Gay Marriage

[J_Wales]

When I got married, there was no mention of god at all in our ceremony. I don't even believe in the creature. But that's a debate for another thread.

Then from where do the rights of man come?

You are correct... it's a topic for another thread. I'll open it.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2491927#post2491927

 

[Aszerigan]

My wife, not the government, controls where I put my penis.

Ok, my girlfriend and I just had a good laugh. Thanks for lightening up the thread.

 

[lovemachine]

Ok, from a religious standpoint, the act of being gay and gay marriage, is wrong. Marriage between a man and a woman is supposed to be Holy. A pact between the bride, the groom, and the good Lord. At least that's what it is suppose to be.

Now, IMO, the government should keep its nose out of it. Everyone should have the right to have sex and marry who they want.

 

[Deadly Z Driver]

For gay marriage.

34 27.20%
Against gay marriage. (religious reasons)

31 24.80%
Against gay marriage. (other reasons)

18 14.40%
Don't care.

42 33.60%

Nice only 18 out 125 that are against...

 

[Sigasaurus]

Well I am obviously in the minority here. I think it wrong and unnatural to be gay, engage in any gay acts or even think about gay crap. How another man can look at another man's hairy behind and get turned on is beyond me. I actually think it is a pretty pathetic subject myself. No better yet I think it sick and disgusting. I guess it goes to show how low the moral's of this country has got too.

The way I look it is the common man has the same views as you. So my rational way I look at it is this. Why would anyone ever willingly choose to be viewed in this light? I honestly feel that gay people are just wired differently than the masses. I have a hard time believing that an individual would make the decision to be gay based on wanting attention or didn't get enough hugs.

 

[J_Wales]

For gay marriage.

34 27.20%
Against gay marriage. (religious reasons)

31 24.80%
Against gay marriage. (other reasons)

18 14.40%
Don't care.

42 33.60%

Nice only 18 out 125 that are against...

18+31 is 49.

 

[Deadly Z Driver]

18+31 is 49.

Sorry this is a political issue so religious reasons don't matter!

 

[dross]

It is against Indiana law for gay marriages to be performed or recognised. While not "illegal", it is against the law.

It's against the law for two gay people to get married in a church that agrees to do it?

 

[mrjarrell]

It's against the law for two gay people to get married in a church that agrees to do it?

Yep, even tho there is no penalty set forth, it is forbidden by law and not recognised by the state.

IC 31-11-1-1
Same sex marriages prohibited
Sec. 1. (a) Only a female may marry a male. Only a male may marry a female.
(b) A marriage between persons of the same gender is void in Indiana even if the marriage is lawful in the place where it is solemnized.

 

[J_Wales]

Sorry this is a political issue so religious reasons don't matter!

Ah, an open minded and tolerant individual.

Thank you for explaining the math.

 

[Indy Wing Chun]

It's against the law for two gay people to get married in a church that agrees to do it?

It's not against the law, it is just not recognized by the state. A church can perform all the same sex marriages they want and the gov can't say a word.

It's like proclaiming yourself king of Indiana. You can say it all you want, but no gov entity recognizes the autority.

 

[Deadly Z Driver]

Ah, an open minded and tolerant individual.

Thank you for explaining the math.

I am open minded! It is plain and simple why should religious reasons make laws? We have freedom of religion and the separation of church and state! So that is why...

The fact that you are hinting that I am not open minded and tolerant is hysterical...

 

[dross]

Yep, even tho there is no penalty set forth, it is forbidden by law and not recognised by the state.

Is "marry" defined?

I'm attempting to define the issue, because this one becomes muddled with sloppy reasoning.

Can the state define what marriage is, legally? Yes, obviously.

Should it? No.

The best solution to me is for the state to get out of the marriage issue completely, and focus on its core functions, one of which is to enforce contract law.

Let people get married in their own way, let them have whatever contract they want between them, let the state enforce that contract in whatever way that state enforces contracts.

Let private companies set whatever policies they want. If a private company only recognizes marriage-type contracts between the opposite sex, so be it.

The government shouldn't be granting special privileges to married people anyway.

When it comes down to it, however, each state may decide what it recognizes and what it doesn't. I also don't think one state should be able to force the hand of another state through the faith and credit provision.

This issue needs to be decided by the legislators, not judges.

 

[mrjarrell]

Is "marry" defined?

I'm attempting to define the issue, because this one becomes muddled with sloppy reasoning.

Can the state define what marriage is, legally? Yes, obviously.

Should it? No.

The best solution to me is for the state to get out of the marriage issue completely, and focus on its core functions, one of which is to enforce contract law.

