Indiana opens up gay marriage!

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.

I think of the Bible as a book about man and his rerlationship with God. It contains lessons for life.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

My Humble, Libertarian based Opinion.

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.

Correct, it does not leave out polygamy.

But bigamy laws do...

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.