Revised anti-gay marriage ban passes Indiana house

[squirrelhntr]

You feel the same way about child tax credits? I pay more so those with more kids can pay less.

child tax credits ? never gave it much thought. always took a few myself, when the kids were at home.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

child tax credits ? never gave it much thought. always took a few myself, when the kids were at home.

Me too. But I do miss them for other things too. Honest.

 

[hornadylnl]

child tax credits ? never gave it much thought. always took a few myself, when the kids were at home.

I've seen many here carp about social engineering. Child tax credits are social engineering but there are very few who complain about them. If we're going to complain about social engineering, then we need to complain about every instance of it, not just the instances we find icky. Currently, heterosexuals are the current winners in social engineering and homosexuals are the losers. Government cannot pick winners and losers and say everyone is treated equally under the law.

 

[Dead Duck]

About 5" down is this little nugget of "fact"

"...lesbians were three to four times more likely than heterosexual women to have sex with men..."

I can vouch for that - It really all comes down to what you paid for.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

I've seen many here carp about social engineering. Child tax credits are social engineering but there are very few who complain about them. If we're going to complain about social engineering, then we need to complain about every instance of it, not just the instances we find icky. Currently, heterosexuals are the current winners in social engineering and homosexuals are the losers. Government cannot pick winners and losers and say everyone is treated equally under the law.

I remember reading something years ago in which it was stated that the founding fathers recognized that the family was the basic unit of the republic, and that it was therefore prudent to have some kind of policy that promotes or encourages the family unit, I think, as opposed to or maybe in conjunction with policy that promotes or encourages farming or business. It was a long time ago that I read that, and I'm not sure of the source.

 

[hornadylnl]

About 5" down is this little nugget of "fact"

"...lesbians were three to four times more likely than heterosexual women to have sex with men..."

When you include married women, this statistic may be true.

 

[hornadylnl]

I remember reading something years ago in which it was stated that the founding fathers recognized that the family was the basic unit of the republic, and that it was therefore prudent to have some kind of policy that promotes or encourages the family unit, I think, as opposed to or maybe in conjunction with policy that promotes or encourages farming or business. It was a long time ago that I read that, and I'm not sure of the source.

A government big enough to encourage a behavior you like is big enough to encourage a behavior you don't.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

A government big enough to encourage a behavior you like is big enough to encourage a behavior you don't.

I agree.

 

[mrjarrell]

Edgy? Not at all. I asked you to logically defend your position that defending homosexual marriage is any different than polygamy. You've conveniently dodged the question.

Both sides of this issue can be reasonably and logically defended -- they really can. I disagree with people on both sides, depending upon how they justify their position. What tells me whether someone is really committed to basic human rights or reasonable ideological concerns is in how they support their position. So far, you've done nothing but dodge, which is revealing. Your position seems to be that you want certain rights for your favored group, but if you get them you are happy to keep your boot on the neck of a similarly discriminated-against group in the process. Unless you can logically defend a difference in said groups, both consenting adults...

So again, do you believe consenting adults should have the right to define what they believe is a marriage-worthy relationship for them, or do you have some justification for deciding that an adult electing to marry someone of the same sex is different than deciding to marry two individuals of the opposite (or same?) sex? All of this is among consenting adults. If you rally for one, how do you support being against the other?

Who said I was against polygynous relationships of any sort? You're stretching. I don't care what consenting adults do in their lives with each other. I will defend anyones right to be treated equally before the law. Gay, straight, bi or some combination. But we're not talking about polygynous marriages of any sort. We're talking about HJR-3 which would ban gay and lesbian marriages and/or civil unions. Do try to keep up and not change the subject.

 

[squirrelhntr]

I've seen many here carp about social engineering. Child tax credits are social engineering but there are very few who complain about them. If we're going to complain about social engineering, then we need to complain about every instance of it, not just the instances we find icky. Currently, heterosexuals are the current winners in social engineering and homosexuals are the losers. Government cannot pick winners and losers and say everyone is treated equally under the law.

I am curious how the human race can keep up with the animal or insect species if we use our reproduction organs for pleasure only with the same sex, and not for pleasure / reproduction with the opposite sex ? Is that a form of social engineering ?

