walk off with the kids, max out the credit cards and end up with half (or more)of everything. Then after the dust settles, they let the new “boyfriend” move in and that’s just supposed to be fine and dandy. Meanwhile the ex is working his butt off trying to pay the child support and all the bills he left over form the divorce. If he is lucky, she won’t play games with his visitation rights. I have seen this happen time and time again, even among supposedly “christian” people. This why I’m not married, by the same token I won’t let any woman move in either. I have been financially responsible and everything i got is paid for. I lost my job this past winter, but I’ve been able to keep the bills paid between unemployment and working part time. It’s not a permanenet solution, but I’m geting by. If I was divorced or co-habitating either one, I don’t know how I could make it.
• 
  Nick wrote on 28 April, 2009, 7:03

  /Peggy – you need to read the book “unChristian”/

  Nah, I think Peggy just needs to read a book…period.
• 
  Peggy wrote on 28 April, 2009, 8:19

  So clever, Nick.

  Now try addressing the issues with logic.
• 
  Silence Dogood wrote on 28 April, 2009, 10:50

  Peggy, sodomy has been legal, once again you fail to make any kind of rational relevant point.

  Silence
• 
  Sarah wrote on 28 April, 2009, 17:13

  Slience, you say sodomy is legal? That must be in states that allow homosexual marriage–like Iowa. Of course that won’t stand. Is this something you practice personally? So you must agree with the ruling in the state of Mass, where third graders are given information and taught all about the gay lifestyle. Parents are unable to opt out their children from the class. Where is the freedom in that, where is the choice? Why do they celebrate “Gay Day” in school, but not “Heterosexual Day”? Doesn’t that go against you desire for equal rights for all? Go ahead, peak out of both sides of your mouth.
• 
  cory wrote on 29 April, 2009, 19:43

  “Monogamy among so-called committed gay couples, especially men, is largely a myth.”

  I get the feeling you don’t have too many gay friends, so your polling sample size can’t have been too large. There is nothing mythical about love and monogamy within homosexual relationships. You are a bigot.
• 
  Sarah wrote on 30 April, 2009, 1:15

  Someone answer this question because I’d really like to know. This has actually kept me awake thinking about it…Are there any other living creatures on the planet besides humans who engage in willing sodomy with each other? Two bull elephants, two lions, horses, cows, dogs, cats, rabbits, gerbles, mice, squirrels…anyone know? Dropping the moral issue and looking at it from a purely natural standpoint, it kind of makes homosexuals look a freak of nature.
• 
  Sarah wrote on 30 April, 2009, 1:20

  I could be wrong. Just odd that out of all the creatures in the world, and the espousing of the Darwin theroy, we as humans would “evolve” into something not even the beasts of the earth do. Just saying.
• 
  steve right wrote on 30 April, 2009, 6:47

