Indiana ban on gay marriage ruled unconstitutional

[buckwacker]

Just bear in mind that ages of consent have been steadily INCREASING over the last 30 years, not decreasing and there is NO indication that it will go anywhere but up. In my home state the old age of consent back before the change was 12. It is now much higher, as it is everywhere else. Pedophilia has NO PLACE in this discussion.

Because you say so? Are you going to call me names if I mention it again?

 

[buckwacker]

Just bear in mind that ages of consent have been steadily INCREASING over the last 30 years, not decreasing and there is NO indication that it will go anywhere but up. In my home state the old age of consent back before the change was 12. It is now much higher, as it is everywhere else. Pedophilia has NO PLACE in this discussion.

Objection!: Objection! - YouTube

 

[mrjarrell]

Because you say so? Are you going to call me names if I mention it again?

Not going to call anyone names. Pedophilia has no place in this discussions and only a certain type of person would even bring it up. We, as a society and nation will not legalise it. Attempting to equate gay citizens to pedophiles shows what type of person you are, if you do it. One not worth listening to.

 

[cobber]

The caveat is "consenting adults." What business is it of yours if 2 people you don't know get married? Gay or straight. Children cannot give consent, they cannot enter into contracts, they not adults and cannot make adult choices.

Because there is a presumption at law. Lots of adults aren't capable of genuine consent.

I'm not sure what children have to do with the post you quoted. But since you mentioned it, if we can redefine the word marriage to mean something it never has, what is to stop society from redefining at what age a child becomes an adult? 16?...12?...8? We are having this discussion because certain groups of people have worked to change societies perceptions with regard to their lifestyle. Don't think it can't happen with another group you currently consider "immoral".

Morality is relative to a belief system, but since we're becoming more secular and diverse, you can't use such yardsticks to justify legal parameters.

Just bear in mind that ages of consent have been steadily INCREASING over the last 30 years, not decreasing and there is NO indication that it will go anywhere but up. In my home state the old age of consent back before the change was 12. It is now much higher, as it is everywhere else. Pedophilia has NO PLACE in this discussion.

Read Ecclesiastes. Things change whether you like it or not. And in the absence of values, a term like pedophilia is hollow.

Aren't you so quaint in your old-timey thinking...

Exactly! And very US-cultural elitist. Many places around the world today there is basically no such thing as a "child", or at least not in the sense that we in the post-modern West understand it. Once you start pulling principles out of the social construct and, well, deconstruct instiutions, you realize just how plastic social concepts are. Absolutely no reason that society at some point can't decide that six-year old kids can marry. And really, the whole idea of pedophilia is also a social construct. Some cultures practice child marriages. Does that make them pedophile?

A lot of opinions rooted in feelings in this thread. And in the absence of some value system, that's all you're left with. Doesn't seem like a prescription for social stability.

 

[buckwacker]

Not going to call anyone names. Pedophilia has no place in this discussions and only a certain type of person would even bring it up. We, as a society and nation will not legalise it. Attempting to equate gay citizens to pedophiles shows what type of person you are, if you do it. One not worth listening to.

And there come the names. "A certain type of person". So predictable.

 

[jamil]

Not going to call anyone names. Pedophilia has no place in this discussions and only a certain type of person would even bring it up. We, as a society and nation will not legalise it. Attempting to equate gay citizens to pedophiles shows what type of person you are, if you do it. One not worth listening to.

Maybe it doesn't belong in the conversation now. What says that won't change? Morals change. Morals obviously changed to the point where LGBT has largely gained moral acceptance. What makes you think society won't socially "evolve" towards paradigms even you feel prudish about?

Given ages of consent seem to get more conservative within your short sight, what makes you think that the trend of helicopter parenting will continue? Maybe the pedophiles will get tired of getting thrown in jail. Maybe they'll adopt them some Saul Alinsky and berate and shame all us bigots, you, me, and everyone else into submission.

 

[bwframe]

Why don't we just get the gov't out of ALL marriage contracts? All people can do what they choose without anyone's benefits or privileges being dependent on another's?

 

[churchmouse]

Why don't we just get the gov't out of ALL marriage contracts? All people can do what they choose without anyone's benefits or privileges being dependent on another's?

They are not letting go of the power/control.

 

[bwframe]

They are not letting go of the power/control.

