FEDERAL JUDGE knocks down PRO 8 in CA...

[conversationpc]

Question: If a gay couple want to be married in a church that by doctrine can not allow that to happen, can the couple now sue that church? Can they have that church's non-profit status recalled? We are already living in a law suit crazy country. I think the answer to my above question is: YES. And this will happen sooner rather than later should things remain the same.

How does seperation of church and state work in the above scenario?

That's what I'm afraid of. Most churches will NEVER perform marriages for gay couples. They will either have to close their doors or compromise their beliefs.

Don't churches reserve the right to not marry heterosexual couples though? I mean many have guidelines you have to follow or they will not marry straight couples.

Yeah, some do. Some won't marry a Christian to a non-Christian and that kind of thing.

Yeah, I don't think churches can get sued that way. Churches have ways of being exempt from a lot of things that way.

I think it's headed in the wrong direction, though. There are countries where churches can be and are sued for various reasons. While I don't think that will happen here in the next few years, I think we could be headed in that direction.

[Angel]

Dan, in one post you "pasted" that homosexuality is not a recognized diagnosis, in the next post you said it was an abnormality.....which is it?????

[Rick]

If we look at Homosexuality as abnormal then the cause would have be a defect in the sex chromosomes which would verify the notion that being gay is not a choice but is a trait hardwired into those individuals. I guess we could equate it as another variant of retardation from that angle of the argument. How the law treats members of society with other types of mental deficiencies might be a template for what is appropriate here.

Again, puh-lease: read up on your medical terms before throwing them out left and right. There is no fucking way one could equate homosexuality with mental retardation. Seriously, dude? And genetics isn't as simple as you make it out to be. I mean, thanks to Clinton we got our full genome mapped out, but the extreme complexity in how our genes exert its effects on the organism through RNA or protein products is something that's gonna take a shitload of expensive science over a long period to completely understand.

I'm against gay marrying in churches though, as the religious books, be it the Bible or whatever, is obviously against it.

I'm not sure Don meant retardation as much as birth defect. There are a lot of people that think it IS a birth defect, in that they're a man born in a woman's body and vice-versa.

[BobbyinTN]

Switch your browser. IE does that to me. Use FireFox or Chrome.

Or delete all of the quotes except the one you are referring to.....like I've done here-that would even be mo bettah so we don't have to see the same conversation over and over and over in its entirety. (just a suggestion!)

Thank you Angel, but I'm still kind of web-page ignorant and never know which quotes to delete and which to keep.

[Saint John]

Dan, in one post you "pasted" that homosexuality is not a recognized diagnosis, in the next post you said it was an abnormality.....which is it?????

Re-read. They both conclude that it is abnormal or, in the case of the first article, "aberrant." Same thing.

[Angel]

Dan, in one post you "pasted" that homosexuality is not a recognized diagnosis, in the next post you said it was an abnormality.....which is it?????

Re-read. They both conclude that it is abnormal or, in the case of the first article, "aberrant." Same thing.

I hardly think quoting an article that states that homosexuality as been removed as a diagnosis is proof that it's abnormal behavior.

[Saint John]

Dan, in one post you "pasted" that homosexuality is not a recognized diagnosis, in the next post you said it was an abnormality.....which is it?????

Re-read. They both conclude that it is abnormal or, in the case of the first article, "aberrant." Same thing.

I hardly think quoting an article that states that homosexuality as been removed as a diagnosis is proof that it's abnormal behavior.

Then what do you consider one man ramming his crank into another man's shitter? Normal?!?!

[Angel]

Dan, in one post you "pasted" that homosexuality is not a recognized diagnosis, in the next post you said it was an abnormality.....which is it?????

Re-read. They both conclude that it is abnormal or, in the case of the first article, "aberrant." Same thing.

I hardly think quoting an article that states that homosexuality as been removed as a diagnosis is proof that it's abnormal behavior.

Then what do you consider one man ramming his crank into another man's shitter? Normal?!?!

No, not at all, but that's not the point. The issue at hand is the right those two men have to be legally married.

[BobbyinTN]

I just think if people are going to make an argument against it, then I need to hear something that makes more sense than "god said so" or "well... because they're gay, that's why..."

