I just thought I'd post an update on the status of a proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage in Indiana. As was predicted earlier in the local media, the measure was not allowed out of the Indiana House Rules Committee, by its chairman, Scott Pelath, a Michigan City Democrat.
To fill in the blanks, this measure was proposed and passed by both houses of the 2005 session of the Indiana Legislature during the height of the frenzy against same sex marriage. At that time both houses were controlled by Republicans. While the Indiana Senate remains in the hands of the GOP, the House is now controlled by Democrats.
Amendments to the Indiana Constitution must pass both houses of the legislature in consecutive years, and then be placed on a statewide ballot for a vote. I believe a simple majority is all that is needed to affirm the action.
However, now that the measure has failed to pass both houses in its second go round, the process must start again from square one. The earliest a gay marriage amendment could reach Indiana voters now is 2012.
Congratulations should go to Pelath for standing his ground. Publicly, he states the reason for not allowing it out of committee is that the amendment is poorly and vaguely written and could have unintended legal consequences down the road. I don't know what, if any, private motivations he may have.
Supporters of the bill lamented, "It is a tragedy for the people of Indiana..." Oh yeah, a real tragedy. As I noted in a previous post on this issue, Indiana already has a statute preventing same sex marriages. A constitutional amendment, besides being morally and ethically despicable, is a waste of legislator's time and taxpayer's money. Currently, there is not one legally recognized same sex union in the state. While the existence of the statute is troublesome, presumably, it would be relatively easier to overturn than a constitutional amendment.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Lee Richards
"Offal of the Damned"--What a great name for a band!
2 - Mike Johnston
"They will not be satisfied unless and until they reinvent this country as a Christian theocracy and/or the "Rapture" whisks them all away to paradise, leaving the rest of us heathens to wallow in the offal of the damned."
I wonder if the Fundamentalist Christians and the Fundamentalist Islamics end up in the same Paradise. After all the two religions are pretty much "cousins" who worship the same deity as seen through the filter of two different, central prophets (Jesus and Muhammad). Wouldn't it kinda suck if you were a Christian in Paradise watching a Muslim cavort with 72 virgins while all you got to play was a harp?
3 - Baritone
Lee,
Works for me.
Mike,
Yeah, that would suck. Maybe a christian in heaven could find a closet gay muslim who always had a hankering to play the harp, and has no particular use for his bevy of virgins. It's a pretty good bet that the christian would have been a capitalist during his earthly incarnation, so making a deal should be no problem. Of course, I don't know if being a "closet" anything would work in the presence of an omnipotent god. That could get a little hinky, if you know what I mean.
Presumably, the heavenly christian ladies would pretty much have to be satisfied with their harps.
The question I have often posed for radical muslims to consider is whether 72 virgins are really enough. We are talking eternity, right? How would one, uh, space them out? That "world without end" thingy would make that tough to figure.
What happens to the erstwhile virgins once deflowered? Do they get kicked into the fire pit for being whores? Do they magically, at the wink of allah's eye, revert back to their virginhood? In that case, would one really need 72 of them?
Well,I suppose variety would be the spice of the afterlife, though. Again, we are talking eternity.
And, while we're plodding through these blissful promises made to suicide bombers, what do female martyrs get? What is their reward for blowing themselves and others into a pink mist? Seventy two studs? Given the male chauvinist bent of islam, that seems unlikely. Maybe martyrs of the gentler sex get to wear more colorful burkas made of a lighter, airier material in paradise to reduce the flop sweat, or perhaps they won't be beaten quite so often, and only with an open hand - no closed fists or belts, and NO rocks. There's got to be some incentive.
I wonder, if in the paradise you, Mike, suggest, would the christians and muslims - and presumably the jews, the other primary "one godster" tradition - remain more or less segregated as they were wont to be down here on the planet? Would they have mixers or pitch-ins? I can envision an ecumenical buffet with falafel, knishes and fried chicken. Or would they all be stewing in the same big happy melting pot?
Questions, questions, questions. What's a true believer to do?
B-tone
4 - Franco
It is naive to think that opposition to same sex marriage is only made up of conservative fundamentals Christians. That fallacy may serve up a nice target to go after, but it will never win any marksmanship awards. Christians make their voice heard just as the pro gay activists do, but like all activist groups, it they were the majority, they wouldn’t have to be activists.
People in general know in their heart of hearts that same sex marriage as not natural from a physical sense. Evolution designed the parts to fit a specific way to carry on the race exactly as the predominate animal kingdom, and there is no argument that can stand up to this fact.
