Home

Join

Main Menu



blog advertising is good for you

Links

Same-Sex Silliness

There’s a joke I tell in my comedy routine about same-sex marriage.  Once you get married, the sex is always the same!  (Rimshot here)  Now I make it a point not to tell that bit with my lovely wife in the audience, otherwise sex won’t even be a question when we get back to the house because the answer will be “no”.    So, as Indiana lawmakers get ready for another constitutional amendment on protecting “traditional” marriage, I just have one question, why?

Same-sex marriage is already against the law in Indiana and in the 6+ years I’ve been here, I have yet to see a successful legal challenge to overturn that.  And even if gay marriage was made legal, are gay couples who want to tie the knot really that much of a threat to the fabric of the Hoosier landscape?  No offense, but I will gladly take my gay neighbors across the street who keep their home in nice shape and look out for us as opposed to the single-mom breeder down the street who pops out unruly kids like a pez dispenser.

In the year and five months that I’ve been married (notice how I got that timelime correct) and three years and two months my wife and I have been together as a couple (not bad for a married man), of all the things we ever fought over, gay marriage has never been one of them.   And even in our worse fight where one of us ended up on the couch for a couple days (she slept comfortably, by the way) gay marriage wasn’t on the radar screen.  It was over something I didn’t do, but as a man realized that if I just accepted blame my life would be a lot easier.

So let’s be reasonable here.   I know the marriage amendment will likely pass, however I’m not sure if everyone has thought out all the consequences of this,  such as what this does for local governments that want to offer domestic partner benefits?  I know Indianapolis City-County Councilor Angela Mansfield is looking at offering such a proposal.   And what does this do for private companies that want to offer such benefits as well?

Like I said, gay marriage is already against the law in Indiana, although I really don’t see why.  And I wonder if an amendment is really necessary in this case.  However, if lawmakers really wanted to put an end to gay marriage they would sign off  on the plan, because if gays are anything like us hetros  one of every two gay marriages with end up with gay divorcees.  Sorry about that, Fred.

  • Think Again

    Wrong subject, Pascal. Cut and paste elsewhere.

  • Think Again

    Gmoore, I was SO willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, then you repeat this idiotic animal thing again. Are you daft?

    Marriage is a religious ritual. From the Indiana Constitution:
    “Section 4. No preference shall be given, by law, to any creed, religious society, or mode of worship; and no person shall be compelled to attend, erect, or support, any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry, against his consent.”

    And further from that same worthy and beloved document:
    “Section 23. The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.”

    Marriage is a religious ritual that my church supports, but should not be foisted on all. And there are numerous rights granted to married male-female couples, that are not granted to others who are not married (regardless whether they’re unmarried gay or straight couples).

    Seems pretty simple. Nothing at all about animals. But then that doesn’t fit your talking points, does it?

  • Think Again

    Bart hits a solid triple.

    Home run if you eliminate the polygamy, Bart.

    Otherwise, it bounced off the wall, back into the field of play.

  • Think Again

    There you go again. Thinking.

    We can all see the wheels turning. Does it hurt?

  • Jhays

    I’m just terrified that homosexuals will breed a race of super-homosexuals and, take over the world! Oh, wait. Sorry! Never mind…

    I mean alternate lifestyle choices worked out so well for the Greek and Roman Empires, How could it go amiss here?

    As a serial monogamist, I say, let ‘em have it! Why shouldn’t they be required to give away half of their $#!* to their lover/enemy, like the rest of us poor sods.

    I’m certain that the divorce lawyers won’t mind a bit! Insert something about “Fish in a barrel“: here___

  • Dave

    OK, but remember, folks belonging to MENSA are part of a “group” or confirmation collective; who’ve convinced themselves that they’re members of a superior intelligence club… See you in “group.”

  • Sean Shepard

    I don’t think an animal can be a consenting adult and be party to a contract.

  • Gmoore9643

    think again, gay folks do have the same rights as us. marriage between aa man and a women…..they want an extra right…..thanks for not being nasty…..and i might say that there is only one GOD……..we humans just interpet differently

  • Gmoore9643

    think again, gay folks do have the same rights as us. marriage between aa man and a women…..they want an extra right…..thanks for not being nasty…..and i might say that there is only one GOD……..we humans just interpet differently

  • Gmoore9643

    think again, if you read, you saw i said it was an extreme view based on what you said……i don’t think that……so go ahead and give me the benefit of the doubt……..lol

  • Gmoore9643

    think again, if you read, you saw i said it was an extreme view based on what you said……i don’t think that……so go ahead and give me the benefit of the doubt……..lol

  • Gmoore9643

    nor do I, but I really do love my two puppies…….

  • Gmoore9643

    nor do I, but I really do love my two puppies…….

  • Think Again

    Uh…OK

  • Think Again

    My God still weeps at this kind of nonsense.

  • Think Again

    Benefit extended.

    That Sec. 23 thing really says it all, huh?

  • Think Again

    Boy you’re just wrong, pal. Inheritance/tax rights alone are a mile apart.

  • Taxpayer 834512

    The state assembly has much bigger and a full basket of smaller fish to fry. Shame on them for wasting time and our money on this while we’ve got education, unemployment, immigration, and redistricting issues. They seem to have a political death wish. I believe the loyal opposition will be happy to oblige them.