I'll take a crack at it. I think, to the overwhelming majority of people, "marriage" is viewed as the union of a man and a woman, and the very foundation of procreation and the family. Because of that, to most of us, it's important to keep that particular term clearly defined as being a commitment solely between a (born) man and a (born) woman. Furthermore, I think it's also important to clearly define the lifestyle of 2 people whose practices make it impossible to form a biological family, as something different. In other words, the relationship is cheapened because the general biological design of procreation is being snubbed, and that's why I think you see so many opponents of gay adoption. It all comes back to the purpose "family" and procreation, and why many people want to reserve the specific term "marriage" as such.

Lastly, rights are rights and should probably be designated for whomever we choose to make our "mate." I don't think most would have a problem recognizing a civil union and it would, seemingly, be a happy compromise for both sides. It's not *legally* being called "marriage" but you're afforded the same rights as those that are married. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Dan, I agree with everything you say, but the extremists on the other side won't. The crux of the problem is this: For over 3 decades, the far left has made it their ignoble crusade to go about altering every "traditional" moral value or viewpoint in this country. They want to change the fundamental makeup of the country. It's not enough for them to concede that they are in the minority and just want "equal" rights. No, it's about more than that. They want to become the majority. They want to eradicate the beliefs of those who hold traditional views of things such as marriage. Hence why I believe Bobby already said that it wouldn't be enough to call it a civil union and give them all the rights attendant to traditional marriage. That's just not enough. They want to shock the consciences of those who feel differently from them and they want to create cognitive dissonance to the degree that traditional views are forced to assimilate their views into the overall line of thinking.


There's already a civil war in this country, it just happens to be mostly non-violent.

Matt, that’s all hyperbole and extreme exaggeration and the exact same excuses used about African Americans, women and other minorities who sought equality.

There is no such thing as a collective traditional moral value. For every different family in the United States, for every different religion, for every different individual there is a different “moral value”. This ain’t Mayberry and it ain’t never gonna be. Those people that use “traditional values” as a weapon to whip homosexuals with are doing so out of fear and ignorance.

Unless you are a homosexual you have no right to judge who we are and unless you’re God. And unless you’re a fortune teller, you can’t predict what homosexuals will do or what they want.

You scare tactics are base and degrading for a man I know to be smarter than you appear in the statement above.

Separate is never equal and never will be.

No one wants to shock anyone except people who use the excuse of “traditional values” or “they’ll eat your children”.

Homosexuals don’t care if you approve of them or not. You shouldn’t care if I approve of your “lifestyle” either.

This might be a war, but it’s a war against people who want to demonize a small group of other people who are different. “BURN THE MONSTER”, “BURN THE WITCH”, “BURN THE OUTSIDE”.


Isn’t it time to grow up and learn from history and stop making all these baseless accusations? Live your life and let others live theirs and stop spreading hatred and lies about something you know nothing about.

Not said in anger, not said in hatred, just trying to get a point across.

[Don]

If we look at Homosexuality as abnormal then the cause would have be a defect in the sex chromosomes which would verify the notion that being gay is not a choice but is a trait hardwired into those individuals. I guess we could equate it as another variant of retardation from that angle of the argument. How the law treats members of society with other types of mental deficiencies might be a template for what is appropriate here.

Again, puh-lease: read up on your medical terms before throwing them out left and right. There is no fucking way one could equate homosexuality with mental retardation. Seriously, dude? And genetics isn't as simple as you make it out to be. I mean, thanks to Clinton we got our full genome mapped out, but the extreme complexity in how our genes exert its effects on the organism through RNA or protein products is something that's gonna take a shitload of expensive science over a long period to completely understand.

I'm against gay marrying in churches though, as the religious books, be it the Bible or whatever, is obviously against it.

One of the big arguments is that people are born that way, that it's not a choice but a biological calling to be attracted to the same sex. Retardation, mental Defect, whatever we want to call it, it still points to something that scientifically doesn't have a purpose. When you take away the pleasure aspects, sex is primarily for the continuation of the species, whether it be human or animal. When you claim that you don't have that same type of makeup, it has to be considered some type of mutation of chromosomes that obviously goes against the rest of nature.