  Sarah,
  * African Buffalo[21]
  * African Elephant[22]
  * Agile Wallaby[23]
  * Amazon River Dolphin(Boto)[19]
  * American Bison[21][24]
  * Antelope[25]
  * Asian Elephant[22]
  * Asiatic Lion[26]
  * Asiatic Mouflon[27]
  * Atlantic Spotted Dolphin[19]
  * Australian Sea Lion[28]
  * Barasingha[29]
  * Barbary Sheep[30]
  * Beluga[31]
  * Bharal[32]
  * Bighorn Sheep[30]
  * Black Bear[33]
  * Blackbuck[34]
  * Black-footed Rock Wallaby[23]
  * Black-tailed Deer[29]
  * Bonnet Macaque[14]
  * Bonobo[35][36][37]
  * Bottlenose Dolphin[19][38]
  * Bowhead Whale[19]
  * Brazilian Guinea Pig[39]
  * Bridled Dolphin[19]
  * Brown Bear[33]
  * Brown Capuchin[40]
  * Brown Long-eared Bat[41]
  * Brown Rat[42]
  * Buffalo[30]
  * Caribou[43]
  * Cat (domestic)[44]
  * Cattle (domestic)[45]
  * Cheetah[26]
  * Collared Peccary[46]
  * Commerson’s Dolphin[19]
  * Common Brushtail Possum[47]
  * Common Chimpanzee[48]
  * Common Dolphin[31]
  * Common Marmoset[49]
  * Common Pipistrelle[50]
  * Common Raccoon[51]
  * Common Tree Shrew[52]
  * Cotton-top Tamarin[53]
  * Crab-eating Macaque[14]
  * Crested Black Macaque[14]
  * Cui[54]
  * Dall’s Sheep[30]
  * Daubenton’s Bat[41]
  * Dog (domestic)[55]
  * Doria’s Tree Kangaroo[23]
  * Dugong[56]
  * Dwarf Cavy[39]
  * Dwarf Mongoose[57]
  * Eastern Cottontail Rabbit[58]
  * Eastern Grey Kangaroo[23]
  * Elk[29]
  * Euro (a subspecies of wallaroo)[23]
  * European Bison[21]
  * Fallow Deer[29]
  * False Killer Whale[19]
  * Fat-tailed Dunnart[59]
  * Fin Whale[19]
  * Fox[60]
  * Gazelle[25]
  * Gelada Baboon[61]
  * Giraffe[25][4][62]
  * Goat (Domestic)[30]
  * Golden Monkey[63]
  * Gorilla[64]

  * Grant’s Gazelle[25]
  * Grey-headed Flying Fox[41]
  * Grey Seal[28]
  * Grey squirrel[65]
  * Grey Whale[19][66]
  * Grey Wolf[67]
  * Grizzly Bear[33]
  * Guinea Pig (Domestic)[39]
  * Hamadryas Baboon[68]
  * Hamster (Domestic)[39]
  * Hanuman Langur[69]
  * Harbor Porpoise[70]
  * Harbor Seal[28]
  * Himalayan Tahr[71]
  * Hoary Marmot[72]
  * Horse (domestic)[73]
  * Human (see Human sexual behavior)
  * Indian Fruit Bat[41]
  * Indian Muntjac[74]
  * Indian Rhinoceros[75]
  * Japanese Macaque[14]
  * Javelina[76]
  * Kangaroo Rat[42]
  * Killer Whale[19]
  * Koala[77]
  * Kob[78][79]
  * Larga Seal[28]
  * Least Chipmunk[80]
  * Lechwe[81]
  * Lesser Bushbaby[82]
  * Lion[26][83][84][85][86][87]
  * Lion-tailed Macaque[14]
  * Lion Tamarin[88]
  * Little Brown Bat[41]
  * Livingstone’s Fruit Bat[41]
  * Long-eared Hedgehog[89]
  * Long-footed Tree Shrew[90]
  * Macaque[91]
  * Markhor[92]
  * Marten[93]
  * Matschie’s Tree Kangaroo[23]
  * Moco[94]
  * Mohol Galago[82]
  * Moor Macaque[14]
  * Moose[95]
  * Mountain Goat[30]
  * Mountain Tree Shrew[96]
  * Mountain Zebra[97]
  * Mouse (domestic)[98]
  * Moustached Tamarin[99]
  * Mule Deer[29]
  * Musk-ox[100]
  * Natterer’s Bat[41]
  * New Zealand Sea Lion[28]
  * Nilgiri Langur[101]
  * Noctule[102]
  * North American Porcupine[103]
  * Northern Elephant Seal[28]
  * Northern Fur Seal[28]
  * Northern Quoll[104]
  * Olympic Marmot[105]
  * Orangutan[106]
  * Orca[31]
  * Pacific Striped Dolphin[19]
  * Patas Monkey[107]
  * Pere David’s Deer[29]
  * Pig (Domestic)[108]
  * Pig-tailed Macaque[14]
  * Plains Zebra[109]