  • BlackBart

    Who would have thought TA and I would agree on anything?

    Regarding polygamy:

    Arguments used to support one arrangement (same gender) can be used to support another (polygamy.) That fact that you approve of one and not the other is not relative.

    The Canadians are learnng:

    http://healthland.time.com/2010/12/01/will-polygamy-be-legalized-in-canada/

    I find homosexuality, polygamy and spinach to be repugnant. However, in a free society our peculiar preferences are not sufficient cause to force imposition on consentual adults.

    Note also that if polygamy is defined as having multiple partners then it is far more common in our culture than homosexuality.

  • Think Again

    I had no idea. Really, Bart? Polygamy is more common than homosexuality?

    Wow.

  • Think Again

    Amen, Taxpayer.

    Except for that immigration thing. Federal.

    Read Sec. 23. It’s powerful.

  • Sean Shepard

    Well … unofficially it may be. LoL

  • Ash

    So you’re saying that people have a constitutional right to define marriage as they see fit, but only in certain situations? I don’t know how the government is going to rationalize that (or you, for that matter) but I’d love to hear it. How that is NOT still violating people’s constitutional rights to marry how they wish is going to be like nailing jello to the wall.

    I buy into the argument that the social climate of America today has grown to increasingly nurture the lifestyle so I think it’s appropriate that some type of arrangement can be made. I just think that’s a better argument (kind of how SCOTUS revisits the death penalty as it relates to “cruel and unusual” a few times a century to reflect the values of the times) than saying we’re willingly violating people’s constitutional rights.

    That’s hogwash. So are gay people living under the yolk of oppression worldwide since they can’t get married anywhere else? It’s not a constitutional issue, it’s a social issue. No more, no less.

  • Ash

    And to reiiterate my point from earlier, if you disagree with people and you’re really passionate about your issue, try to be a little more engaging.

    Getting all angry at somebody for so much as asking a question, LOL, not even challenging you, makes you look dismissive and snooty.

  • pascal

    Has it been 40 years since the Indiana Legislature legislated No Fault Divorce for fun and profit of the legal profession?

  • pascal

    “And lastly, lets talk about Rep Eric Turner, this bill’s champion for the last several sessions. Anyone who has been to Grant County in the last 20 years knows how serious the situation there is”. Since, fool, the subject was brought up by the poster the reply offered, fool, is correct and RIGHT ON TARGET. Go buy some reading glasses.

  • pascal

    The Lord might also help you with your bottomless fount of ignorance. http://www.drjudithreisman.org/ I would think that you would get discouraged by being so uninformed. Kinsey pushed it very hard-read a little more while you live and learn stuff. Since the Indiana bar, takes about 30% of it’s revenues now from busting up marriages it does not matter what Mr. Bopp says (I didn’t know that he had ever addressed this subject-considering the source, I still don’t know that) but the truth is, regardless of who repeats what the truth is.

  • pascal

    I imagine that marriage is not a religious ritual-ask your pastor. I imagine that marriage preceeded the State, and probably preceeded organized religion. It is a primal thing. Neither the state nor the church have much to do with marriage other than to record it-it comes into existance without need of either church or state. The theology of it is that it is considered a sacrament accomplished by the consent of the man and the woman. Spare me your uniformed opinion, TA, but your pastor’s views might be of general interest.

  • pascal

    The number of homosexuals is grossly overstated-Bobby Fong used to say “One person in 10″ but he was wrong. In Muslim countries the numbers, by % are quite a bit less.

  • Think Again

    If your posts are more like the last one, fine. The polygamy post was just ridiculous.

    It’s not about simple oppression. That would be too easy to deal with. it’s about an attitude that reduces the rights of gay couples, which are normallyenjoyed by straight ‘married” couples.

    And you need to read this Amendment–it let the legislature alone determine who can marry, forever. It’s a ridiculous attempt to remove courts from the frey. Evidently we have an outbreak of activist judges in Indiana.

    There is no other issue in Indiana history that has been similarly handled. It’s over-reaching.

    And for me, it’s about Constitutional integrity. We’ve gotten lazy with our legislative expectations, and they’ve willingly complied. This issue is handled by statute. Since 1997. I wish that statute weren’t there, but it is. Before we amend the Constitution, proponents ought to have to prove the statute doesn’t work. If we’re going to amend the Constitution for supposed ills that don’t exist, there is no stopping the Gang of 150 from amending it for other stupid reasons.

    It’s inconsistent with the proponents’ call for less government.

    We have sufficient statutory protection from the gays run amok. Because they’re such a huge problem and they threaten the air we breathe. No Amendment is required, especially one that virtually removes the courts from any future consideration.

  • Dave

    Kinsey was a fraud, a foul minded creep engaged in pornography, not enlightenment. There’s no way, no way you’ve comprehensively reviewed his perversion labeled as “research,” if you’re calling it “valid.”

    Among Kinsey’s “techniques” were “forcing a subject” & pedaphilia, incest… read more about it:

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=27850

    Or, read Esther White’s account of mistreatment (Kinsey’s institutionalized rape & incest): http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=214105