[BobbyinTN]

I just think if people are going to make an argument against it, then I need to hear something that makes more sense than "god said so" or "well... because they're gay, that's why..."

I'll take a crack at it. I think, to the overwhelming majority of people, "marriage" is viewed as the union of a man and a woman, and the very foundation of procreation and the family. Because of that, to most of us, it's important to keep that particular term clearly defined as being a commitment solely between a (born) man and a (born) woman. Furthermore, I think it's also important to clearly define the lifestyle of 2 people whose practices make it impossible to form a biological family, as something different. In other words, the relationship is cheapened because the general biological design of procreation is being snubbed, and that's why I think you see so many opponents of gay adoption. It all comes back to the purpose "family" and procreation, and why many people want to reserve the specific term "marriage" as such.

Lastly, rights are rights and should probably be designated for whomever we choose to make our "mate." I don't think most would have a problem recognizing a civil union and it would, seemingly, be a happy compromise for both sides. It's not *legally* being called "marriage" but you're afforded the same rights as those that are married. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Valid, scientific fact. But, the problem with that is, if you want to present a biological argument based on procreative factuality, there's going to be someone else come along and say that all of the barren and/or childless marriages should be downgraded to civil unions as well since no veritable offspring can nor would be produced.

Anyway, "marriage" is just a word. The spiritually binding institution between two people should remain between two people. Whatever the law wants to call it should be a footnote to allow for power of attorney & insurance & taxes & other such things hetero couples take for granted.

Agree 100%

[Saint John]

Dan, in one post you "pasted" that homosexuality is not a recognized diagnosis, in the next post you said it was an abnormality.....which is it?????

Re-read. They both conclude that it is abnormal or, in the case of the first article, "aberrant." Same thing.

I hardly think quoting an article that states that homosexuality as been removed as a diagnosis is proof that it's abnormal behavior.

Then what do you consider one man ramming his crank into another man's shitter? Normal?!?!

No, not at all, but that's not the point. The issue at hand is the right those two men have to be legally married.

Lay off the meds. "The issue at hand" starts with the first quoted text above. Try to stay coherent. Thanks.

[BobbyinTN]

Question: If a gay couple want to be married in a church that by doctrine can not allow that to happen, can the couple now sue that church? Can they have that church's non-profit status recalled? We are already living in a law suit crazy country. I think the answer to my above question is: YES. And this will happen sooner rather than later should things remain the same.

How does seperation of church and state work in the above scenario?

Why would anyone want to? If the church says it doesn't perform gay marriages, then there should be no problem.

There are churches here in Tennessee that will marry a gay couple, even though it's not legal, so I doubt we'd have to force any church to marry us that had a problem with it.

Of course, putting the fear of that out there is all that matters, right? Saying the sky will fall, earth will burn and little children will never grow up correctly again is just another fear tactic to compensate for your own fear of the unknown and change.

[BobbyinTN]

The DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) is the most widely used diagnostic reference book utilized by mental health professionals in the United States.

It's a manual by which all diagnostic codes are derived for diagnosis and treatment - every single physician (an estimated 850,000*) in the United States refers to this book in order to code for a diagnosis. In plain English, what does this mean? It means that for over 30 years physicians have been prevented from properly diagnosing homosexuality as an aberrant behavior and thus, cannot, recommend a course of treatment for these individuals.

Prior to that time, homosexuality had been treated as a mental disorder under section "302. Sexual Deviations" in the DSM-II. Section 302 said, in part: "This category is for individuals whose sexual interests are directed primarily toward objects other than people of the opposite sex, toward sexual acts … performed under bizarre circumstances. … Even though many find their practices distasteful, they remain unable to substitute normal sexual behavior for them." Homosexuality was listed as the first sexual deviation under 302. Once that diagnostic code for homosexuality was removed, physicians, including psychiatrists, have been prevented from diagnosing homosexuality as a mental disorder for more than three decades.


*American Medical Association statistic, 2002.

And some people used to think that Black people were cursed because of their skin color. Some people believe that women were "cursed" because they have a period. The dark ages were a bad time and it seems they lasted until the 1970's for some people.

[Angel]

Lay off the meds. "The issue at hand" starts with the first quoted text above. Try to stay coherent. Thanks.

