5
4
1
I am straight myself, but I am from Indiana and I am really proud that my state is getting with the times and lifted the ban on gay marriage. Anyone else happy about it? I fight for the freedom of ALL, but just the straight or the god fearing men and women of our country. Rights should be the same for all across the board and I am really happy that these opportunities are starting to open up. Are you for or against gay marriage, and why?
Posted in these groups: 
LGBTQ+
LGBTQ+
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 11
8
8
0
Another point I would make is that the religious ceremony isn't legal marriage. Until you file the papers at the courthouse, you're not married. I have no problem with churches refusing to perform same-sex marriages, but I do have an issue with a courthouse refusing or with heterosexuals being given state and federal rights/benefits that are not available to homosexuals. The constitutional right to same-sex marriage is just that. Churches on the other hand are free to make their own decisions.
(8)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
I wouldn't exactly go so far as to call the Bible merely a collection of stories, or a history book, though both do apply to certain sections of the Bible.
The Old Testament teaches us about Creation but it is debatable whether it took 7 x 24 hr rotations of the Earth, or millions of years for God to create life on Earth as we know it. [Creationism vs Intelligent Design]
Science tells me that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old, so I'm of the opinion that while God created the heavens and Earth, we simply don't know exactly what they meant in Genesis by a day. Perhaps a day was meant to represent a period of time spanning millions of years? Could God have used evolution and steered the process?
There are Christians that believe more literally but I don't find their beliefs annoying. Since nobody knows for sure what happened (as nobody was alive back then to observe) we can ALL only speculate and that includes not only people of faith, but those who put their faith in science.
The Old Testament then traces the rise of Israel and pretty much details their origin in Genesis, captivity and entry into the Promised Land in Exodus, receiving the Law in Leviticus, and alternating history of obedience and disobedience to God. We are introduced to many major and minor prophets and the prophecies about the coming Jewish Messiah.
In the New Testament, the Messiah is born. The Gospels (or Good News) give an account of the life of Jesus, his run-ins with the Pharisees, and his crucifiction, death and resurrection from four different perspectives. Following is the book of Acts which chronicles the Early Christian Church and then we see Church spread as Christians are persecuted and evangelize despite their suffering and persecution. Saul, a Pharisee, who was one of the harshest persecutors of Christians, is converted on the road to Damascus after seeing Jesus in a blinding vision. He changes his name to Paul, and emerges to become one of the most prolific apologists/evangelists for the faith and his letters to the early churches comprise a significant portion of the New Testament. Other apostles also contribute. The New Testament ends with John's prophesies in the Book of Revelation.
The Old Testament teaches us about Creation but it is debatable whether it took 7 x 24 hr rotations of the Earth, or millions of years for God to create life on Earth as we know it. [Creationism vs Intelligent Design]
Science tells me that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old, so I'm of the opinion that while God created the heavens and Earth, we simply don't know exactly what they meant in Genesis by a day. Perhaps a day was meant to represent a period of time spanning millions of years? Could God have used evolution and steered the process?
There are Christians that believe more literally but I don't find their beliefs annoying. Since nobody knows for sure what happened (as nobody was alive back then to observe) we can ALL only speculate and that includes not only people of faith, but those who put their faith in science.
The Old Testament then traces the rise of Israel and pretty much details their origin in Genesis, captivity and entry into the Promised Land in Exodus, receiving the Law in Leviticus, and alternating history of obedience and disobedience to God. We are introduced to many major and minor prophets and the prophecies about the coming Jewish Messiah.
In the New Testament, the Messiah is born. The Gospels (or Good News) give an account of the life of Jesus, his run-ins with the Pharisees, and his crucifiction, death and resurrection from four different perspectives. Following is the book of Acts which chronicles the Early Christian Church and then we see Church spread as Christians are persecuted and evangelize despite their suffering and persecution. Saul, a Pharisee, who was one of the harshest persecutors of Christians, is converted on the road to Damascus after seeing Jesus in a blinding vision. He changes his name to Paul, and emerges to become one of the most prolific apologists/evangelists for the faith and his letters to the early churches comprise a significant portion of the New Testament. Other apostles also contribute. The New Testament ends with John's prophesies in the Book of Revelation.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
MAJ (Join to see), your comment to MSgt Allan Folsom was a bit disingenuous. That study he posted was much more researched than some blog. Don't discredit and dismiss what others write just because it doesn't fit your paradigms. It concluded that sexual orientation is not genetically determined.