You are correct sir. Not until we make them anyway...

 

[mrjarrell]

Maybe it doesn't belong in the conversation now. What says that won't change? Morals change. Morals obviously changed to the point where LGBT has largely gained moral acceptance. What makes you think society won't socially "evolve" towards paradigms even you feel prudish about?

Given ages of consent seem to get more conservative within your short sight, what makes you think that the trend of helicopter parenting will continue? Maybe the pedophiles will get tired of getting thrown in jail. Maybe they'll adopt them some Saul Alinsky and berate and shame all us bigots, you, me, and everyone else into submission.

If that day comes then we can have that conversation then. Attempting to equate homosexuality and marriage equality to pedophilia is disingenuous, at best and just stupid at the other end, as you well know.

 

[mrjarrell]

You are correct sir. Not until we make them anyway...

The churches are the ones who got the government involved in marriage originally, there's no indication that they'll ever change to support not being agents of the state.

 

[cobber]

If that day comes then we can have that conversation then. Attempting to equate homosexuality and marriage equality to pedophilia is disingenuous, at best and just stupid at the other end, as you well know.

The stage is already set for all sorts of conversations to take place in the future. Once you start dismantling cultural norms, you don't get to pick and choose, based on your preference, which ones shall remain intact (i.e., those that resonate with your personal tastes).

To suggest that someone disagreeing with you on this is either disingenuous or stupid shows the same closed-mindedness you are accusing others of displaying. And we all "know" X, Y and Z. Until we learn something else is actually the case.

It's not a matter of "if" but of "when" something you find very disagreeable will become the subject of a social movement for acceptance. Prepare then to be labelled disingenuous, stupid, a hater or a relic.

 

[spirit390]

Whats the saying so goes europe, goes to commiefornia and then to the rest of the U.S.. Well if you look at the groups that were pushing homosexual marriage during the 70's in the Netherlands now are pushing pedophilia normalization agenda. So down the road it is going to come up. And for that matter it has nothing to do about being equal if so doesn't the equal symbol = look like a two way street where each side would respect the othersides opinion. It is all about the destuction of the institution of marriage don't believe me I don't care I will let the people leading the movement speak for themselves
Gay Marriage is a Lie: Destruction of Marriage, Masha Gessen - YouTube

 

[DarkLight]

Wow, I truly find it hard to believe that this debate is STILL going so strong here.

I suppose I only have myself to blame, I was apparently under the false impression that we were largely (though admittedly not unanimously) a pro-freedom community. It's talked about all the time on these forums, how much we detest government stepping on our throats, legislating how we live, limiting our constitutional rights and suppressing our freedom.

How many here have feared the thought of the State and state further limiting our firearms, both is purchase as well as use? How many have hated the fear tactics used by anti 2A groups like the Brady Campaign and Bloomberg's puppet groups?

And how many of the same people have just shouted in protest to this decision, to this whipping of a law that specificly targeted a group of people based on their beliefs? We DO NOT need more laws, we need FEWER, in the very least, we need fewer laws that limit the freedoms of the individual. If the sky fell and the government wants to write laws to limit its own power, I'm all on board for that.

Do I want government out of marriage, sure; but I want government out of a lot of things so that point is moot for the time being. This debate needs to be revealed for what it is, individuals finding themselves on the 'losing' side of a cultural belief and thus trying to control others through legislation. Said side is ultimately using the 'slippery slope' fear of polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia. None of which are actually up for legislation and contrary to 'popular' belief, are not opened up by this striking down of this law.

However to understand this, everyone must first acknowledge one clear and historic fact; marriage has meant a multitude of things across time and cultures (gasp, it isn't exclusive to Christianity, gasp). Marriage has included, 'children', siblings, animals, and even whole families to name a few. Fathers would often marry their daughters off to someone else based on how much they could pay. Children have been married to older adults for power and wealth. Men have had multiple wives and women have had multiple husbands. And yes, sometimes even homosexual pairings have occurred. So to say that this decision is redefining what 'marriage' is, is simply disingenuous or ignorant.