Says the man who is quoting sources he doesn't even understand to try to prove a point-one that has nothing to do with the orginal topic.

[BobbyinTN]

Dan, congratulations on your ability to plagiarize....but what is it that you are trying to prove? We all understand the reproductive process but this is not about reproduction.

#1 I did not plagiarize. The sources are all there.

#2 Homosexuality is abnormal behavior.

Then so is monogamy and any form of birth control and people that are born sterile and that would also mean that any child born with a birth defect should not be allowed to marry, because "they just ain't right".

[BobbyinTN]

Dan, in one post you "pasted" that homosexuality is not a recognized diagnosis, in the next post you said it was an abnormality.....which is it?????

Re-read. They both conclude that it is abnormal or, in the case of the first article, "aberrant." Same thing.

Almost every species in the animal kingdom has same sex mates. That would mean it is of "nature", "natural". It could nature engineers homosexuals for population control. The larger the species grows, the more same-sex partners there are.

This is not my original idea, this is basically what most scientists believe.

[Saint John]

Question: If a gay couple want to be married in a church that by doctrine can not allow that to happen, can the couple now sue that church? Can they have that church's non-profit status recalled? We are already living in a law suit crazy country. I think the answer to my above question is: YES. And this will happen sooner rather than later should things remain the same.

How does seperation of church and state work in the above scenario?

Why would anyone want to? If the church says it doesn't perform gay marriages, then there should be no problem.

There are churches here in Tennessee that will marry a gay couple, even though it's not legal, so I doubt we'd have to force any church to marry us that had a problem with it.

Of course, putting the fear of that out there is all that matters, right? Saying the sky will fall, earth will burn and little children will never grow up correctly again is just another fear tactic to compensate for your own fear of the unknown and change.

Let's examine it from this perspective: For all intents and purposes, for something to be called moral it has to have universal value. What universal value does homosexuality have when, if it were the chosen path of all, would put an end to humanity in one generation? How can this behavior, when all that engage in it certainly have the ability to reason this, be considered anything but irrational/abnormal?

[BobbyinTN]

Dan, in one post you "pasted" that homosexuality is not a recognized diagnosis, in the next post you said it was an abnormality.....which is it?????

Re-read. They both conclude that it is abnormal or, in the case of the first article, "aberrant." Same thing.

I hardly think quoting an article that states that homosexuality as been removed as a diagnosis is proof that it's abnormal behavior.

Then what do you consider one man ramming his crank into another man's shitter? Normal?!?!

Yeah, as a matter of fact, it is normal for some of us and it's just as normal for women to get in the ass too. However, not every homosexual practices anal sex just as every heterosexual doesn't practice oral sex.

Sex is natural, sex is good
Not everybody does it
But everybody should

If it's "abnormal" for you, don't do it, but please stop wasting your time worrying about what other people do in the privacy of their own homes.

[BobbyinTN]

If we look at Homosexuality as abnormal then the cause would have be a defect in the sex chromosomes which would verify the notion that being gay is not a choice but is a trait hardwired into those individuals. I guess we could equate it as another variant of retardation from that angle of the argument. How the law treats members of society with other types of mental deficiencies might be a template for what is appropriate here.

Again, puh-lease: read up on your medical terms before throwing them out left and right. There is no fucking way one could equate homosexuality with mental retardation. Seriously, dude? And genetics isn't as simple as you make it out to be. I mean, thanks to Clinton we got our full genome mapped out, but the extreme complexity in how our genes exert its effects on the organism through RNA or protein products is something that's gonna take a shitload of expensive science over a long period to completely understand.

I'm against gay marrying in churches though, as the religious books, be it the Bible or whatever, is obviously against it.

One of the big arguments is that people are born that way, that it's not a choice but a biological calling to be attracted to the same sex. Retardation, mental Defect, whatever we want to call it, it still points to something that scientifically doesn't have a purpose. When you take away the pleasure aspects, sex is primarily for the continuation of the species, whether it be human or animal. When you claim that you don't have that same type of makeup, it has to be considered some type of mutation of chromosomes that obviously goes against the rest of nature.

Or as I said earlier, it's simply nature fixing the population problem.