  * Polar Bear[33]
  * Pretty-faced Wallaby[23]
  * Proboscis Monkey[110]
  * Pronghorn[111]
  * Przewalski’s Horse[112]
  * Puku[113]
  * Quokka[114]
  * Rabbit[115]
  * Raccoon Dog[116]
  * Red Deer[29]
  * Red Fox[117]
  * Red Kangaroo[23]
  * Red-necked Wallaby[23]
  * Red Squirrel[118]
  * Reeves’s Muntjac[119]
  * Reindeer[43]
  * Rhesus Macaque[14]
  * Right Whale[19]
  * Rock Cavy[39]
  * Rodrigues Fruit Bat[41]
  * Roe Deer[29]
  * Rufous Bettong[120]
  * Rufous-naped Tamarin[53]
  * Rufous Rat Kangaroo[23]
  * Saddle-back Tamarin[53]
  * Savanna Baboon[121]
  * Sea Otter[122]
  * Serotine Bat[41]
  * Sheep (Domestic)[30][123]
  * Siamang[124]
  * Sika Deer[29]
  * Slender Tree Shrew[125]
  * Sooty Mangabey[126]
  * Sperm Whale[19]
  * Spinifex Hopping Mouse[127]
  * Spinner Dolphin[19]
  * Spotted Hyena[18][16]
  * Spotted Seal[28]
  * Squirrel Monkey[128]
  * Striped Dolphin[19]
  * Stuart’s Marsupial Mouse[129]
  * Stumptail Macaque[14]
  * Swamp Deer[29]
  * Swamp Wallaby[23]
  * Takhi[112]
  * Talapoin[130]
  * Tammar Wallaby[23]
  * Tasmanian Devil[131]
  * Tasmanian Rat Kangaroo[23]
  * Thinhorn Sheep[30]
  * Thomson’s Gazelle[25]
  * Tiger[132]
  * Tonkean Macaque[14]
  * Tucuxi[133]
  * Urial[134]
  * Vampire Bat[41]
  * Verreaux’s Sifaka[135]
  * Vervet[136]
  * Vicuna[137]
  * Walrus[138][139]
  * Wapiti[140]
  * Warthog[141]
  * Waterbuck[142]
  * Water Buffalo[30]
  * Weeper Capuchin[40]
  * Western Grey Kangaroo[23]
  * West Indian Manatee[143]
  * Whiptail Wallaby[23]
  * White-faced Capuchin[40]
  * White-fronted Capuchin[40]
  * White-handed Gibbon[144]
  * White-lipped Peccary[145]
  * White-tailed Deer[29]
  * Wild Cavy[39]
  * Wild Goat[30]
  * Wisent[21]
  * Yellow-footed Rock Wallaby[23]
  * Yellow-toothed Cavy[39]
• 
  Sarah wrote on 30 April, 2009, 8:35

  And your source Steve? (You really know how to copy and paste don’t you?)
• 
  Silence Dogood wrote on 30 April, 2009, 11:05

  Wow, sarah, you stay awake at night thinking about gay animals, that is pretty sad. Steve is right there are all kinds of documents animals that have “gay” relations. Nice comeback though, calling me gay. However, legalized gay marriage and legal sodomy are two different things under the law. You need to stop posting, you just consistantly embarrass yourself. I believe in comprehensive sex education, something I think you could have benefitted from.

  Silence
• 
  Sarah wrote on 1 May, 2009, 16:34

  Silence, you forgot to put down your sources. Back it up.
• 
  Sarah wrote on 1 May, 2009, 16:42

  Silence-bye the bye-I didn’t CALL you gay, I ASKED if you were gay. You didn’t answer me. Why legalize gay marriage, and why call it cay marriage? What is your definition of gay marriage? Webster’s defines it as “relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.” If it has nothing to do with physical attraction, the only reason I can see for gay people to get married is to take advantage of legal advantages of marriage. That means best friends of either sex should have the same rights as everyone else. Wow! How are we going to deal with this…
• 
  cory wrote on 2 May, 2009, 10:19