In all my experience dealing with gay people... and it is extensive! as I even had a gay best man at my wedding in 1984, every single one of my gay friends can point to a time where they crossed lines and engaged in homosexual activites. And each time they engaged in it, they overcame their natural aversion and instincts which told them it was wrong. Eventually after repeatedly engaging, their brains got reprogrammed and they actually desired members of the opposite sex without their conscience bothering them. [Just like a smoker learns to like cigarettes after coughing and choking on the first few... they learn to suppress coughing which is their body's way of telling them not to do it.]
I grant you that some people may be born with a predisposition to be less masculine or feminine than their peers, that doesn't mean that they are gay.
In all my experience dealing with gay people... and it is extensive! as I even had a gay best man at my wedding in 1984, every single one of my gay friends can point to a time where they crossed lines and engaged in homosexual activites. And each time they engaged in it, they overcame their natural aversion and instincts which told them it was wrong. Eventually after repeatedly engaging, their brains got reprogrammed and they actually desired members of the opposite sex without their conscience bothering them. [Just like a smoker learns to like cigarettes after coughing and choking on the first few... they learn to suppress coughing which is their body's way of telling them not to do it.]
I grant you that some people may be born with a predisposition to be less masculine or feminine than their peers, that doesn't mean that they are gay.
(0)
(0)
MSgt Lowell Skelton
MAJ (Join to see) - Apparently *MR.* Ballinger had some issues, one of which was hypocrisy, according to his listing on http://www.mshp.dps.mo.gov
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
I am for equal recognition under the law.
This wasn't Indiana 'getting with the times.'
The ban was overturned by a higher court.
The problem is, the term marriage should not be used to apply to both the civil and religious aspects of the union.
The government should refer to all unions as 'civil unions.'
If you see fit to attend a religious ceremony to be 'married' then that should be up to you.
The biggest concern I have with this is the protection for wedding industry personnel who refuse to violate their religious beliefs by participating in a gay wedding.
More importantly, the protection for churches who refuse to marry gays.
As a Catholic, I never want to see a gay marriage in the confines of a Holy Church.
As a small-government guy, I cannot justify denying equal recognition to people because of sexual preference.
This wasn't Indiana 'getting with the times.'
The ban was overturned by a higher court.
The problem is, the term marriage should not be used to apply to both the civil and religious aspects of the union.
The government should refer to all unions as 'civil unions.'
If you see fit to attend a religious ceremony to be 'married' then that should be up to you.
The biggest concern I have with this is the protection for wedding industry personnel who refuse to violate their religious beliefs by participating in a gay wedding.
More importantly, the protection for churches who refuse to marry gays.
As a Catholic, I never want to see a gay marriage in the confines of a Holy Church.
As a small-government guy, I cannot justify denying equal recognition to people because of sexual preference.
(3)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
MAJ Carl Ballinger Indeed Sir, I think I've been clear in that I believe there should be NO SPECIAL tax considerations, property rights, whether people are married, or single. And THAT is the Libertarian perspective as annotated in their Party Platform.
1.3 Personal Relationships
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.
So I would respectfully disagree with the contention that "licensing" marriage is one of the least intrusive things government does. My discomfort comes from the fact that anything the government can choose to permit and regulate, they can DENY and regulate, as they have done historically to inter-racial, same-sex, and polygamist relationships.
Lastly, I am still curious as to your opinion regarding the issue of Classes, certification, and ongoing testing for the privilege of a Marriage license, and if the government should be able to revoke such licenses at THEIR discretion for malpractice, infidelity, a criminal record, or simple irresponsible action as is the case with most other State Issued Licenses?
1.3 Personal Relationships
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.
So I would respectfully disagree with the contention that "licensing" marriage is one of the least intrusive things government does. My discomfort comes from the fact that anything the government can choose to permit and regulate, they can DENY and regulate, as they have done historically to inter-racial, same-sex, and polygamist relationships.
Lastly, I am still curious as to your opinion regarding the issue of Classes, certification, and ongoing testing for the privilege of a Marriage license, and if the government should be able to revoke such licenses at THEIR discretion for malpractice, infidelity, a criminal record, or simple irresponsible action as is the case with most other State Issued Licenses?
(0)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
Oh... One more thing sir. (a point of order) The government does not "inject" itself in a divorce proceeding. That is a civil matter, for which the parties must petition the government for mediation and resolution.
(0)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
First, to put the "marriage Licenses have always been required" Argument to rest.
