For or Against Gay Marriage

Who said anything about sex? Get your mind out of the gutter.........I want to marry her for the benefits married people get..........


[/QUOTE]


with people that have a fanatical viewpoint there is no logic.......
 
Article IV. - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, RecorRAB, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, RecorRAB and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section 2 - State citizens, Extradition

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

(No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.) (This clause in parentheses is superseded by Amendment XIII.)

Section 3 - New States

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Section 4 - Republican government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.



http://www.geocities.com/njcivilunion/full.htm
 
thank you for the information.

weather or not the full faith and credit clause will apply has yet to be tested in court, and it will most likley take the suprean court to decide if gay marrage is protected by this clause. but there is also the posability of congress steping in and set a general law of what marrage is.
 
Absolutely. Homosexuals deserve the rights that heterosexuals have. They deserve the right to pursuit of happiness. It can't "degrade the institution" any more than those bachelor shows on TV. My question to those out there who are opposed to it, why do you want to keep these people from being happy, from raising a family, from pursuing the American dream?
 
Where is the double standard of tossing people from our church, who've had the same religious education that I have had, only because of their sexual orientation ? Our church cannot afford to lose people.
 
Oh yeah? Try dismissing this:
The American Psychiatric Association Coup

Homosexuals commonly point to the fact that the 'medical community' and, more specifically, psychiatrists agree with them that homosexuality is a "normal human sexual response."

It is certainly true that the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality from its list of "mental disorders" twenty years ago, in 1973. This is a fact that almost always comes up in debates with homosexuals.

What the homosexuals do not mention, of course, is that this sudden change in attitude was not based on any new scientific evidence. As described in the following paragraphs, it was a purely political move, induced by a relentless saturation campaign of deception, intimidation, and unethical collusion between the APA committee and activist homosexual groups.

Preparing the Ground:

In 1968, representatives of activist homosexual groups approached leading psychiatrists and the officers of psychiatric organizations and began to lay the groundwork for the reclassification of their perversions as normal manifestations of human sexuality.

These activists correctly recognized that such a move was absolutely mandatory if they were to win public acceptance. After all, society in general would not look very kindly upon the subsequent lobbying done by a group whose members were officially recognized as "mentally disordered."

In the three years during which the APA's Homosexuality Task Force was deliberating, it collaborated actively with several homosexual groups, including the Gay Activist's Alliance, the Mattachine Society, and the Daughters of Bilitis, while completely ignoring organizations with views that contrasted with the homosexuals.

Abram Kardiner, former Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University, revealed that "A powerful lobby of "gay" organizations has brought pressure on the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the category of aberrancy. This is only one facet of the tidal wave of egalitarianism and divisiveness that is sweeping the country...."

During this unethical collusion, Kinsey colleague Paul Gebhard said that anyone who was known to harbor the view that homosexuality was a disorder was systematically excluded from being a member of the Task Force or from even being able to present his views or evidence to it.

In other worRAB, homosexuals packed this committee in the same manner that pro-abortionist and fetal tissue harvesters do: Only those people with the "correct" viewpoint were allowed to voice an opinion.

But the homosexuals did not focus on the APA alone; they intimidated psychiatrists all over the nation. While the APA Task Force ws preparing its report, any psychiatrist or psychoanalyst who dared present documentation that homosexuality was a psychological disorder (anywhere in the country) was shouted down and even physically attacked at public forums or at local and national meetings of mental health professionals.

The APA Caves In:

The years of hard work put in by the homosexuals began to pay off in 1972. The "National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Task Force on Homosexuality Final Report" parroted Alfred Kinsey's proclamation that "exclusive heterosexuality" and exclusive homosexuality" were "sexual extremes," and that most people were basically bisexual.

This report in turn exerted a great deal of influence on the APA. In order to make its final report appear to be scientific, the APA's Homosexuality Task Force sent a letter to all APA member psychiatritst. This letter did not ask whether or not homosexuality should or should not be declared "normal." It was signed by all candidates for the upcoming elections for the APA presidency and urged all members to "vote" that homosexuality was thereafter declared to be on a level with normal sexuality.