Let people get married in their own way, let them have whatever contract they want between them, let the state enforce that contract in whatever way that state enforces contracts.

Let private companies set whatever policies they want. If a private company only recognizes marriage-type contracts between the opposite sex, so be it.

The government shouldn't be granting special privileges to married people anyway.

When it comes down to it, however, each state may decide what it recognizes and what it doesn't. I also don't think one state should be able to force the hand of another state through the faith and credit provision.

This issue needs to be decided by the legislators, not judges.

I don't disagree with you. In a perfect world that would be the way it was, but we don't live there, (as you frequently point out). Since we do live in Bizarro world it is in the hands of legislators and judges and they should come down on the side of equal before the law. But, legislators seldom do that.

 

[mrjarrell]

It's not against the law, it is just not recognized by the state. A church can perform all the same sex marriages they want and the gov can't say a word.

It's like proclaiming yourself king of Indiana. You can say it all you want, but no gov entity recognizes the autority.

It is against the law. The IC is quite clear on the matter that same sex marriage is PROHIBITED. That means it's against the law.

 

[J_Wales]

I am open minded! It is plain and simple why should religious reasons make laws? We have freedom of religion and the separation of church and state! So that is why...

The fact that you are hinting that I am not open minded and tolerant is hysterical...

Yes. I see that in your exclusion of those exercising their freedom of religion by expressing their opinon that they may disagree with the concept for religious reasons.

I'm just glad my calculator is working. For a moment there I thought I had broken it.

 

[dross]

I don't disagree with you. In a perfect world that would be the way it was, but we don't live there, (as you frequently point out). Since we do live in Bizarro world it is in the hands of legislators and judges and they should come down on the side of equal before the law. But, legislators seldom do that.

This is where things get sticky. I dislike solutions that pile one bad assumption on top of another.

The most common one I see goes like this: We can regulate health issues because we have a government healthcare program and poor health choices raise those costs for everyone.

I agree with you that if the government is going to allow one type of marriage to have special privileges, it should allow others to have them.

The problem is how sticky that gets. Can I marry my sister? Okay, anticipating the argument, can I marry her if one of us is sterile? Can I marry my brother? Can I marry two people?

If you agree with gay marriage in principle, that same principle argues that you can't discriminate against those other types of marriages.

I think rather than try to pile bad law on top of bad law it's cleaner to work for a policy that makes sense. Marriage is a private affair, contract disputes can be the business of the government.

 

[J_Wales]

Is "marry" defined?



The government shouldn't be granting special privileges to married people anyway.

****

This issue needs to be decided by the legislators, not judges.

Agreed that the government should not grant special privileges based on marital status.

It is not a matter for legislators or judges. The government should not be involved in the matter of relatonships between consenting adults at all.

 

[Lex Concord]

Is "marry" defined?

I'm attempting to define the issue, because this one becomes muddled with sloppy reasoning.

Can the state define what marriage is, legally? Yes, obviously.

Should it? No.

The best solution to me is for the state to get out of the marriage issue completely, and focus on its core functions, one of which is to enforce contract law.

Let people get married in their own way, let them have whatever contract they want between them, let the state enforce that contract in whatever way that state enforces contracts.

Let private companies set whatever policies they want. If a private company only recognizes marriage-type contracts between the opposite sex, so be it.

The government shouldn't be granting special privileges to married people anyway.

When it comes down to it, however, each state may decide what it recognizes and what it doesn't. I also don't think one state should be able to force the hand of another state through the faith and credit provision.

This issue needs to be decided by the legislators, not judges.

Precisely.

Most folks who want the benefit of a "same sex marriage" that I have seen discuss it in the press are after the special benefits granted by government, not anyone's sanctification or blessing.

While most Christians would like to believe that marriage is strictly a holy union (it is that, but not just that...it existed long before Christ walked the earth and, possibly, before monotheism) the fact of the matter is that, most manifestations of marriage in this country and in the world are secular.

If you want marriage to be strictly holy, you should want to get the government out of it, eliminating the secular.

If a church will do the ceremony, that's all that happens, gay or straight.

Let the participants show how much they care for one another by actually following through with the paperwork necessary to ensure appropriate inheritance, etc.

It amazes me how many folks espouse personal liberty then turn around and root for the government when it encroaches in the lives of others in a manner they happen to approve.

 

[thebishopp]

I think gay people should have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us.

This. Besides to think otherwise is pure hypocrisy. We don't want people meddling with the liberties we personally care about but some of us seem more than willing to meddle in other peoples' lives.