Indiana ban on gay marriage ruled unconstitutional

[mrjarrell]

No it isn't what it is. "Marriage apartheid" is just your spin. I'd guess the people on the other side don't think that way at all.

White South Africans didn't see it that way, either. But it is an applicable word to the issue, especially here in Indiana. Or at least it was before judge Young fixed things.

 

[andski3]

Man I wish I would have known this earlier. I could have sued that girl who wouldn't marry me back in 1985 for violating my constitutional rights!

Ok MJ, we don't agree. I'll just leave it at that and agree to disagree.

My observation, if there is this much contention on a website for folks who supposedly share a common cause and interest, and this much division, I think as such it paints a fairer reflection than the actual reality of the growing divisiveness in our society over this issue. The main argument you seem to stand on is that everyone should be able to marry, simply because heterosexuals do, and causally dismiss the nature of marriage which has at its core procreation, or at least the openness to it for those who are unable to have children either due to age or other physiological reasons. You have never yet, at least in your posts that I have read, responded to the question of sin as the element that sets this issue aside from other landmark social issues of our time such as the right of women to vote or equal rights for racial minorities. Although I have raised that question many times, nobody who supports gay marriage can address that one. That is where your presumed premise of acceptability falls apart. If you want to have an objective discussion that addresses all of the issues surrounding gay marriage, then fine. But you have been unwilling to defend your premise that gay marriage is inherently "right", that those who do not agree with it are automatically stupid, haters, behind the times, whatever. This is a critical element surrounding this issue that you fail to address, a very important one, the reason why many very loving people can not accept it. It is not fair for you to disparage these people, many of whom would be the first to come to your assistance if you were ever in need. This issue impacts all of us not only because it is about gay marriage, but because it is about endorsement of sin by the government, not only an endorsement of it, but a shoving down our throats of it. Every choice we make, whether right or wrong, has a social element to it as well as a private one. We either build up society as a whole by our actions, or we tear it down. There is no neutral action, there is no purely private deed, good or bad. A time will come when we will see the impact that our choices have had on society, and we will have to live with that knowledge forever.

Please forgive my biblical ignorance, as I know I have, but can you explain to me how or where the bible states that homosexuality is a sin?
I ask only because I truly have not read it in the last decade.

 

[Mark 1911]

Please forgive my biblical ignorance, as I know I have, but can you explain to me how or where the bible states that homosexuality is a sin?
I ask only because I truly have not read it in the last decade.

We will have to keep it on the level of principle for this discussion. If I start quoting scripture here, the mods will lock the thread. It is there. We can discuss by PM if you are genuinely interested in the references.

 

[jdmack79]

I have yet to read a compelling reason in any of Mark 1911's posts as to why gay marriage should remain illegal.

 

[jamil]

White South Africans didn't see it that way, either. But it is an applicable word to the issue, especially here in Indiana. Or at least it was before judge Young fixed things.

So you use false parallels too.

 

[mrjarrell]

So you use false parallels too.

Nope. We had marriage apartheid here till it was overturned. They're not false in any way. You just don't like it being called what it is.

 

[jamil]

Nope. We had marriage apartheid here till it was overturned. They're not false in any way. You just don't like it being called what it is.

Well, that's your story and you're sticking to it. You just like trying to equating it with distasteful events to discredit people who disagree with you.


Right on, Saul.

 

[IndyGal65]

Please forgive my biblical ignorance, as I know I have, but can you explain to me how or where the bible states that homosexuality is a sin?
I ask only because I truly have not read it in the last decade.

The bible condones and condemns many things, most of which are no longer followed, either because they are archaic or inconvenient. But by golly, we're going to hold on to a piece of scripture from the old book. Never did Jesus speak of homosexuality. I prefer to live my life the best I can according to His word, not mans.

 

[mrjarrell]

Well, that's your story and you're sticking to it. You just like trying to equating it with distasteful events to discredit people who disagree with you.


Right on, Saul.

Sorry, you feel that way, but things are what they are. There's nothing acceptable about apartheid. Racial or for marriage. If that makes me an Alinski in your eyes, then that's on you. Not me. Now who's trying to discredit people who disagree with you?

 

[lj98]

I have yet to read a compelling reason in any of Mark 1911's posts as to why gay marriage should remain illegal.

But, it's a sin......some book says so.

