Indiana ban on gay marriage ruled unconstitutional

[cobber]

Reguarless of Fargo's jabs at me I agree with him.

Will all those in favor of this ruling also support sibling marriage and their "fundamental right" to marriage?

If not please state your reasoning.

Frankly the only real objection to sibling marriage is going to be opinion-based, since we all now realize the purpose of marriage is not to produce children but to celebrate love. And while we have a cultural taboo against sibling marriage, other cultures have actually promoted it.

Since we're all about destroying cultural taboos and prejudices what justifiable reason is there for some, but not others, to remain in place?

 

[PistolBob]

We all are personally affected by this law, regardless of gender preference. The current in the country right now is rapidly moving toward gay marriage. The question that only time can answer is what are the true impacts this will realize for our society. It seems to me that it is the people who are in favor of traditional marriage that are swimming against the current. We are the ones being called moral hypocrites, and all sorts of foul labels, and by those who like to think of themselves as tolerant of others! I have not seen any negative name calling from those in favor of traditional marriage toward homosexuals. The fact that those of us who hold to more traditional beliefs find ourselves swimming against the current, is a trademark feature of this so called tolerant age, indeed the most intolerant of any generation yet to call themselves citizens of the United States. Who then are the real moral hypocrites?

Words have meanings. Marriage means something. Judges can rule in favor of male pregnancy, but that won't make it a reality. The word hypocrite means something too. A hypocrite is not a person who chooses not to change his traditional beliefs based on the whims of others.

Mark...well put. A lot of people don't think the state should have anything to do with marriage. A lot of people believe that marriage is a holy union, a religious bonding, between a man, a woman, and God. A lot of people think marriage is nothing more than a state sanctioned legal binding agreement.

Marriage has been around a lot longer than the state. It was here way before there even was a Supreme Court.

I wish the state would just butt out.

 

[Shiver]

I guess I don't see the point.

WHO CARES? Really? Is it anyone else's business who a person wants to marry or why? The argument of this opening the door to sibling marriage or bestiality is asinine. That won't happen, the streams and rivers wont turn to blood, frogs won't fall from the sky and locus won't eat our crops. And I sincerely doubt anyone will turn into a pillar of salt.

And if it does. Sweet, I always hoped I would see the end.

 

[PistolBob]

I guess I don't see the point.

WHO CARES? Really? Is it anyone else's business who a person wants to marry or why? The argument of this opening the door to sibling marriage or bestiality is asinine. That won't happen, the streams and rivers wont turn to blood, frogs won't fall from the sky and locus won't eat our crops. And I sincerely doubt anyone will turn into a pillar of salt.

And if it does. Sweet, I always hoped I would see the end.

MArrying animals is just silly....but WHY NOT sibling marriages? If they are of legal age and sound mind, then WHY NOT?

 

[Denny347]

Reguarless of Fargo's jabs at me I agree with him.

Will all those in favor of this ruling also support sibling marriage and their "fundamental right" to marriage?

If not please state your reasoning.

I wouldn't do it but does there need to be a law?

 

[PistolBob]

I wouldn't do it but does there need to be a law?

I would say yes since we are forcing the state to define marriage. And we all know how great the state is at defining anything.

 

[mrjarrell]

I would say yes since we are forcing the state to define marriage. And we all know how great the state is at defining anything.

The state is not being forced to define marriage. They had already defined it and the judge ruled that their definition was unConstitutional. You're mixed up.

 

[lj98]

Marriage has been around a lot longer than the state. It was here way before there even was a Supreme Court.

I wish the state would just butt out.

The idea of marriage has been around a lot longer than modern religion. Can we not also ask the church to butt out?

 

[hornadylnl]

MArrying animals is just silly....but WHY NOT sibling marriages? If they are of legal age and sound mind, then WHY NOT?

Since sibling marriage is illegal, there are 0 cases of incest. If we legalize it, everybody and their brother will be humping each other in the streets.

Laws against incest are just as effective as gun control laws. Why would you support one and not the other? The premise is the same.