With all of the above said, I would much rather get to one of the real problems facing our country, not one of these political couch football topics that keeps us arguing about R's and D's. What if we talk about how our country is spying on ALL of us, RIGHT NOW? Or how our savings, 401k's, earnings, and 'wealth' are being stolen through Inflation? Or how the middle class is being destroyed by government control of health care, over complicated tax system, and legal mazes all setup by the mega corporations to snuff out small business competition? No, let's not talk about those, let's talk about how Nick and Terry getting hitched across the street will somehow invalidate my marriage, corrupt our children, and bring American crashing to her knees....

 

[Redhorse]

Wow, I truly find it hard to believe that this debate is STILL going so strong here.

I suppose I only have myself to blame, I was apparently under the false impression that we were largely (though admittedly not unanimously) a pro-freedom community. It's talked about all the time on these forums, how much we detest government stepping on our throats, legislating how we live, limiting our constitutional rights and suppressing our freedom.

How many here have feared the thought of the State and state further limiting our firearms, both is purchase as well as use? How many have hated the fear tactics used by anti 2A groups like the Brady Campaign and Bloomberg's puppet groups?

And how many of the same people have just shouted in protest to this decision, to this whipping of a law that specificly targeted a group of people based on their beliefs? We DO NOT need more laws, we need FEWER, in the very least, we need fewer laws that limit the freedoms of the individual. If the sky fell and the government wants to write laws to limit its own power, I'm all on board for that.

Do I want government out of marriage, sure; but I want government out of a lot of things so that point is moot for the time being. This debate needs to be revealed for what it is, individuals finding themselves on the 'losing' side of a cultural belief and thus trying to control others through legislation. Said side is ultimately using the 'slippery slope' fear of polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia. None of which are actually up for legislation and contrary to 'popular' belief, are not opened up by this striking down of this law.

However to understand this, everyone must first acknowledge one clear and historic fact; marriage has meant a multitude of things across time and cultures (gasp, it isn't exclusive to Christianity, gasp). Marriage has included, 'children', siblings, animals, and even whole families to name a few. Fathers would often marry their daughters off to someone else based on how much they could pay. Children have been married to older adults for power and wealth. Men have had multiple wives and women have had multiple husbands. And yes, sometimes even homosexual pairings have occurred. So to say that this decision is redefining what 'marriage' is, is simply disingenuous or ignorant.

With all of the above said, I would much rather get to one of the real problems facing our country, not one of these political couch football topics that keeps us arguing about R's and D's. What if we talk about how our country is spying on ALL of us, RIGHT NOW? Or how our savings, 401k's, earnings, and 'wealth' are being stolen through Inflation? Or how the middle class is being destroyed by government control of health care, over complicated tax system, and legal mazes all setup by the mega corporations to snuff out small business competition? No, let's not talk about those, let's talk about how Nick and Terry getting hitched across the street will somehow invalidate my marriage, corrupt our children, and bring American crashing to her knees....

This pretty much sums it up right here.

 

[gungirl65]

Wow, I truly find it hard to believe that this debate is STILL going so strong here.

I suppose I only have myself to blame, I was apparently under the false impression that we were largely (though admittedly not unanimously) a pro-freedom community. It's talked about all the time on these forums, how much we detest government stepping on our throats, legislating how we live, limiting our constitutional rights and suppressing our freedom.

How many here have feared the thought of the State and state further limiting our firearms, both is purchase as well as use? How many have hated the fear tactics used by anti 2A groups like the Brady Campaign and Bloomberg's puppet groups?

And how many of the same people have just shouted in protest to this decision, to this whipping of a law that specificly targeted a group of people based on their beliefs? We DO NOT need more laws, we need FEWER, in the very least, we need fewer laws that limit the freedoms of the individual. If the sky fell and the government wants to write laws to limit its own power, I'm all on board for that.

Do I want government out of marriage, sure; but I want government out of a lot of things so that point is moot for the time being. This debate needs to be revealed for what it is, individuals finding themselves on the 'losing' side of a cultural belief and thus trying to control others through legislation. Said side is ultimately using the 'slippery slope' fear of polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia. None of which are actually up for legislation and contrary to 'popular' belief, are not opened up by this striking down of this law.

However to understand this, everyone must first acknowledge one clear and historic fact; marriage has meant a multitude of things across time and cultures (gasp, it isn't exclusive to Christianity, gasp). Marriage has included, 'children', siblings, animals, and even whole families to name a few. Fathers would often marry their daughters off to someone else based on how much they could pay. Children have been married to older adults for power and wealth. Men have had multiple wives and women have had multiple husbands. And yes, sometimes even homosexual pairings have occurred. So to say that this decision is redefining what 'marriage' is, is simply disingenuous or ignorant.