"Publication of Banns
The Church of England exercised power throughout England and in the American Colonies, with the colonies later adopting many of the same laws when they became states. Both Church and states allowed marriage by publication of banns, instead of the more expensive marriage license. The Library of Virginia describes banns as a public notice that was written, published or orally announced "for three consecutive meetings at the churches of the bride and groom."
Read more : http://www.ehow.com/about_6644194_history-marriage-licenses.html
MAJ Carl Ballinger So are you saying that marriage is BOTH a Contract, AND a License?
The previous argument was that the State must issue a License for a couple to be married. Does the State not have the right to revoke a license? The State has that right and exercises it regularly for ALL other forms of Licensure, why not Marriage Licenses? It's problematic, consistency-wise to have it both ways. And Since you've already attested that a License is a Privilege, how can a Contract be entered into by two consenting adults, only to be arbitrarily held at the mercy of the Privilege of a State Issued License?
Convolution is one of the primary reasons I believe we'd all be better off if we did not interject the Force of Government into peacefully entered contracts dealing with interpersonal relationships.
"Publication of Banns
The Church of England exercised power throughout England and in the American Colonies, with the colonies later adopting many of the same laws when they became states. Both Church and states allowed marriage by publication of banns, instead of the more expensive marriage license. The Library of Virginia describes banns as a public notice that was written, published or orally announced "for three consecutive meetings at the churches of the bride and groom."
Read more : http://www.ehow.com/about_6644194_history-marriage-licenses.html
MAJ Carl Ballinger So are you saying that marriage is BOTH a Contract, AND a License?
The previous argument was that the State must issue a License for a couple to be married. Does the State not have the right to revoke a license? The State has that right and exercises it regularly for ALL other forms of Licensure, why not Marriage Licenses? It's problematic, consistency-wise to have it both ways. And Since you've already attested that a License is a Privilege, how can a Contract be entered into by two consenting adults, only to be arbitrarily held at the mercy of the Privilege of a State Issued License?
Convolution is one of the primary reasons I believe we'd all be better off if we did not interject the Force of Government into peacefully entered contracts dealing with interpersonal relationships.
The History of Marriage Licenses | eHow
Marriage licenses were unheard of prior to the Middle Ages. In England, marriage licenses in one form or another are more than four hundred years old, with the practice brought to America in colonial times. Today, applying for a marriage license has become an accepted practice and is often perceived as necessary for legalizing a marriage. However,...
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Here is my two cents in all this....... If you are for gay marriage, and you support it 100%, would you be willing to support other forms of marriage as well? If someone comes in and says I was to marry my 8 girlfriends, would you support that? If a person wanted to marry a donkey they met in Mexico, would you support that? If someone wanted to marry a under aged person, would you support that? Not trying to be a smartass about it, but if you support "marriage equality" for all, wouldnt these folks I mentioned above fall into that catergory?
(2)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
I have an easy answer. Contracts can only be entered into by competent consenting adults. That leaves donkeys, dogs, and children out of the picture. and so long as there would be no infringement on others any number of people should be allowed to contract with each other to their mutual benefit.
(1)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
Bigamy laws, again, only make a difference where some wish to impose their beliefs on others, or where social programs are involved. Were there no artificial benefits or penalties to interpersonal relationships, bigamy laws would become less pertinent. That being said, so long as we continue to ascribe special rights, privileges, or benefits to one group, at the expense of others we will see little change.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
As I was out vacuuming my truck, I had one more thought...
As a scientist, I find it amusing that nobody questions science when it comes to your medical treatments or space exploration or even the little things like your TVs, cell phones, computers, and vehicles. It's only when you disagree on a personal level with the results that you claim there's some kind of conspiracy within the scientific community. This is why almost nothing outside of evolution, homosexuality, and global climate change is even in the news or even read by 99% of the population.
Science is what it is. The data is the data. As a scientist, we have to strip away our personal beliefs and accept the universe as it is, not as we'd like it to be. All the "contentious" issues I've cited above are not contentious within the scientific community. Only within the non-scientific, political realm. And anyone who thinks the scientific community has an agenda, has no clue about how science works. Disprove evolution or global warming or show that there's no link between sexuality and genetics, and you're a Nobel Prize millionaire.
I base my opinions on 2 things - the constitution and science. Our laws are based upon the first, and everything else on the second.
As a scientist, I find it amusing that nobody questions science when it comes to your medical treatments or space exploration or even the little things like your TVs, cell phones, computers, and vehicles. It's only when you disagree on a personal level with the results that you claim there's some kind of conspiracy within the scientific community. This is why almost nothing outside of evolution, homosexuality, and global climate change is even in the news or even read by 99% of the population.
