King likely to challenge Culver if he accepts gay marriage ruling

I'm a Democrat and I do not agree with U.S.Congressman King on the subject of gay marriage,but if he runs for governor he has my full support. I believe we need a governor who will not be afraid to enforce immigration laws,as I'm sure Congressman Steve King will.All though I believe he would be missed in the U.S.Congress,I know he will be a great Governor for Iowa.We need to worry more about ILLEGAL ALIENS invading Iowa and taking jobs away from citizens then worrying about who marries who..........

PUMAPAC Independent Democrat
"VOTE COUNTRY NOT PARTY"

My goodness Peggy2, you're at it again. You really dont try to think much before you speak, do you?

This is made obvious by the fact that you dont understand the difference between the civil partnership contract marriage, and religious marriage.

I invite you to take a step back and do some reading and some research for a bit. Then we can have an actual intelligent debate. Until then, you'll continue to be the town crier.

Are you talking down to me?

You're the one who misspelled a couple words down below. And quite badly, I might add.

I'm a minister in Iowa who will happily welcome any who come on this "hadj" to get married, regardless of orientation. The government has no business defining who or what constitutes a family -- that is a freedom that any Republican SHOULD defend. True Republicans and Conservatives should extend their abhorrence of government oversight to these "social" issues. No one can use their own beliefs as a basis to restrict the freedoms of others; that's as un-American as it gets. I never did understand that dichotomy in the Right-wing psyche - freedom, deregulation, liberty - until someone does something unacceptable to another person's religion; then American Ideals of Liberty go out the window.

Minister, huh? Check your records: the Supreme Court didn't rule on "what constitutes a family"; it redefined the term marriage, something defined by God not society.

Res ipsa loquitor.

Thank you for proving my point. To paraphrase many a so-called "conservative" response to many of us who are happy with this development: Get out of America if you you hate the Constitution and the Liberties it ensures; in your mind it is subordinate to your religious beliefs -- you want your individual idea of "God's Law" to determine American Law.

I'm very curious to see how you distinguish between "marriage" and "family". Marriage is a societal pact, and is one of the main pillars of what we define - as a society - as "family". Everyone has the right to a family. It is nice that religion can sanctify that pact, but religion doesn't make that pact - the love between the couple, regardless of their gender, makes that pact. I believe that God blesses all Love, regardless of any official ceremony or legal status. But the social, economic, and various other outward benefits of official marriage should be extended to every loving couple who wishes them, and hopes to build a family on that foundation.

What liberties in the constitution are you talking about?

God blesses all love. Cute. Is it still love when the two parties are contracting chronic and/or deadly diseases through the normal course of their sexual relations?

If you're a minister, I'm a marine biologist.

I am a real minister, and if you really need to try & attack that, you're not much of a Christian (or whatever you think you are); and the ad hominem attack is a sure sign that you know the weakness of your argument.

For what it's worth, disease is spread by every kind of intercourse (whether or not it's sexual); many more are spread by heterosexual relations than homosexual -- and most of the Gay folk I know have been playing it much safer than most of us "breeders" for a very long time now, so that argument is both old AND ignorant.

As for liberties, I'm talking about the right to live free from the religious restrictions of others. Period. This particular case involves limited ideas of marriage, but it extends to any "social issue" on the table at any time or any case in American jurisprudence.

Disease is NOT "spread by every kind of intercourse." Ever heard of chastity and monogomy?

The CDC disagrees with you. AIDS is still found most prevalently in the MSM (men who have sex with men) community and, despite efforts to educate them on precautionary measures, the incidents continue to rise.

But the fact remains, disease isn't the issue here. If you are correct about the CDC's findings (my Gay friends are smarter than that), it still has nothing to do with the definition of marriage. Please explain (and this is the second time I'm asking you to explain something) the connection between the definition of marriage and the spread of disease?

I would imagine that anyone who commits to a marriage would also be committed to monogamy. You can't argue that Gay marriages are more prone to philandering, as the whole point of the article we're commenting on is that Gay marriage is, unfortunately, an anomaly, and there is thus no basis for research.

Well, of course! Now that you know the CDC says oherwise, suddenly disease doesn't matter.