 

[mrjarrell]

Well, there will be no amendments to HJR-3 and that means it's dead in the water till at least 2016. A small victory, but one worth celebrating. Here's hoping the next time this travesty is brought up it dies its well deserved death. No faith that that will happen given the current political makeup of the house and senate, but we can hope for sanity, every once in a while.

Constitutional gay marriage ban gets setback - 13 WTHR Indianapolis

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

I am curious how the human race can keep up with the animal or insect species if we use our reproduction organs for pleasure only with the same sex, and not for pleasure / reproduction with the opposite sex ? Is that a form of social engineering ?

If ever comes the day where cockroaches survive and humans do not, somehow I doubt that it will have anything to do with homosexuality.

 

[bart2278]

I am curious how the human race can keep up with the animal or insect species if we use our reproduction organs for pleasure only with the same sex, and not for pleasure / reproduction with the opposite sex ? Is that a form of social engineering ?

I don't even understand your question. What do you mean keep up? I do not see lions building cars or computers. I don't see ants, as tough and diligent as they are, as a dominant species over humans. You cannot compare humans to any other species because we are very different than the rest of the animal kingdom, and we don't have an under population problem. So...what was your question?

 

[squirrelhntr]

I don't even understand your question. What do you mean keep up? I do not see lions building cars or computers. I don't see ants, as tough and diligent as they are, as a dominant species over humans. You cannot compare humans to any other species because we are very different than the rest of the animal kingdom, and we don't have an under population problem. So...what was your question?

It wasn't a question bart2278. I was referring to hornadylnl's statement of social engineering. Simply if men and women use their reproduction organs only to have sex with the same sex mankind will eventually become extinct and insects and animals will rule the earth. It's all part of Agenda 21's social engineering population reduction. Along with abortion and war.

 

[mrjarrell]

So....the UN is responsible homosexuality and they're going to get everyone to become gay? All in order to reduce the population? Do you really believe the stuff coming out of your head?

 

[squirrelhntr]

So....the UN is responsible homosexuality and they're going to get everyone to become gay? All in order to reduce the population? Do you really believe the stuff coming out of your head?

never said to get everyone to become gay. I believe it's part of their world agenda. have you studied Agenda 21 ? Yes, I use my brain / head to form my ideas. you can keep your sarcasm to your self junior. thank you

 

[mrjarrell]

Yes, I've read agenda 21. Apparently you haven't. Or you didn't understand what you read. It has nothing to do with the gay community or marriage equality. You need to stop eating the squirrel brains. It's having an effect on you, "junior".

 

[squirrelhntr]

I believe it does. You believe it does not. so be it. haven't tried eating squirrel brains yet "DOC". so wouldn't know about their effects. but I'll post it when and if I do.

 

[spaniel]

Who said I was against polygynous relationships of any sort? You're stretching. I don't care what consenting adults do in their lives with each other. I will defend anyones right to be treated equally before the law. Gay, straight, bi or some combination. But we're not talking about polygynous marriages of any sort. We're talking about HJR-3 which would ban gay and lesbian marriages and/or civil unions. Do try to keep up and not change the subject.

So you are perfectly fine with defending gay/lesbian marriages and/or civil unions but not including defending polygamist unions in the same effort? If you are for equality why would you make any distinction whatsoever? How is this a different subject? Current law does not recognize polygamist relationships, why are you not actively including them in your argument? In your earlier post you clearly stated that you felt the polygamy angle was a different animal. Yet now you back-track. Which way is it?

 

[Hoosierkav]

If the State (or even the overreaching Feds) want to make things right, they need to do one thing:

Allow any kind of marriage to be valid. Heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, polygamous, incestuous, harem. Whatever the persons want, call it a marriage. And, of course, this would create a great big need for additional legislation to either force every private business to provide services to all these persons since we are making sexual orientation, or the perceived orientation, a hate crime if "violated", or, to allow every private business to conduct business as it sees fit, and if it doesn't want to make a cake for a harem-type wedding, they don't have to.

or

Legislation can be passed which gives any adult the legal and related considerations which are afforded to married couples, which is really where the "discrimination" comes from. Get rid of the tax incentive (penalty?) for married couples. If this is done, "married" becomes simply a word, not a class of people

Let the religious discussion of whether homosexuality is a sin or not be then relegated to the things of religion--I can call it a sin, and you can say I'm wrong, and we can talk about the things of God without the emotion of "how can you tell me I can't love who I want" clouding things.