If a man is attracted to masculinity to the point of sexual arousal, there are tons of women who are fully masculine in behavior. If a woman is attracted to femininity to the point of sexual arousal, there are tons of effeminate men out there as well.
The homosexual population is no larger then 4-7% of the population. The question that should be asked is how can such a fringe group cause such a commination with the mass population, and for example, force same sex education in schools.
5 - Dr Dreadful
People in general know in their heart of hearts that same sex marriage as not natural from a physical sense. Evolution designed the parts to fit a specific way to carry on the race exactly as the predominate animal kingdom, and there is no argument that can stand up to this fact.
No-one disputes the basic mechanics, Franco. However, another fact is that there is a small but significant section of the population of many species, one of which is humans, that does not behave that way. By the same argument, celibacy is 'not natural' either, but no-one would dream of proposing a constitutional amendment to ban it.
The question that should be asked is how can such a fringe group cause such a commination with the mass population, and for example, force same sex education in schools.
Why is it unreasonable to advocate that sex education should cover the full spectrum of human sexual behavior?
Your argument falls flat as a reason to legislate against same-sex marriage because it fails to demonstrate that such unions threaten in any way the continuation of the human species.
6 - Franco
No-one disputes the basic mechanics, Franco. However, another fact is that there is a small but significant section of the population of many species, one of which is humans, that does not behave that way.
Name the other species that behave against their natural mechanics.
By the same argument, celibacy is 'not natural' either, but no-one would dream of proposing a constitutional amendment to ban it.
This is a straw man argument, thus a fallacy.
Why is it unreasonable to advocate that sex education should cover the full spectrum of human sexual behavior?
Why is it reasonable to advocate that going against ones mechanics is normal.
Your argument falls flat as a reason to legislate against same-sex marriage because it fails to demonstrate that such unions threaten in any way the continuation of the human species.
Another straw man fallacy
Natural mechanics are just that, they are natural. Misuse of natural mechanics is unnatural. Thus, your argument falls flat as a reason to legislate for same sex marriage.
7 - handyguy
Referring to my [completely natural, God-made] homosexual desires as the "misuse of natural mechanics" is just about the most offensive way I've ever heard this argument phrased.
And aren't you writing from a religiously conservative Catholic perspective? Where are the large numbers of non-religious people who get excited about this issue?
And yes, there is much undisputed, documented evidence of homosexual behavior in other species. You're just showing [more of] your own ignorance.
Write what you know about. Keep your nasty bigotry to yourself.
8 - Dr Dreadful
Name the other species that behave against their natural mechanics.
Homosexual behavior has been observed in hundreds of species, including monkeys, dolphins, kangaroos and penguins. Some data is presented here, although you can also go to Wikipedia, which has a comprehensive list.
This is a straw man argument, thus a fallacy.
Calling it a straw man doesn't make it so. I was not constructing a weak argument just to shoot it down. I was responding to your justification for legislation against gay marriage on the grounds that it was not natural.
Why is it reasonable to advocate that going against ones mechanics is normal.
Because it is normal. See my link above.
Another straw man fallacy
I fail to see why.
Natural mechanics are just that, they are natural. Misuse of natural mechanics is unnatural. Thus, your argument falls flat as a reason to legislate for same sex marriage.
Now there's a straw man. Where did I say anything about legislating for gay marriage? That's a whole different debate and beyond the scope of the article.
I will grant that you are correct in calling Baritone out on the 'slippery slope' fallacy he commits in the last paragraph of his article, although I think he was just using hyperbole for effect.
9 - Baritone
My last paragraph was hyperbole only to the extent that "The Rapture" is ludicrous bullshit. There are, in fact, a large number of people who are anxiously - some desparately - awaiting it.
The argument regarding what is or isn't "natural" is also bullshit. It has weight only if one ascribes to some ancient text of at best dubious origins, from which its adherents pick and choose portions of it as they find useful and essentially ignore the remainder while at the same time claiming that the entire work is inerrantly the "word" of their god.
What is natural? The love for another human being is natural, is it not? That one finds pleasure in an intimate and yes, sexual relationship with another human being is also natural. Procreation is hardly the ONLY purpose of sexual intimacy, regardless of the gender of the participants. It feels just as good being touched and caressed by whoever might be doing it.
I am not gay, but I must admit that my first sexual experience when I was 11 or 12 was with another boy who had recently made an interesting discovery about his body. He enlightened me. Whoa! That felt pretty good! (Ah, now we're all getting uncomfortable, our faces flushing a bit. Oh, jeez, I hope nobody is reading this over my shoulder.)