Same -Sex Attraction is an arrested psychosexual development; throwing two people who suffer from this into a relationship is a recipe for disaster and only condemns them to a lifetime of unhealing. Add some acquired children to the mix and what is their prognosis?

Consent and consummation are two essential elements of marriage and persons with SSA are incapable of consummating a marriage. This is where natural law enters in.

You also share in the widespread and heretofore unexplained mindset of the homosexual community, i.e. outright rejection of Christian principles and God's law, even though the pinnacle of the movement has become a co-opting of a religious institution.

Studies also show that, since the relationship is built on a foundation of mental disorder in both parties, the sexual aspect usually succumbs to mere friendship in SSA couples, leaving the parties disinterested in intercourse. Then comes the moving outside the relationship for sexual gratification.

Monogomy within Same Sex relationships is largely mythical.

Peggy; you introduced "disease" into the conversation, I am requiring you to explain how it's pertinent to the definition of marriage -- which IS the subject.

Your "SSA" diagnosis is as outdated as the legal disposition of women as chattel, and has no merit here. It, too, needs a direct correlation to marriage before pursuing it in the thread.

Ultimately, however, you try to make the point that I, like all Gays, participate in an "outright rejection of Christian principles and God's law". This has two very powerful flaws:

1) I'm not Gay. My personal mindset is religious, and if you want to cite those passages of the Torah (or "Old Testament") which condemn homosexuality, you had better be ready to accept everything else that Moses brought down from Sinai -- at least regarding what constitutes marriage (including polygamy, concubinage, legal prostitution, etc.).

2) However, we're in the United States of America, and all those religious ideals CANNOT be the basis for legislation.

This has been my only point all along:
Religion cannot be the basis for American legislation.

All other ideas you drag into this argument (e.g., disease, monogamy, "God's Law", etc.) are meaningless unless you can make a direct connection between these points and the definition of marriage -- which I have asked you to do twice, and yet you still avoid while you continue to try and insult my intelligence, sanity, and spirituality. If that's what you believe to be the proper mode of "Christian" discourse, you are far afield from the true Christians I know, and with whom I can agree or disagree without the loss of mutual respect.

What about New Testament passages that condemn homosexual behavior? Are you purposely glossing over those or just ignorant. A good minister would know these things.

Peggy loves "studies." Here's some:

In Patterns of Sexual Behavior, published in 1951, reserchers found that homosexual behavior was widespread among various nonhuman species and in a large number of human societies. They reported that homosexual behavior of some sort was considered normal and socially acceptable for at least some individuals in 64% of the 76 societies in their sample.

In 1982 after extensive research, John C. Gonsiorek concluded that "Homosexuality in and of itself is unrelated to psychological disturbance or maladjustment. Homosexuals as a group are not more psychologically disturbed on account of their homosexuality"

In 1973, the weight of empirical data led the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

Uh, Sarah, there was no "empirical data" resulting in the removal of homosexuality from the DSM. They just took it out due to political pressure.

Peggy covers ears, hums to herself.

"La La La, I can't hear you! Science backs me up! La La La."

Let me guess, Sarah. You have a degree from either Iowa or Drake.

Don't through studies at Peggy2 - she doesn't understand them. The best we can do is pray that she takes a step back, accepts Christ's love into her life so that she can follow in his footsteps, and that she repents for her sinful, hurtful behavior. Until then, it's probably best to treat her like the town crier she is and just ignore her if she continues to chose such a deviant lifestyle.

By the way, Peggy, this is where you start to scream about the liberal bias of science or some such nonsense.

"Reality has a known liberal bias." - Stephen Colbert

All the more reason for Culver to sit back and accept this unanimous ruling.

Getting Steve King out of Congress to run for governor would be fantastic. I do not see any way he could defeat Culver.

would you like to bet a coke on that.

PUMAPAC INDEPENDENT DEMOCRAT! WE THINK FOR OURSELVES,
AND "VOTE COUNTRY NOT PARTY'

Although I am quickly becoming disappointed in Culver's lack of support for all citizens in this state, I doubt King could win against Culver. King is an idiot - not just to Iowa, but quickly being known as such throughout the nation.