With all of the above said, I would much rather get to one of the real problems facing our country, not one of these political couch football topics that keeps us arguing about R's and D's. What if we talk about how our country is spying on ALL of us, RIGHT NOW? Or how our savings, 401k's, earnings, and 'wealth' are being stolen through Inflation? Or how the middle class is being destroyed by government control of health care, over complicated tax system, and legal mazes all setup by the mega corporations to snuff out small business competition? No, let's not talk about those, let's talk about how Nick and Terry getting hitched across the street will somehow invalidate my marriage, corrupt our children, and bring American crashing to her knees....

I wish I had more rep to give. This is an excellent summary of the situation and how I feel about it.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Wow, I truly find it hard to believe that this debate is STILL going so strong here.

I suppose I only have myself to blame, I was apparently under the false impression that we were largely (though admittedly not unanimously) a pro-freedom community. It's talked about all the time on these forums, how much we detest government stepping on our throats, legislating how we live, limiting our constitutional rights and suppressing our freedom.

How many here have feared the thought of the State and state further limiting our firearms, both is purchase as well as use? How many have hated the fear tactics used by anti 2A groups like the Brady Campaign and Bloomberg's puppet groups?

And how many of the same people have just shouted in protest to this decision, to this whipping of a law that specificly targeted a group of people based on their beliefs? We DO NOT need more laws, we need FEWER, in the very least, we need fewer laws that limit the freedoms of the individual. If the sky fell and the government wants to write laws to limit its own power, I'm all on board for that.

Do I want government out of marriage, sure; but I want government out of a lot of things so that point is moot for the time being. This debate needs to be revealed for what it is, individuals finding themselves on the 'losing' side of a cultural belief and thus trying to control others through legislation. Said side is ultimately using the 'slippery slope' fear of polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia. None of which are actually up for legislation and contrary to 'popular' belief, are not opened up by this striking down of this law.

However to understand this, everyone must first acknowledge one clear and historic fact; marriage has meant a multitude of things across time and cultures (gasp, it isn't exclusive to Christianity, gasp). Marriage has included, 'children', siblings, animals, and even whole families to name a few. Fathers would often marry their daughters off to someone else based on how much they could pay. Children have been married to older adults for power and wealth. Men have had multiple wives and women have had multiple husbands. And yes, sometimes even homosexual pairings have occurred. So to say that this decision is redefining what 'marriage' is, is simply disingenuous or ignorant.

With all of the above said, I would much rather get to one of the real problems facing our country, not one of these political couch football topics that keeps us arguing about R's and D's. What if we talk about how our country is spying on ALL of us, RIGHT NOW? Or how our savings, 401k's, earnings, and 'wealth' are being stolen through Inflation? Or how the middle class is being destroyed by government control of health care, over complicated tax system, and legal mazes all setup by the mega corporations to snuff out small business competition? No, let's not talk about those, let's talk about how Nick and Terry getting hitched across the street will somehow invalidate my marriage, corrupt our children, and bring American crashing to her knees....

We can argue about more than one thing at a time. It's not one single thing that'll bring America crashing to her knees but virtually all of the values and institutions that made her great are under assault. Some of which you don't care about obviously but the core is about rotted out and this subject, in my opinion, is part of that rot.

 

[LPMan59]

agreed. as religion and moral values are slowly removed, at least my religion, this country will continue to falter.

 

[hornadylnl]

agreed. as religion and moral values are slowly removed, at least my religion, this country will continue to falter.

I agree as well. But what role does the government play in reversing it?

 

[cobber]

We can argue about more than one thing at a time. It's not one single thing that'll bring America crashing to her knees but virtually all of the values and institutions that made her great are under assault. Some of which you don't care about obviously but the core is about rotted out and this subject, in my opinion, is part of that rot.

Many folks here were NOT objecting to the liberty issue, but to the federalism issue. Which other folks sidestepped because they liked this particular result.

Also the test of liberty is NOT in endorsing a practice that is trending popular, but extending the same liberty to a group/person whose practices you find disagreeable, but which is nevertheless a natural right. The law of unintended consequences being what it is, we should prepare for all sorts of surprises down the road.