Science is what it is. The data is the data. As a scientist, we have to strip away our personal beliefs and accept the universe as it is, not as we'd like it to be. All the "contentious" issues I've cited above are not contentious within the scientific community. Only within the non-scientific, political realm. And anyone who thinks the scientific community has an agenda, has no clue about how science works. Disprove evolution or global warming or show that there's no link between sexuality and genetics, and you're a Nobel Prize millionaire.
I base my opinions on 2 things - the constitution and science. Our laws are based upon the first, and everything else on the second.
(2)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
MAJ Ballinger - funny how the only things in science that are "politicized" are those areas where people have personal beliefs. Nobody questions it when they're sick. It's intentional ignorance because people don't like facts that are opposite of their opinions.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
MSgt Folsom - I've been a scientist for 20 yrs now and have read the literature. Have you? No offense, but you're getting your science from blogs and the media vs actual scientific journals.
(2)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
MAJ Ballinger - I'm neither progressive nor conservative. I'm a scientist and have been so for 20 yrs. And tell me how "immature" science is the next time you start your car, or need surgery, or need medication. Science is the best now as it's ever been, by definition. Or perhaps you'd prefer leaches to treat your next injury.
(2)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
MAJ (Join to see) ... There are actually a number of treatments that are STILL best carried out by Leeches... and by maggot debridement as well. Venom Therapy is making a comeback as well. Just saying... :-)
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
1) If a private entity (business oriented) can discriminate a person based on sexual orientation, people wouldn't get emergency medical treatment and other essential services. What's next? Since your household is homosexual, you don't get any water, sewer, or power.
2) Like it or not, "marriage" is so ingrained in our legal system that homosexual folks don't get fair treatment. I don't have the most updated information. From my understanding, a "married" gay couple still don't get as many benefits as a "married" straight people in the military.
2) Like it or not, "marriage" is so ingrained in our legal system that homosexual folks don't get fair treatment. I don't have the most updated information. From my understanding, a "married" gay couple still don't get as many benefits as a "married" straight people in the military.
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
"it is not as if there is only ONE baker that can be utilized" Yes, if you live in a large enough area that has more than ONE baker. Let me elaborate my point. Back to my post, how many cities have you lived in that you can choose who your power company is? Or your water? Keep in mind that some areas don't always have a natural water source nearby and have to rely on the municipal or county water. Shall I explain further?
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SSG Andres Redondo, thank you for the info. I just look it up and I think it is ALARACT 212/2013. Please correct me if I am wrong.
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
MAJ, I was speaking hypothetically. If one can refuse service to an individual based on sexual orientation, what is next? Let me repeat this. "If" there was only a daycare in town and they refused to provide their service to a gay couple based on their sexual orientation, what should the couple do? Moved to somewhere THAT would provide both the employment and the daycare service that wasn't discriminating? If one's pet was in a life threatening situation and the vet refused to provide his/her service to the owner based on the owner's sexual orientation, would the owner have enough time to find a vet that wasn't so discriminating? IF a doctor walked by a person who had a life threatening situation, the doctor was about to give the person his/her expertise until the doctor realized that the person was homosexual. Is this the kind of society we want to promote?