 

[PistolBob]

The idea of marriage has been around a lot longer than modern religion. Can we not also ask the church to butt out?

Hahaha...which church are you talking about? What IS modern religion? Judaism has been around forever, Islam for about 1300 years, Christianity for about 2000 years....so which one are you talking about?

 

[Shiver]

MArrying animals is just silly....but WHY NOT sibling marriages? If they are of legal age and sound mind, then WHY NOT?

Have you ever seen the pair of siblings close enough to actually be able to sustain a marriage? My experience was the exact opposite. By the time I moved out I hated my brother and sister.

But then I don't care for most people so... Maybe not the best example. I guess it worked out for the kids in Flowers in the Attic right?

 

[PistolBob]

The state is not being forced to define marriage. They had already defined it and the judge ruled that their definition was unConstitutional. You're mixed up.

Oh so the federal state is defining it now...you're mixed up.

 

[PistolBob]

Since sibling marriage is illegal, there are 0 cases of incest. If we legalize it, everybody and their brother will be humping each other in the streets.

Laws against incest are just as effective as gun control laws. Why would you support one and not the other? The premise is the same.

No wait a minute there....how do you know they will be humping each other in the streets? Are you trying to govern the bedroom now? Why is it illegal for two consenting adults that are siblings, to have sex? Come on man, stop being such a heterophobe.

 

[Shiver]

Since sibling marriage is illegal, there are 0 cases of incest. If we legalize it, everybody and their brother will be humping each other in the streets.

Laws against incest are just as effective as gun control laws. Why would you support one and not the other? The premise is the same.

This ^^^

 

[CathyInBlue]

I would be for removing laws against adult incest (sibling marriage) on the condition that any mutant, bastard offspring be ineligible for all tax funded social services for their entire lives, including social services that would be enjoyed by a parent because they are parents of that offspring. If Bro and Sis want to get themselves fixed and spend the rest of their days screwing each others' brains out, mazel tov to `em.

 

[Mark 1911]

The idea of marriage has been around a lot longer than modern religion. Can we not also ask the church to butt out?

Law has been around a lot longer than modern government as well, so on that premise would you ask the government to butt out of legislating the law? Yet, the government has a legitimate authority in the realm of law. Likewise, you can ask the Church to butt out of marriage, which is exactly what our society is currently doing, but the Church also has a legitimate authority, which comes to it from God, as the does the government's legitimate authority. A very wise man once said, render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's. We can ignore authority, whether it is the government's, or God's. When we assume all authority as our own, that is when things get very mixed up, because everything becomes arbitrary and optional. That is where we are, and where we are headed will only be worse.

 

[Shiver]

I would be for removing laws against adult incest (sibling marriage) on the condition that any mutant, bastard offspring be ineligible for all tax funded social services for their entire lives, including social services that would be enjoyed by a parent because they are parents of that offspring. If Bro and Sis want to get themselves fixed and spend the rest of their days screwing each others' brains out, mazel tov to `em.

Sounds kinky... What about a Half Sister? Would I only have to have one nut cut off?


I wonder if the doc would give half off a vasectomy if I only have one cut? So many questions...

 

[mrjarrell]

Oh so the federal state is defining it now...you're mixed up.

They didn't define anything. The judge ruled that the Indiana legislatures definition was unConstitutional. That's not defining anything. Sorry you're so upset over the inevitable. Guess life just won't be worth living for you anymore.

 

[turnandshoot4]

I fail to see the difference between the left telling me what guns I should be able to own and some here telling me who I should or shouldn't marry.

Me being married to a chicken is no one else's business. Me owning an Abrams tank is no one else's business.

 

[PistolBob]

They didn't define anything. The judge ruled that the Indiana legislatures definition was unConstitutional. That's not defining anything. Sorry you're so upset over the inevitable. Guess life just won't be worth living for you anymore.

Hahaha....don't get all wound up and blow a gasket. I don't give a tinkers dam either way...but since the issue of marriage is being viewed as a legal issue, it will have to be clearly defined by the local state or the federal state...so I guess we'll have to wait on SCOTUS to do that for us now.