  Sarah,

  Of course it has to do with physical attraction, the same way heterosexual marriage does. Needless to say, that’s not all of it, and if it were that would be an insufficient reason to get married. If there are gay people who want to get married because they feel the same intense passion and deep love for each other that a husband and a wife do, and if they want to grow old together, who are you to deny them this right? What do you have against loving homosexual relationships? I think you should examine the reasons you stand so staunchly against homosexuality. After all, if your position is logically sound, then there should be no danger in examining the issue from all points of view. If it is not logically sound, then you can show intellectual maturity by admitting you are wrong. I had a great teacher once who said “My favorite thing in the world is being right, but my second favorite thing in the world is being wrong, because then I will be right the next time.” I wish everyone would adopt this mentality.
• 
  Anonomouz wrote on 2 May, 2009, 17:55

  I hope it won’t offend you if I jump in here and answer some of your questions, cory. Who am I to deny them the right to get married? A voter. I am offended by their behaviour, and it’s not a right. For the last 200 some odd years, it has not been a right. What do I have against loving homosexual relationships? It’s perverted, and 70 some percent of the US agrees with me. I don’t believe it should be normalized. It changes the definition of normal. Men having anal sex with each other is not normal, no matter how much you guys want to make it seem as if it is. Many people are staunchly against homosexual marriage because it is seen as an attempt to legitimize what we feel is a repulsive and unnatural act. We, from now on, will have to teach our children that men having sex with other men is completely acceptable. If we tell the truth, we will be charged with hate crimes. Our kids will be labeled as bigots. This will eventually be voted down by the majority of Iowans, through a Constitutional Ammendment, but we have already been embarrassed nationally. I’m already hearing constant gay jokes about Iowa, and it seriously bothers me. We, as a state, have been reduced to a gay joke punchline.
• 
  Anonomouz wrote on 2 May, 2009, 18:03

  Sarah wrote on 30 April, 2009, 1:15
  Someone answer this question because I’d really like to know. This has actually kept me awake thinking about it…Are there any other living creatures on the planet besides humans who engage in willing sodomy with each other? Two bull elephants, two lions, horses, cows, dogs, cats, rabbits, gerbles, mice, squirrels…anyone know?

  I am not sure about most of those animals, Sarah, but I have heard that many a gerbil has given it’s life, although I think unwillingly, while being a part of a “loving homosexual relationship.”
  But it’s normal, so don’t be alarmed or offended.
• 
  cory wrote on 2 May, 2009, 19:02

  “Anonomouz”

  This is off topic…but I find it wonderfully ironic and witty that you have an individual way of spelling “anonymous.”
• 
  Jeff wrote on 3 May, 2009, 13:55

  > For the last 200 some odd years, it has not been a right. What do I have against loving homosexual relationships? It’s perverted, and 70 some percent of the US agrees with me.

  So, you’re argument is we didn’t do anything about it for 200 years, and a bunch of people think it’s gross? I bet you felt the same about interracial heterosexual marriage (of which I am 1/2 of)

  > I don’t believe it should be normalized. It changes the definition of normal. Men having anal sex with each other is not normal, no matter how much you guys want to make it seem as if it is. Many people are staunchly against homosexual marriage because it is seen as an attempt to legitimize what we feel is a repulsive and unnatural act.

  Thanks for your opinion. We still live in a free society, so you can protest and yell and scream. But you can’t legalize discrimination. I don’t like the KKK at all, they make me sick and I think they pervert God’s word…but they SHOULD have the right to espouse hate. It’s their right. I don’t like it, but what I like isn’t important here.
• 
  Jeff wrote on 3 May, 2009, 13:58

  > We, from now on, will have to teach our children that men having sex with other men is completely acceptable. If we tell the truth, we will be charged with hate crimes. Our kids will be labeled as bigots.

  No you won’t. Do you teach your kids they should agree with the KKK? Of course not. Also, it’s only a hate crime if someone commits a violent crime. As a Christian, you should be teaching your children to live an honest and Christ-like life (which you probably are, so you have nothing to worry about). They won’t have any desire to tie a gay man to fence and torture and beat him to death (like Matthew Shepard), because you will teach them that is wrong to do to any human. WWJD was pounded into my head and I still embrace that idea.