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
I would suggest that fighting for the freedom of all starts with freedom FROM the State. By which I mean that there should be NO legal benefit or penalty for being married. Therefore I would suggest that Marriage should NOT be governed or licensed, or regulated by the State whether one is gay, or straight, or a polygamist. It is ONLY by divorcing the State from interfering in the interactions of consenting adults that we can find Freedom. Insisting the State grant special favors to groups based on their sex, race, or marital status does not bring us closer to freedom, but rather, further from it.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
According to the Holy Bible marriage is not a contract but a covenant (vow) between a man and a woman that is established before God as a witness. The institution of marriage dates back to the biblical times of the Old Testament. Genesis 2:24 states “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh”. Marriage involves "leaving" one's family of origin and "being united" to one's spouse, which signifies the establishment of a new family unit distinct from the two originating families. The establishment of a new family in the Old Testament times was that they were to get married, have sons and daughters (children) and bring the children up in the ways of the Lord. Jeremiah 26:6 states “Marry and have sons and daughters; find wives for your sons and give your daughters in marriage, so that they too may have sons and daughters. Increase in number there; do not decrease”. Sin has affected the institution of marriage and the role of family the way God intended, through man’s rebellion of not following Gods commandments. Such sins as polygamy, divorce, adultery, homosexuality, sterility, and gender role confusion. Through my readings, beliefs and values that I take from the Holy Bible, I have and will continue to take the stance that sin is sin no matter how small or why done and the consequence of sin is death. The bible states “for the wages of sin is death – Romans 6:23 KJV” and death will take us to hell. The Holy Bible tells us that God hates divorce in Malachi 2:16. Marriage is to be a lifelong commitment and no man shall separate what God has joined together according to Matthew 19:6. Therefore, no level of government shall have a say or interest in the institution of marriage. We are not to commit adultery according to Exodus 20:14, which is one of the Ten Commandments. The government on all levels shall not pass laws to allow same sex marriages or support homosexuality because of political reasons. God intended marriage to be between a man and woman (heterosexuality) as he told them to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth according to Genesis 1:28. The Holy Bible unmistakably provides us instructions from God that are about the institution of marriage and the role of the family. Marriage is a covenant between one man and one woman, a lifelong union of two partners created in God's image to govern and manage the earth for him. God does not need the help of the government in any way, shape, form or fashion when coming to the institution of marriage and the role of the family.
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
SFC (P) Warrick- I completely agree with your right to believe in the Holy Bible and follow your beliefs and value system. However, there are many other religions that follow different "Holy Texts" and all have various interpretations. And there are other folks that don't follow any formalized religion and rather are moved by the words of the various "Holy Texts" and still further, people that do not believe in a higher power at all. Our Country was founded on religious freedom and the concept that we all can have different beliefs, but that we must come together and logically legislate. Like many others have said- the polarizing word in this discussion is "marriage", but legally marriage for most folks comes down to basic protections under the law, tax considerations, and in the military additional benefits. Religious institutions can believe and preach what they would like to their congregations and followers- but just because that is what you believe does not mean everyone else believes the same thing. Just some food for thought...thanks.
(0)
(0)
MSG(P) Michael Warrick
MAJ Laura Freeland - you make a excellent argument and I respect it completely, I was just sharing my opinion from my point of view as many of us on RP do. The institution of marriage has long been a debated topic and I am sure that it will continue to be! Thanks for your view and insights on the topic !
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
As a follower of Christ I am definitely against gay marriage. However, I do not judge anyone that is gay or lesbian. Their sexual preference is between them and God.
There have been attempts in Congress to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman only. As a Christ follower, I believe when a nation or state passes laws that allow it, they are bringing the eventual wrath of God on themselves. One only has to read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Old Testament in the Bible, for those of us that believe, to see what sexual immorality brings.
I do not say this just about Gay and lesbians also. when states passed no fault divorce laws, such as we have in Indiana, it breeds sexual immorality of all sorts. Multiple partners, don't like that one, trade it in for a new and improved model.
I will never judge or condemn anyone for their choice, but I do believe the nation is bringing a curse on itself. I have friends that are gay, and bi, and even though I disagree, I just pray for them.
I am certain I will get a down vote or two, but you asked, and I respectfully give my opinion.
There have been attempts in Congress to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman only. As a Christ follower, I believe when a nation or state passes laws that allow it, they are bringing the eventual wrath of God on themselves. One only has to read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Old Testament in the Bible, for those of us that believe, to see what sexual immorality brings.
I do not say this just about Gay and lesbians also. when states passed no fault divorce laws, such as we have in Indiana, it breeds sexual immorality of all sorts. Multiple partners, don't like that one, trade it in for a new and improved model.
I will never judge or condemn anyone for their choice, but I do believe the nation is bringing a curse on itself. I have friends that are gay, and bi, and even though I disagree, I just pray for them.
I am certain I will get a down vote or two, but you asked, and I respectfully give my opinion.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
I'm kind of curious about something you said. Since you fight for the freedom of all, do you support people of all sexual orientations being able to do the things they want?
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Sir, you are correct but the question is intended for all too. I attempted to ask MAJ Dews the same question but so far he has refused to answer. I wonder why.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SSG, you are correct. A minor may not be able to make a sound judgment to a much older person. Also, a minor is much easier to be coerced and persuaded to commit sexual acts. As for being gay, what is the logical reason to be against it? Or what is the logical reason to be against gay people having the institutional right to be married?
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Sir, please show me in ANY of my comments where I have stated I hate homosexuals. Oh, you can't because I DON'T so stop putting words into my mouth. Why don't you answer a simple question or is that too difficult?
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google