I have a gay marriage question?

Well. I provided the same exact quote of mine in response. Don't know how I can prove what I state beyond absolutely 100%.

Irrelevant.
Do I have to point out that we ammended the Constitution to allow for civil rights for Blacks and women. "In God We Trust" wasn't on every coin, and wasn't the motto of the United States until 1956. Did you you want to take God out of the pledge, off the coins? So this is in fact really an attack on religion, isn't it? "God" is supposed to be capital "G".

Legal in all 50 states? If no then see "Answer 'A'":

Did they have to change the definition of marriage in order to do that? Well, that doesn't change the definition of marriage for the entire English language world. I can redefine a chair, and say that is is a fish, but if the rest of the world does not accept or recognize my redefinition then what is the point?

So what you are saying is don't bother you with the facts because you can always attach a logical falacy to anything I say. What political history would you like me to learn? I seem to be the one teaching you political history.

Or he was caving to ad populem, (but really he knew better all along)?

You can't handle the truth.

Or perhaps you can just stop playing the victim and stop harrassing the other 96% of the population by forcing us into respecting your disgusting immoral sexual perversions by changing the laws through the courts.

Yeah baby! Put that on a bumper sticker.

Yeah, if only you can do that, you can get the other 49% to give up their belief in God, and fine them or throw them into jail if they refuse.

See? You are proving my point with your admission.

Is there a cogent reason to approve of them?

I think you have that backwards. There is every reason to believe that homosexuality is a mental disorder and that social pressures have forced the scientific and rational grounds to be redefined just as the same-sex crowd needs to redefine marriage. There is a certain percentage of the population that have schizophrenia. That doesn't mean they need to redefine all the laws to accomidate all those crazy people. What has changed about schizophrenia? Nothing. What has changed about homosexuality? Nothing.

Was there some peer-reviewed scientific study that concluded that homosexuality was all very normal behavior and a consensus of scientists in the field agreed with the findings? Nope. It was actually pressure from the gay community protesting a meeting of behavioral therapists in New York. The scientists of the APA (American Psychiatric Association) did not agree, but a committee and a campaign by one doctor helped changed the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder by a simple majority vote.

Yes, it could go either way. But it proves my point that homosexuals are cross-wired. There is something wrong with their brain. When we find a cure for it, it will all seem so rediculous that in the 21st Century, people were actually letting mentally ill people get same sex married rather than deal with their illness.

Not desperate, just teasing. But really, Does he drive the train or is he the caboose?

Well we know that is not true:

So pressured by gays, Dr. Spitzer changed the definition of homosexuality as a mental disorder without doing any scientific study or research into it. Then years later, while doing an actual study of homosexual who were cured, he concluded that homosexuality can be cured (thus indicating that homosexuality is actually an illness). Then the gay community again protest the Doctor's finding, thus creating pressure for him to retract his findings because of the protests, not because of any scientific reasoning.
I wonder how many stories of personal conversion will I have to post before you retract that falsehood?

 

Yeah. It was a freakin vote. Science by democracy. 58% said its not a mental disorder, so it is not. They had to redefine what a mental disorder is t accomplish it.

 

Nope.......

 

Yep...........

 

nope. nothing prohibitted it prior to this ruling.

 

Even IF it was/is mental disorder... would it be justified for a society (such as ours) to TREAT homosexual people as they have been treated?

I just can't see the meaning of what you and many others say, as anything other than trying to justify abject BIGOTRY.

 

It was assumed because there were no Federal laws specifically barring same sex marriage. You can argue it all you like but there were none.

Not at all because you are pointing to a time in history when same sex marriage was not recognized and saying that because it wasn't recognized then it isn't recognized now. I used the other examples which you referenced as proof that things can change with time.

I think the reason it was placed there was dubious at best.

Or the placement was an attack on freedom, depends on your perspective. I believe everybody should be free to practice religion but they shouldn't be free to practice it on everybody else.

No it means it's legal in some states and not in others. Polygamy is legal in some countries and not in others. Sixteen year olds can marry legally in some states/countries and not in others.

I think one of the biggest problems facing this whole debate is in establishing a consensus on what constitutes a "civil" marriage. If there is no reason not to include homosexual couples than they will have to be included as they are similarly situated to most heterosexual couples (the ones who can procreate) and IDENTICALLY situated to the remainder (those who can't) and that's the legal standard as set by precedent.

It's a step by step process. It will no doubt change in some countries and maybe not in others.

Well it might help the day to day running of some people's life and affect how they conduct their legal business in a positive way?

Nope, I was saying that "reactionary" politics are not always wise. Even the author of DOMA now admits it was a terrible piece of legislation. It is blatantly unconstitutional and only got passed because of political hot-hotheadedness and the fact that some people, who knew better, were to scared to vote against it for fear of their own political expedience. Fear based politics is not a good idea in a freedom based society.

The one where people pass stupid, fear based, legislation which they have to retract later on down the road when such ridiculousness is exposed.

I think that was implied in my statement.

I've been dishing it out to you page after page and you just throw it right back at me.