Ultimately, the point is simply that whomsoever one chooses to love, and/or with whom one chooses to be intimate is no one else's goddamn business. If 2 men or 2 women choose to codify their relationship as a legally recognized union, it is not the business of a state legislature, the United States Congress, or the fucking president. Anyone desirous of living a puritanical, christian lifestyle is welcome to it. Knock yourselves out. But leave the rest of us the hell alone.
B-tone
10 - handyguy
And it is not Franco's, or anyone else's, prerogative to tell me that what I know to be part of my self, my identity, my natural humanity is wrong or against the will of God. It makes me unspeakably angry, on behalf of all gay people everywhere, that such ignorance still propagates. I would even go so far as to call it blasphemy.
11 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
I'm going to throw my two shekels into this argument. We are all G-d's creations, whether we are straight or not. Franco is right about the "natural mechanics" in terms of procreation but he misses a few subtle points.
First of all, the Torah does not apply to non-Jews. What applies to non-Jews are the Seven Commandments of Noah. While most rabbis would define homosexual behavior as an immoral activity, it will have to be the Noahide Court that makes this decision in the end, not rabbis. And issues of "holiness of the Land" do not apply outside of the Land of Israel.
1. It is just plain inhumane to tell a person to deny himself satisfying his sexual desires, whether they lead him to desire women or men. In addition, it is not practical. Such a prohibition will not be followed unless it is circumscribed carefully.
2. On the other hand, it does say in the Torah that homosexual behavior is an abomination. There is just no getting around that.
But, the same section of the Torah also says "do not contaminate yourselves with these practices; the previous residents of the land did so and they are being vomited out," or something very much to that effect.
What is really being said here (in my opinion) is that while humans may seek to desire to satisfy their homosexual longings, longings which G-d created them with for reasons that the rest of us do not know, they should do it outside of the Land of Israel.
This the circumscription I mentioned earlier. The Land of Israel is a tiny place, compared to the 57 million square miles of land that this planet has. In essence, a person could satisfy his homosexual desires on 56,970,000 square miles of the earth's surface, so long as he did not do it here.
So, in essence, Jewish homosexuals should stay out of the Land - not because someone wishes to discriminate against them, but because they should have the right to satisfy their own sexual desires without compromising the holiness of the Land. And non-Jewish homosexuals (should they have reason to be here) should not indulge their desires in Israel - for the same reason.
To someone holding to an absolute standard of "I gotta have it all", that will not be satisfactory. At this point, I would remind such an individual that the Torah is Jewish law, not for non-Jews at all. Full stop. The Torah is meant essentially to be applied here, and followed here. The Seven Laws of Noah are meant to be applied to the rest of the planet. And since Indiana isn't holy land, it makes no difference whether homosesuals enjoy each other there or not.
12 - Baritone
Boy, that's a relief. So, if I decide to "change teams," it's okeedokee as long as I don't defile the holy land. That should be easy enough. I'll keep that in mind. Thanks Ruv.
B-tone
13 - Baritone
Meaning what?
I suppose I come off as mean spirited, or somewhat of a smartass. I've got an attitude. I am fairly passionate about this issue and others involving religion. For Baronius' benefit, I guess I'm becoming a bit of a fanatic.
When self proclaimed people of piety decide it is their right and religious duty to judge people and make accusations of immorality against others, I get testy. I mean, what happened to judge not lest ye... yada, yada, yada? My anger builds because I see it as so self serving. Such meddling has little or nothing to do with concern for others, but rather it is concern for the eternal future of their own souls.
Scripture commands them to prostelytize spreading the "good news" to all who can hear. Failure to do so, and/or failure to eradicate perceived sinful behaviour puts the souls of true believers in jeopardy. They want their tickets punched for the double decker bus to heaven. They could be "left behind" if they don't turn all evil homos to godly heteros. That renders all this legislative doo doo as less than selfless, doesn't it?
B-tone
14 - Franco
#8 â€"handyguy
Referring to my [completely natural, God-made] homosexual desires
Using God as support for accreting your position that the gay lifestyle is completely natural is absolutely no different from that of a religiously conservative Catholic using God as support in accreting against you. Thus trying to use God to make your point while crying foul against Christian fundamentalists using God to make theirs against yours is hypocritical at best.
The "misuse of natural mechanics" is just about the most offensive way I've ever heard this argument phrased.