  > This will eventually be voted down by the majority of Iowans, through a Constitutional Ammendment, but we have already been embarrassed nationally.

  That’s just a matter of perspective. I’ve heard both sides…some laugh, others applaud. It boils down to which side you agree with.

  > I’m already hearing constant gay jokes about Iowa, and it seriously bothers me. We, as a state, have been reduced to a gay joke punchline.

  No we haven’t. Get some thicker skin.
• 
  Timmy wrote on 3 May, 2009, 17:55

  Jeff I can’t disagree, but why is everybody here still posting on a thread that is a week old? We do need to re-group and make plans for what to do next. Some must think dumping on Republicans is the answer, but alls that does is marginalize us(See my other posts on this site). We need to carefully think how we need to proceed. I fear that since we failed to change the residency requierment, this will spread across the country and end up in the US Supreme Court where it will quite possibly fail. Dumping on our House and Senate Republicans won’t accomplish anything constructive. Getting hung up on the idea that losing on principle is better than winning with we we’ve got is also ludicrous! We need to put a lid on those that would rather dump on the Republicans than work toward the goal of putting Gronstal and Murphy in the minority. We need to stop listening to those that claim to be for the conservative principles, yet undermine us at every turn!!!
• 
  Anonomouz wrote on 4 May, 2009, 7:55

  Jeff- It’s not really my opinion. It’s the majority of the world’s opinion. And, of course, you immediately compare anything said against homosexuality to being a bigot associated with the KKK. You are transparent. This was briefed by the gay movement as an effective way to put down the normal people who would undoubtedly be opposed to their perverted agenda. The word “bigot” is thrown in to every single conversation by the gays, because they know that they will wear people down eventually. No one wants to be called a bigot. It doesn’t even apply, but they do it anyway. They don’t care about the truth, they just want their perverted lifestyle to be accepted in society so they can perform their perverted acts in front of us, instead of in the closet. I also know that claiming to be Christian is another tactic they use, and saying Jesus wouldn’t tie gays to a fence and beat them. What a joke. No one is saying we should tie gays to a fence and beat them except you. But thanks for equating me to the KKK. About the same as equating gays to child molesters. You would disapprove of that, correct?
• 
  Timmy wrote on 4 May, 2009, 8:06

  Anonomouz, you evidentially read a different post from Jeff than I did to reach the conclusion you just posted!
• 
  Sarah wrote on 4 May, 2009, 17:30

  Alright Cory! Okay! I guess I got it wrong! Animals and gays have anal sex. Are you happy now? Yes, I know, a cheap shot. But I thought it, so guess I should own it. But you didn’t deserve it and I apologize for that. Look, we will never agree on gay marriage. I will never change my mind about it. If it gives me the label of “intellectual inmaturity”, so be it. I’m comfortalbe in my skin, and if people want to disparage me they can feel free. In voicing my opinions I open myself up for ridicule, it’s part of the package. I understand I have never walked in the shoes of someone with the emotional makeup of homosexuality. I know it’s a driving force. My friends who follow the gay lifestyle and I have called a truce, we value our friendships, we agree to disagree on gay issues. Our relationships are bigger than the very personal and private parts of our lives. There are boundaries we don’t cross, and that’s true of all my friendships. My private life is private. My friends are private people as well, they conduct themselves with dignity and are never in anyone’s face, trying to foster their beliefs on myself or others. I will always believe marriage is between a man and a woman, because I’m a diehard Jesus freak, my friends will always believe I’m wrong, because they have a different view of the Bible. That’s just the way it is Cory.
• 
  cory wrote on 5 May, 2009, 22:27