I think gay people have every right to use their lawful recourse to the courts in order to challenge irrational discrimination. The fact you dislike this so vehemently is, in some ways, indicative of a greater need to do so.

If I thought it would make a difference to anybody who didn't get it already I would.

A bit too much drama in that one.

If you mean that the law won't always rule in your favor just because you claim "god said so" then yes. This helps protect everybody from everybody else. You'd be the first to support the process if somebody tried to impose Sharia law across the whole country.

Not the way the law works. When there is a provable case of similarity of situation the law must establish a compelling and necessary reason to maintain the discrimination when challenged to do so. Gay people have shown themselves to be similarly situated to most heterosexual couples (the ones who can procreate) and IDENTICALLY situated to the remainder (those who can't) thus satisfying the legal standard.

No I don't have it backwards. Up to a point gay people had never been fairly evaluated as to mental function. Diagnosis of them was based in moral not medical criteria (particularly when you consider the far reaching influence religious bodies had in the field of medicine). Homosexuality itself was illegal so it's obvious that no dispassionate research had ever taken place. Yes it did take activists to force the beginning of a re-think because most medical professionals were too scared or uninterested in the subject to challenge it. However, once real evaluation began it became obvious that homosexuals could function and live their lives just as well as heterosexuals.

 

PART TWO:

Schizophrenics often need treatment and medication to function in the outside world. Sometimes they just can't function in the outside world at all which is why schizophrenia is considered a mental disorder and homosexuality is not.

You're right, it has always been reliably considered to be a serious mental illness.

You're wrong, it has never been reliably considered to be a serious mental illness. There was once an assumption but when that assumption was actually tested on the merits it was deemed unfounded. Remember not just the US but every medical and social scientific body in the western world deems homosexuality as a normal variant of human sexuality. That conclusion was reached in many countries without the intervention of activists. The fact that the US is so religious a country is probably one of the reasons activists had to get involved in the first place. Other countries worked it out quietly on the basis of research and common sense. There's always been a real war between what is science and what is religion in America which doesn't seem to have a footing anywhere else.

Yes: "lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder. "

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

So it comes down to a choice. Who are the courts going to believe them, or you?

The pressure may have got things started but it was the research that put the icing on the cake.

It's none of my business and why would you want to know?

No we don't, people can claim they've changed but that's no guarantee of real lasting change. Even Alan Chambers, head of exodus International recently claimed that same sex attractions never go away:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/g...addresses-confusion-over-his-sexuality-81651/

Look, if people have a religious objection to their own sexuality no-one is forcing them to enter into same-sex relationships. They can stay celibate or get married to an opposite sex partner if they chose but it's when the establishments they belong to or represent tell everybody else they should change is when I have a problem.

Spitzer changed his position because he realized the methodology of his study was flawed. At his age I imagine he could care less what anybody, pro or anti, thinks it's not going to change anything for him.

You can post all the stories you like it won't change the science. When you hear the negativity people who go through these programs are bombarded with it's no surprise that some people will convince themselves they've changed but when, time after time the very leaders of these cults turn around and say "nope, you can't ever really change". You've got to start asking some serious questions.

 

You mean not giving them the tax breaks and entitlements of marriage. YES, it would be justified. I dont mind government encouraging behavior that is beneficial to society. I have a real problem with encouraging behavior so that those who engage in it, can feel better about themselves.

 

The whole concept of a "mental disorder" is a man-made concept, not some universal fact to begin with. It's the exchange of one arbitrary standard for another. I'm glad they shifted their standard from "trying to normalize everything" to "not getting their panties into a wad over nothing".

 

That right was protected even when it was seen as harmful to the future children produced. You keep drawing a link that has never been enforced as such. The only right is that people can choose to many and reproduce without any concern or influence from government, protected even in spite of the goals you state. Protected for a number of reasons specifically stated by the court, excluding concerns about children... Only the couple.

 

The OP was referring to state laws. For instance in Minn

The word marriage specifically prohibits same sex marriage.

 

Nonsense. Nearly every court case I cite enforced as such.

 

My answer was in response to this from Patriot News:

 

what benefit to society is there in 2 sterile heterosexuals marrying? what benefit to society is there for prison inmates to marry?

 

In the Turner v Safley case.

Let's focus on that bolded part for a second... an inmate can't reproduce, that is a right restricted to them while in prison. However, the court protected their right to marry. But if marriage is only about procreation, then how can you reconcile this? You can't. The court protected the right to marry INDEPENDANT of penal objectives that limit the prisoner's right to reproduce. And it went on to explain why, listing several reasons that it considered sufficient for protecting the fundimental right of prisoners to marry, reasons independant of needs to provide welfare for children, and reasons that strictly have to do with the couple.



And in the Zablocki case:
The case you quoted specifically protected the rights of marriage to those who have demonstrated ill capacity to care for the children they already had, and thus sanctioned them marrying another and producing more children. Such a action by the court defeats the purpose you state, and merely protects marriage as fundamental regardless of any fulfillment of said purpose. Here they make it rather explicit:

In the above quote, the court specifically separates the need to provide for the welfare for children and the need to protect the right to marry as distinguished interests, and where in conflict, the court sided to protect the right to marry in spite of needs to protect children's welfare.