There are many truly offensive terms used to describe the details of the physical act of homosexuality. Those who chose to use these offensive terms instead of choosing to discuss/debate this issue with mutual respect, would rather intentionally and with malice of forethought do their best to offend and then move on. Your trying to stereo type me into that group is showing your own bigotry in action.
My commenting on natural mechanics is not, and was not, intended to offend. In fact it is a neutral scientific reference. Thus, I suggest that you are simple offended by anyone making any argument not in favor of the gay lifestyle no matter how professionally they say it. Have you ever looked up the word bigotry?
And aren't you writing from a religiously conservative Catholic perspective?
Absolutely not!
Where are the large numbers of non-religious people who get excited about this issue?
You seem to be looking for large numbers of excited people. Your use of the world “excited” is not applicable here. Excited people are activates from both sides of the discussion/debate and they make all the noise and yet they are in the minority or they would not be activists. The large numbers as you refer to are men and women and their families who support and believe in the straight lifestyle and are going through life unnoticed quietly living out their lives.
And yes, there is much undisputed, documented evidence of homosexual behavior in other species. You're just showing [more of] your own ignorance.
This statement is classic homosexual movement rhetoric and is one of the most over used fallacies of the times. Nothing could be future from the truth. You could only believer that if you have chosen not to review it, because it’s out there in documented scientific mass. Your choosing not to review it only bring into question who is showing ignorance.
There is substantial documented scientific evidence to prove it is faulty science to "read" human motivations and sentiments into animal behavior, and irrational animal behavior is not a yardstick to determine what is acceptable behavior for rational man.
Animal cognition is purely sensorial, limited to sound, odor, touch, taste and image. Thus, animals lack the precision and clarity of human intellectual perception. Therefore, animals frequently confuse one sensation with another or one object with another.
Dogs will mount one another because of the vehemence of their purely chemical reaction to the smell of an estrus female: Not surprisingly, the smell of a female dog in heat can instigate a frenzy of mounting behaviors. Even other females who are not in heat will mount those who are. Males will mount males who have just been with estrus females if they still bear their scent.... And males who catch wind of the estrus odor may mount the first thing (or unlucky person) they come into contact with.
Thus, man is characterized not by what he has in common with animals, but by what differentiates him from them. This differentiation is fundamental, not accidental. Man is a rational animal. Man's rationality is what makes human nature unique and fundamentally distinct from animal nature
To consider man strictly as an animal is to deny his rationality and, therefore, his ethics. Likewise, to consider animals as if they were human is to attribute to them a non-existent rationality.
Although what appears to be homosexual behavior in the animal world, it is most uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, is a rarity.
Homosexual scientist Simon LeVay admitted that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality.
Now I'm not insisting that you have to believe any of this, but don't claim there is usdisputed evedence and then write the following sentence.
Write what you know about. Keep your nasty bigotry to yourself.
I never made any personal attacks on homosexuals in my previous post. Nor did I in this one after you came out personally attacking me. I have only taken your personal attacks and redirected their negativity back where is finds its home.
Whether you like it or not, I do not have to agree with the homosexual lifestile and will state my position at will. I choose to do so with respect for the other side, while you see that as unacceptable even done that way.
The additude in your post displays the classic behaivor of he homosexual movement.
The expression homosexual movement is used to designate a vast network of organizations, pressure groups, intellectuals and activists who strive to impose changes in laws, customs, morals and mentalities, so that homosexuality is not only tolerated but also accepted as good and normal. Hence, activists pressure society to legalize both the practice and the public manifestations of homosexuality, such as same-sex "marriage," while relentlessly assailing those who disagree.
I am neither impressed or intiminated.
15 - handyguy
Franco:
I am gay. You are not. I speak from experience and first-hand knowledge. You speak from prejudice and second-hand rhetoric. What you write is remarkably hurtful and hateful, whether you are capable of realizing it or not.
Not nearly all straight people agree with you. Look at national opinion polls on the subject, especially those taken of respondees under 40. A big majority of Americans have a live and let live attitude, and many would be as offended by your rhetoric as I am.
Don't pretend to be the victim in this conversation, and don't tell me my words are "typical" of "the gay movement," of which you know little or nothing. I am speaking for myself. I assail you man to man. You are dead wrong.
16 - Franco
Dr Dreadful,
You seem to have drawn the conclusion that humans going against their natural mechanics are normal based on the premise that it is normal in the animal kingdom.
This supports the homosexual movements attempt to establish that homosexuality is in accordance with human nature by trying to prove its animal homosexuality theory as being both natural for animals and thus man.