 

[Llamaguy]

Can we just ignore everyone who starts off with or relates their reasoning to sin or the Bible? Whether you believe something, even if I believe the same thing, has little to no standing when it comes to the law and the Constitution. Same-sex marriage is a case of government privilege and special treatment or more specifically discrimination of a subset of the population based on bigotry and religious zealotry.

 

[jamil]

But, it's a sin......some book says so.

Belief is what it is. People get to believe what they want. Stomping ones feet and thowing tantrums like so many are doing doesn't change any minds. All it does is give people the allusion that they're morally superior.

 

[IndyGal65]

But, it's a sin......some book says so.

Yup, the same book (Old Testament) that calls for the death penalty for things we now practically take for granted: cursing a parent, adultery, the false claim of a woman's virginity at the time of marriage, and working on the Sabbath. DEATH to those sinners. Why aren't these demands followed now??? I mean, afterall, it's in the Bible.

Im not trying to Bible bash at all, just pointing out things that seem a bit hypocritical.

 

[jdmack79]

But, it's a sin......some book says so.

I don't think that homosexuality is right according to my religious/moral views, but that doesn't mean I want to deny gay people certain rights. One doesn't have to agree with something to understand that it should be legal. I don't agree with the Westboro Baptist Church's insane protests, but I respect their right to free speech.

 

[lj98]

Just for the record, I was being sarcastic. But, it does seem to be the only real justification put forth that anyone has to oppose the legalization of gay marriage. To expect the laws of this nation (and everyone in it) to adhere to biblical code is no different than what some countries are attempting to do with regard to Sharia law. It lends itself to discrimination and, in many cases, persecution which run contrary to what this nation is supposed to stand for.
You can make a case against federalism, but constitutional review of state law is a long established tradition in this nation. It is a non sequitur as to the specifics of this case. People's rights trump (or should trump) the rights of the states.

 

[hornadylnl]

Man I wish I would have known this earlier. I could have sued that girl who wouldn't marry me back in 1985 for violating my constitutional rights!

Ok MJ, we don't agree. I'll just leave it at that and agree to disagree.

My observation, if there is this much contention on a website for folks who supposedly share a common cause and interest, and this much division, I think as such it paints a fairer reflection than the actual reality of the growing divisiveness in our society over this issue. The main argument you seem to stand on is that everyone should be able to marry, simply because heterosexuals do, and causally dismiss the nature of marriage which has at its core procreation, or at least the openness to it for those who are unable to have children either due to age or other physiological reasons. You have never yet, at least in your posts that I have read, responded to the question of sin as the element that sets this issue aside from other landmark social issues of our time such as the right of women to vote or equal rights for racial minorities. Although I have raised that question many times, nobody who supports gay marriage can address that one. That is where your presumed premise of acceptability falls apart. If you want to have an objective discussion that addresses all of the issues surrounding gay marriage, then fine. But you have been unwilling to defend your premise that gay marriage is inherently "right", that those who do not agree with it are automatically stupid, haters, behind the times, whatever. This is a critical element surrounding this issue that you fail to address, a very important one, the reason why many very loving people can not accept it. It is not fair for you to disparage these people, many of whom would be the first to come to your assistance if you were ever in need. This issue impacts all of us not only because it is about gay marriage, but because it is about endorsement of sin by the government, not only an endorsement of it, but a shoving down our throats of it. Every choice we make, whether right or wrong, has a social element to it as well as a private one. We either build up society as a whole by our actions, or we tear it down. There is no neutral action, there is no purely private deed, good or bad. A time will come when we will see the impact that our choices have had on society, and we will have to live with that knowledge forever.

If we can legislate what Christians deem sin, do the Muslims get to do the same?

 

[lj98]

You know people used the bible to justify slavery also...

 

[Mark 1911]

If we can legislate what Christians deem sin, do the Muslims get to do the same?

If you are suggesting that there is no objective reference point for right and wrong, then we won't get very far in a discussion. You are suggesting that one religion holds no more relevance than another to the society that we call our own. That simply isn't our history. We accept the responsibility for our choices as a nation, and we will face them, and leave them for our children to face.

 

[Mark 1911]

You know people used the bible to justify slavery also...

That is EXACTLY what you are doing.

 

[MisterChester]

If we can legislate what Christians deem sin, do the Muslims get to do the same?

They do it in the Middle East, and they seem to be doing just fine over there.