Every case quoted, especially the one YOU quoted last protected marriage as a fundamental right.... not just regardless of consideration of children, but IN SPITE of the fact that the law in question that limited marriage PROTECTED children. The court cases merely protect the right of the individual to marry and reproduce freely and unencumbered, whether it is helpful for potential children, harmful for children, or completely irrelevant. The need to provide for children may be a real and substantial reason that marriage itself is protected, but it has certainly not been demonstrated as the SOLE and COMPLETE reason.

I don't know how much clearer the court could possibly be that concern for child welfare is certainly an important and relevant consideration in matters of marriage rights, but it is most certainly not the sole and complete purpose.

 

None, at least in terms of procreation. In fact, it hurts society if that's the only purpose, it is easily regulated against, and yet it was protected nevertheless as a fundamental right. I don't think this case could be any more clear.

 

Thats not actually true. Federal law decrees that a marriage ( or civil union ) performed in one state, must be recognized in all states. And I think that is really only fair dont you? And quite a few states are trying to find ways around that law, or to ignore that law. I mean lets say that your marraige and legal rights are recognized in Illinos, but Indianna refuses to recognize them, and I were to get into an auto accident or something in Indianna where my rights are not recognized? Thats a federal issue.


And dont say "just avoid indianna" I have family in Michigan. To avoid Indianna, I would either have to drive all the way around the state ( and hope that I dont pass through any other states that would void my rights ) so thats just simply not viable.


So no. It is a federal issue. Not a state issue.

 

No need to find ways around the law, they have DOMA for that. As well the Public Policy exception to the full faith and credit clause does the same thing. State that has a public policy of requiring married couples to be at least 18, doesnt have to recognize marriages in other states of minors. Certainly they wouldnt have to recognize marriages of the same sex.

 

Well, if a state passes a DOMA law, and then refuses to recognize the rights of a civil union, then that state is breaking the law.

And DOMA has been getting declared unconstitutional lately. So, obviously that standard isnt going to be upheld.

 

I, of course, was referring to the Federal DOMA law.

Like I said, public policy exception to the full faith and credit would allow states to ignore marriages in other states that conflict with their policy..

 

I don't know what you are not getting here. Marriage is and was defined (not assumed) as a union of one man and one woman. This is the entire crux of the debate today, whether or not marriage can be redefined. To claim that there were no Federal laws specifically barring same sex marriage is a complete falsehood.

Irrelevant. Apples and oranges. Blacks were given those rights as a result of an amendment to the Constitution, as were women. Those amendments do not apply to homosexuals.

Do you mean a union of one man and one woman? If no then see "Answer'B'":

See "Answer B".

Now you are just spewing leftist lies and propaganda points. There is nothing blatantly unconstitutional about it. It is not about scare/fear based politics. It's not reactionary.

What political history would you like me to learn? I seem to be the one teaching you political history.

You can claim he didn't mean it back then, but Bill Clinton signed it into law and he owns it.

Seriously, the truth and your vision of the truth are in alternate universes.

Upholding long held traditions and protecting religion and religious beliefs does not equate to irrational discrimination. Protecting the institution of marriage from sissy boys who want to play house seems a useless waste of time and money of our courts.

I don't know what you mean by this comment. I do notice that you are disrespecting people of faith with the small letter "g" again. If Sharia law was imposed across the whole country, we wouldn't have to worry much about gay marriage because they would kill the homosexuals.

This is not discrimination no matter how many times you repeat the lie that this is discrimination. Homosexuals are allowed to get married. They just cannot marry a person of the same sex. Marriage is between a man and a woman. That is the law. That is the definition. See "Answer B".

Link? It's amazing to me how liberals can spout off so many facts that exist only in their heads. Then, you are conceeding my point by saying, "...no dispassionate research had ever taken place. Yes it did take activists to force the beginning of a re-think..." Maybe you should provide a link to the "real evaluation".

 

PART TWO:

Homosexuality is a mental disorder. I think I already demonstrated that.

Again spouting unsubstantiated facts. Regardless, I'm sure that someone has written a paper somewhere saying that in spite of what would seem to be common sense, in spite of the obvious nature of the utilities of human sexual reproductive organs, sexual attraction between same sex is not an abnormal mental defect. The truth and their version of the truth are also in alternate universes. It is obviously a mental defect.

Finally a link!

So their is no actual scientific/medical explaination as to why homosexuality is no longer a mental illness, just a sociological explaination. In other words, it's an opinion!

No peer-reviewed science here either.

Which only demonstrates that he is working to resist homosexual urges created by his illness.

It is about education. We need to educate people that homosexuality is a mental illness, and work to find treatment and a cure.

He didn't do any further research, he just caved to pressure from the gay community and leftist liberal colleagues who threatened to smear his name and career.

What science? Seems to me the only scientific study was attacked and smeared just like it's author because of it's conclusions.

 

You sure have that backwards. Full faith and credit clause is intended to give full faith and credit to the legality of documentation from one state to the next. So if I get married in Nevada, California must give full faith and credit to my Nevada marriage certificate. Get it?

 

You dont have a clue.