I can not except that premise based on the following reasons.
To consider man strictly as an animal is to deny his rationality and, therefore, his ethics. Likewise, to consider animals as if they were human is to attribute to them a non-existent rationality. This differentiation is fundamental, not accidental. Man is a rational animal. Man's rationality is what makes human nature unique and fundamentally distinct from animal nature with was covered in my last post.
Man is characterized not by what he has in common with animals, but by what differentiates him from them. Thus we shouldn't be using animals to craft moral and social policies for the kinds of human societies we want to live in.
17 - Dr Dreadful
Then why are you trying to craft them based on what a human's 'natural mechanics' are?
18 - cherryken
This problem is always talked about by LGBT. I have read many articles about it. Gay marriage has been accepted by most of people. It would be really nice. and I am as a bisexual here show my gratitude for your being so open-minde. "What about adopting a child for us?" is always the popular quesiton for LBGT, espcially for bisexual at **bimingle.com**. There is no dout that we all love the world, love the children, and do not mean to hurt anybody. Hopefully, everybody can accept us.
19 - Jet in Columbus
Part of my aching sorrow as a gay man is that everyone wants to portray the sex act as animalistic. It's not. It'a an act of giving, an act of sacrifice of ego, and of love to someone you trust and care for.
The gay sex act is not natural, it is a gift of inprovisation, because some of us have enough conscience not to marry a girl, get her pregnant and raise a family, all the while living a miserable lie.
Having someone to love, is an act of giving, of caring and of sacrifice. Some of you make it sound like a violent act of rape.
While some of you hetros wince and cower at the very thought of the mechanics involved in gay sex, and don't pause to consider how much a man must have to care for the needs and wants of his partner to go through such an ordeal, and that's what it is if there's no love behind it. We're not all blind animals you know, that mince around, lisp, and chase after little boys.
The generally accepted stats are that we comprise about 10 percent of the population, though the born-agains keep screaming it's only four... Well if you tell a lie long enough you'll believe it I guess.
The Israelites used the only weapon they had to win back their holy land in ancient times... They had as many children as they could, because they knew that in four or five generations, they'd be the majority and outnumber their oppressors. That meant strickly banning anything that didn't mass produce babies, such as masturbation and gay sex.
Sort of what the hispanics are doing in the U.S. because soon they'll be the majority, then we'll have to fight for the right to have our legal documents in English instead of Spanish
Baritone, this is a well thought out article, and one of the few I've read all the way through.
Thanks
Jet
20 - Gary
Good to read differing views from gays and hetero here. For some reasons, I just can't accept that gay sex is a form of giving. It just seems so unnatural.
From a gay's point of view, it is totally natural. So the debate will rage on and on because the 2 sides can never see eye to eye.
It is a touchy issue that any government will have a headache handling, guaranteed.
21 - Dave Nalle
To consider man strictly as an animal is to deny his rationality and, therefore, his ethics. Likewise, to consider animals as if they were human is to attribute to them a non-existent rationality. This differentiation is fundamental, not accidental. Man is a rational animal. Man's rationality is what makes human nature unique and fundamentally distinct from animal nature with was covered in my last post.
Which is to say that manm has free will. And, having free will, he can make all sorts of different choices as far as how he chooses to live his life, and so long as those choices do no harm to others, it's not appropriate for anyone to second-guess them.
Dave
22 - Charlotte
Marriage is a basic civil right that should be attainable by all Americans. For the truth about gay marriage check out our trailer. Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue.
23 - Clavos
"It is a touchy issue that any government will have a headache handling, guaranteed."
I've said it before, and I'll repeat it until I die:
THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO GODDAMN BUSINESS STICKING ITS NOSE INTO WHAT IS ESSENTIALLY A PRIVATE MATTER!!!
Why, why, WHY do Americans invariably want their corrupt, inept, dictatorial government involved in every aspect of people's lives??
Sheesh!!
24 - Baritone
Clav,
It is the inbred predisposition of those of a puritanical bent to intimidate and cajole others to conform to their bloodless life view.
B-tone
25 - Jet in Columbus
It's the law of the jungle Clav. Lower class and inferior people who feel powerless and picked on, do everything they can to find someone else in which to delude themselves into thinking they're better then they in order to not feel as if they're at the bottom of the "food chain" of society.
To judge someone is to imply power over them. To imply and then force their "morals" on someone else makes them feel better about their own miserable lives.
Forgetting of course "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"...