And now it begins...

[IndyRnRfan]

What does that have to do with the same sex marriage ruling?

Sorry, I just realized this was the wrong thread and wrong board. Wow, been a long day. My apologies.

A moderator can delete this and the other. I thought I could but don't see how.

 

[Ceila]

Based on the following, I'm deleting my comment to IndyRnRfan:

Sorry, I just realized this was the wrong thread and wrong board. Wow, been a long day. My apologies.

A moderator can delete this and the other. I thought I could but don't see how.

 

[SirDuff]

The aclu says the states ban on sex offenders places a substantial burden on the men's ability to worship that goes beyond what is allowed under the religious objections law that just passed. And the can of worms just got bigger. I'm not seeing it but this doesn't surprise me.

Except that the act is a STATE act. And had nothing to do with the recent FEDERAL same sex marriage ruling.

 

[JaneBanks]

The aclu says the states ban on sex offenders places a substantial burden on the men's ability to worship that goes beyond what is allowed under the religious objections law that just passed. And the can of worms just got bigger. I'm not seeing it but this doesn't surprise me. The men aren't together. Both are sex offenders looking for a loophole so they can attend church that is close to a school. In our state a sex offender can't live within a 1000' of a school and I don't think they are allowed to be in any place that close to a school unless they are passing by.

This makes absolutely no sense. There is a separation of church and state. "Religious objections" don't matter.

Also, where is the proof that they weren't planning on suing for a while now and the law just happened to be passed a few days before they publicly came out with the law suit?

 

[scoutie]

So when I say I am concerned about a slippery slope, that's exactly what I mean, the slippery slope where anybody can find themselves without the rights to the freedoms that should be there for all of us because suddenly group think and the bandwagon decide to take those freedoms away. The ability to voice disagreement is an important freedom, one we shouldn't be so quick to deny those we disagree with.

I don't understand how a law that GIVES people rights that everyone else enjoys somehow takes the freedom away from somebody else. The only reason I've been given for opposition of same s e x marriage is because "the bible says". As others have said, discriminating against a group of people because of religious beliefs isn't right or just. If a Muslim requires you to participate in a fast because it is Ramadan, and they say you must do so because their religion says so, and then pass a law that says you must....that would be taking away your freedom. Passing a law to allow two people to marry has nothing to do with taking your freedom away.

As for voicing disagreement....voice away. Nobody is taking away your right to do voice your opinion. People voiced their negative opinions about women having rights and blacks having rights too. Nobody took their voice away. They just voted against that voice.

 

[LukenDC]

Unlike homosexuality and heterosexuality, polygamy is not a sexual orientation. It truly is a lifestyle choice, one that can be practiced by gay, straight, or bisexual people. The recent Supreme Court ruling was important because it recognized the numerous social and civil benefits of marriage, and determined that it was unconstitutional to deny those benefits based upon sexual orientation, which is an intrinsic characteristic.

With polygamy, there are concerns about the unequal nature of polygamous relationships. Traditionally, a polygamous relationship is headed by a man who has several wives. Polygamous relationships are notorious for psychological and physical abuse, and coercion to enter such relationships is not uncommon. Additionally, there are roughly equal numbers of men and women in society. If some people begin taking more than one spouse, then that results in an disequilibrium of available mates. China, for example, is grappling with the negative ramifications of a population with more men than women due to its one child policy and the practice of female infanticide.

Our society allows each adult member to marry one person with whom they have a romantic and sexual attraction, regardless of sexual orientation. The recent Supreme Court ruling legalizing marriage equality prohibited discrimination on an intrinsic characteristic, and leveled the playing field, so to speak. Since polygamy is often a choice made out of religious conviction, it seems that proponents of polygamy might have more luck before the courts arguing on religious grounds. The recent Obergefell decision still defines marriage as a union of two people.

 

[Ceila]

Sorry, I just realized this was the wrong thread and wrong board. Wow, been a long day. My apologies.

A moderator can delete this and the other. I thought I could but don't see how.

Lol, we've all been there! You can't delete the post itself, but you can edit it and delete everything you wrote with "Deleted - wrong thread" in its place. You could also ask others to delete where they quoted you - I'll do that myself now.