[Saint John]

Lay off the meds. "The issue at hand" starts with the first quoted text above. Try to stay coherent. Thanks.

Says the man who is quoting sources he doesn't even understand to try to prove a point-one that has nothing to do with the orginal topic.

I was arguing with Parfait, notveryprettyface. Next time stay out of our argument.

[BobbyinTN]

Question: If a gay couple want to be married in a church that by doctrine can not allow that to happen, can the couple now sue that church? Can they have that church's non-profit status recalled? We are already living in a law suit crazy country. I think the answer to my above question is: YES. And this will happen sooner rather than later should things remain the same.

How does seperation of church and state work in the above scenario?

Why would anyone want to? If the church says it doesn't perform gay marriages, then there should be no problem.

There are churches here in Tennessee that will marry a gay couple, even though it's not legal, so I doubt we'd have to force any church to marry us that had a problem with it.

Of course, putting the fear of that out there is all that matters, right? Saying the sky will fall, earth will burn and little children will never grow up correctly again is just another fear tactic to compensate for your own fear of the unknown and change.

Let's examine it from this perspective: For all intents and purposes, for something to be called moral it has to have universal value. What universal value does homosexuality have when, if it were the chosen path of all, would put an end to humanity in one generation? How can this behavior, when all that engage in it certainly have the ability to reason this, be considered anything but irrational/abnormal?

How the fuck can homosexuality put an end to the human race? Are you suddenly gonna turn gay and stop having sex with women because homosexuals have equal rights.

Why don’t you think before you type?

[Angel]

Lay off the meds. "The issue at hand" starts with the first quoted text above. Try to stay coherent. Thanks.

Says the man who is quoting sources he doesn't even understand to try to prove a point-one that has nothing to do with the orginal topic.

I was arguing with Parfait, notveryprettyface. Next time stay out of our argument.

If you don't want others involved in your argument, take it to PM.

And don't EVER call me "notveryprettyface" again.

[BobbyinTN]

Lay off the meds. "The issue at hand" starts with the first quoted text above. Try to stay coherent. Thanks.

Says the man who is quoting sources he doesn't even understand to try to prove a point-one that has nothing to do with the orginal topic.

I was arguing with Parfait, notveryprettyface. Next time stay out of our argument.

If you don't want others involved in your argument, take it to PM.

And don't EVER call me "notveryprettyface" again.

Fuck him Angel. His rational went out with the "gays will cause the end of humanity". LMAO!

[Angel]

Fuck him Angel.

I'd rather not, thank you.

[BobbyinTN]

Fuck him Angel.

I'd rather not, thank you.

LOL! Me neither.

[Saint John]

[How the fuck can homosexuality put an end to the human race? Are you suddenly gonna turn gay and stop having sex with women because homosexuals have equal rights.

Why don’t you think before you type?

I brought up an ethics scenario ... one that you obviously can't respond to intellectually. It's deontilogical in nature and involves a "maxim" or principle. I suggest Kant, if you want to educate yourself on the subject. Tootaloo, fagsack.

[S2M]

Lay off the meds. "The issue at hand" starts with the first quoted text above. Try to stay coherent. Thanks.

Says the man who is quoting sources he doesn't even understand to try to prove a point-one that has nothing to do with the orginal topic.

I was arguing with Parfait, notveryprettyface. Next time stay out of our argument.

Band Name!!! Question: Will they attend MRIII?

[Angel]

[How the fuck can homosexuality put an end to the human race? Are you suddenly gonna turn gay and stop having sex with women because homosexuals have equal rights.

Why don’t you think before you type?

I brought up an ethics scenario ... one that you obviously can't respond to intellectually. It's deontilogical in nature and involves a "maxim" or principle. I suggest Kant, if you want to educate yourself on the subject. Tootaloo, fagsack.

So calling someone "notveryprettyface" and "fagsack" is now considered "intellectual?"

[Behshad]

Bobby ,
You like it in the ass , good for you.
Enjoy it and stop judging us not accepting your behavior. You have no rights to tell us how we should feel since your not a heterosexual

And it's pretty funny that you think that since animals have samesex sessions that makes it ok for you as a human being that you supposedly are.

Your hate will only push people away from accepting you and your rights.