  Sarah,

  Although most people would admire your intellectual honesty and willingness to “agree to disagree” with your friends, I am not most people. It’s true that friendships are incredibly important, but if you are really good friends with someone, you can have these kinds of conversations with them. That’s why I am able to have religious friends. We can have conversations about their religion or my lack thereof. We don’t have to agree to disagree, but we don’t take it personally either. I think it is incredibly sad to say that you will never change your mind, and you’re right about the fact that I consider this position to be childish. When a mature adult discovers that they are wrong about something, they change their mind. This is why we can have progress. When Einstein published his theories, Newtonian scientists had to stop believing in an infinite universe. That’s why I say, although my favorite thing in the world is being right, my second favorite is being wrong, because I learn something, and I’ll be right the next time . I sincerely hope that you will not be closed-minded enough to stick to the same position no matter what. Personally, I have no problem arguing with someone who holds an extreme point of view, so long as they are willing to go where the evidence takes them. However, you can’t blame me if I don’t want to argue with a brick wall.
• 
  Sarah wrote on 7 May, 2009, 18:28

  Cory, you’re so elequent, so full of wisdom and so much more mature than I. Alas! See Cory, our differences are very simple. I believe in the Bible. It’s my law. Marriage is between a man and a woman, that’s what it says. If you chose to believe otherwise, go for it! Best of luck to you Cory. Think what you like of me, I wish nothing but happiness and joy for your life.
• 
  Peggy wrote on 7 May, 2009, 18:49

  Right on, Sarah!
• 
  cory wrote on 8 May, 2009, 22:41

  Sarah, you are obviously a very nice person, and I appreciate and return your well-wishes. I do, however, think you are copping out on this issue. If everyone took your stance, progress would never be made.
• 
  cory wrote on 8 May, 2009, 22:50

  Sarah, it occurred to me immediately after I sent my last comment that your latest post is a complete contradiction of what you have said before. You are making the appearance of tolerance, implying that I have your full support in whatever beliefs I have or actions I take. I only wish you would give the same support to loving, same-sex couples who only want to get married, and who have a different definition of marriage than you do. Your last post seemed almost relativistic, i.e. “you define marriage your way, and I’ll define it my way,” but this doesn’t work because there can only be one working legal definition of marriage. Needless to say, even if you imply relativism, you want public policy to reflect your definition rather than mine. Look, there is an objective answer here: the Bible is largely outdated, most of its laws do not apply to our modern lives, even if you’re a Christian.
• 
  Peggy wrote on 9 May, 2009, 6:55

  / Look, there is an objective answer here: the Bible is largely outdated, most of its laws do not apply to our modern lives, even if you’re a Christian. /

  Yep, “Love God” and Love one another” are SO outdated….and DANGEROUS!!!!!!!!
• 
  cory wrote on 10 May, 2009, 20:08

  Wow, Peggy. You just cited teachings from every religion ever. Why is it that no Christian will ever cite the controversial ones? How about this one, both outdated and controversial, and straight from the New Testament: “Let a woman sit and learn in all submissiveness, I will not permit a woman to teach a man” (1st Timothy). I think this is outdated, and obviously you do too, or else you would not be trying to teach me that the Bible is still relevant in today’s society. So you can either “learn in all submissiveness,” or admit that there are parts of the Bible that are outdated. Choose.
• 
  Peggy wrote on 10 May, 2009, 23:24

  Did you read that in context, Cory?

  Try again and see if you can figure out what the author is talking about.
• 
  cory wrote on 11 May, 2009, 11:55

  I think it’s pretty clear. It is telling the Christians how to do worship, and basically says that women are the inferior gender, and that because of this they are not allowed to teach men or interpret scripture for them. This is right after the verse that says women should not wear jewelry (another outdated law, they really are everywhere). I’ll quote for you if it will make you feel better. It’s I Timothy 2:11-14

  “11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.”

  Maybe you didn’t catch the whole civil rights movement thing, but this gender inequality thing is outdated. So be silent, Peggy. If you are not, I think it is reasonable to assume that you think this commandment is outdated.

Write a Comment

Gravatars are small images that can show your personality. You can get your gravatar for free today!

You must be logged in to post a comment.