 

[LukenDC]

I can't believe that people are still comparing same-sex marriage to people marrying animals or inanimate objects. That is ridiculous and, frankly, offensive. A marriage is a contract that requires consent. A dog, cat, sofa, etc. cannot consent to a contractual relationship. Neither can a minor. If people want to play act and "marry" Fluffy, then fine. Their charade will have no legal value.

 

[ariel71]

None of the nonsense you've mentioned about inanimate objects and marriage, etc. has anything to do with the slippery slope I'm concerned about. I didn't participate in any of that part of the discussion, nor do I have any desire to. My concern is solely about the increasing effect of the groupthink mentality regarding hot button issues and shutting down any aspect of conversation or disagreement in any way that disagrees on the issue of the day. I worry we won't celebrate many more years of independence if we continue down this path of only allowing one sided discussion. My comments are not about same sex marriage in particular, but the issues "trending on Twitter" in general.

Do you know how many times I heard the "I'll marry a car" argument spewed during public discussion? The reason it's brought up is because people hear this nonsense and then blindly adopt it. It was posted here, without OP knowing that marriage was a legal contract requiring consent. I'm happy to have a rational, logical debate, and I think many others are as well. But when the other side brings up silly points like that and can't define the argument without religion, well, then the debate's kind of over because you might as well be discussing with your toddler why he needs to wear pants. No amount of logic matters and you both end up frustrated.

I have asked over and over again for someone to provide a logical argument against SSM that is not based in religion. I've also asked if people would be OK with a non-Christian religious majority imposing some of their religious beliefs on the rest of us. No response.

Who is only allowing one-sided discussion and why is "independence" at risk? Is another country trying to take us over? It's Canada, isn't it. They're sneaky, those Canadians. What with their gay marriage and universal health care and all.

Exactly what change have people struggled for for so many years? The right to same sex marriage, or the right to "karmic retribution" against those who disagree with the concept?

If the old guard of politically correct thought were so wrong to behave in the manner they did and treat those who disagreed so badly, is the correct response to a cultural shift more bad behavior by the new power elite, more disrespect flowing the other way now? That's progress? That's doing it smarter and better, more enlightened? That's not the positive change I've been hoping for. IMO that's not a winning formula for a civilized society.

It's absolutely fascinating to watch the behavior on this thread as an example of "sides" stampeding to like the commenters they feel are pro or against, and then take on the posters who they feel, or assume, are aligned against their stand on this issue.

I don't know what "more bad behavior by the new power elite" is; perhaps you could expand without hyperbole. It was also hyperbole to say that anyone who agrees with Caitlyn Jenner's transformation was on a bandwagon or that she's now "deified and revered". Come on, really? I don't think the vast majority of people in this country are happy with extremism on either side, but "disrespect" isn't a limitation of one's legal rights and that point seems to be missed over and over. "You" can speak. "I" can disagree with you. If you want to see which way the disrespect is flowing, the comment section on any gay marriage article is enlightening.

 

[ashley0139]

Do you know how many times I heard the "I'll marry a car" argument spewed during public discussion? The reason it's brought up is because people hear this nonsense and then blindly adopt it. It was posted here, without OP knowing that marriage was a legal contract requiring consent. I'm happy to have a rational, logical debate, and I think many others are as well. But when the other side brings up silly points like that and can't define the argument without religion, well, then the debate's kind of over because you might as well be discussing with your toddler why he needs to wear pants. No amount of logic matters and you both end up frustrated.

I have asked over and over again for someone to provide a logical argument against SSM that is not based in religion. I've also asked if people would be OK with a non-Christian religious majority imposing some of their religious beliefs on the rest of us. No response.

Who is only allowing one-sided discussion and why is "independence" at risk? Is another country trying to take us over? It's Canada, isn't it. They're sneaky, those Canadians. What with their gay marriage and universal health care and all.



I don't know what "more bad behavior by the new power elite" is; perhaps you could expand without hyperbole. It was also hyperbole to say that anyone who agrees with Caitlyn Jenner's transformation was on a bandwagon or that she's now "deified and revered". Come on, really? I don't think the vast majority of people in this country are happy with extremism on either side, but "disrespect" isn't a limitation of one's legal rights and that point seems to be missed over and over. "You" can speak. "I" can disagree with you. If you want to see which way the disrespect is flowing, the comment section on any gay marriage article is enlightening.

All extremely well said.