This view was so voted by a very slim margin. The letter did not, of course, reveal the fact that it was written and funded by the National Gay Task Force. One of the letter's signers, in fact, later confessed that he knew that such knowledge would have been the "kiss of death" for a pro homosexual vote.

Subsequently, the APA eliminated homosexuality as a mental disorder from the 1973 edition of its "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual."

APA member Dr. Henry W. Reicken cut to the heart of the APA's motivation as he wrote a scathing dissent in the appendix to the above mentioned NIMH report entitled "Detailed Reservations Regarding the Task Force Recommendations on Social Policy:" "It is as if they 'the Task Force' said, "Here is a phenomenon about which we know almost nothing and about which there is a great deal of anxiety and concern; therefore, let us suggest a major revision in public policy for dealing with this phenomenon." I cannot escape the belief that this is an utterly unreasonable conclusion to draw from the sea of ignorance and misinformation in which we find ourselves."

The Essential Point:

The essential point to be made about this chicanery is that the sudden complete reversal in the APA position on homosexuality was not brought about as a result of a careful regime of scholarly research and study; it was a blatantly political move, a 'vote', of all things, on the status of a mental illness. Furthermore, this vote was undertaken in a climate of deception and intimidation.

At no time before or since has the APA or any other psychological or psychiatric professional group 'ever' addressed a mental health question in this manner.

Behind the Scenes:

It is fascinating indeed to see what psychiatrists 'really' think about homosexuality when they are free of the restraints of intimidation and political pressure.

Almost simultaneously with the 1972 National Institute of Mental Health report, the New York County District Branch of the APA's Task Force on Homosexuality produced a second report. According to APA member Charles Socarides, M.D., the document concluded that "....exclusive homosexuality was a disorder of psychosexual development, and simultaneously asked for civil rights for those suffering from the disorder."

It is even more revealing to examine the results of polls of psychiatrists taken since 1973 regarding the issue of homosexual orientation.

The original "voting" letter distributed by the APA Homosexuality Task Force in 1973 was answered by only about one-quarter of the recipients, leading one to speculate that the "volunteer bias" ignored by Kinsey in his original studies led to pro-homosexual results. It is quite certain that, if 'all' of the APA members had returned their "ballots," homosexuality would have remained a mental disorder in the view of the organization.

A later series of private surveys which could be answered confidentially and without fear of retaliation showed that two-thirRAB of APA members psychiatrists regarded homosexuality as abnormal despite the parent organization's switch

More specifically, in 1977, four years after the APA 'switch,' the journal "Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality" revealed that it had polled 2,500 psychiatrists on their view of what "current thinking on homosexuality" was, and, by a lopsided margin of 69% to 18% (nearly four to one, with 13%undecided). the respondents answered that "Homosexuality was usually a pathological adaptation as opposed to a normal variation."

This is certainly a more accurate poll than the original APA letter because the letter was subject to all of the "volunteer bias" that self selected populations exhibit. However, by comparison, the 1977 survey was truly random, and so its results should certainly be given more weight.



courtesy of: EWTN.com
 
Once again, you've managed to point out something that I wrote before being enlightened on some economic realities. When exposed to those facts, I have changed my opinion on granting equal benefits to gays up to but not including the term "marriage". If you're going to go back over my old posts, at least pull one that reflects my current views. But my guess is that you were just looking for ammunition to use against me. Unfortunately, it blew up in your face. :p
 
This is not a Christian country; the Europeans stole this land from Native Americans. But it's fair to say you just insulted a number of people of faith, who donot follow Christianity, only.
 
Hardly. If you are going to make an argument for or against the 14th Amendment based on what the framers could or could not have imagined, then all rulings based on 14th Amendment protections are fair game.

Don't change the rules now that you don't like when they go against you.
 
Voice of Reason is correct, the USA was founded on Christian principles.

However these particular principles are Protestant Christian principles. These principles, particularly the ones to do with the state making no law with regard to religion, are intended to allow people to practice their own Christian religion and to be free of religious interference by the state.

And they extend to people being able to practice non-Christian religions, or no religion at all if they so choose.
 
I'm amazed that you want to continue arguing that homosexuality isn't the major cause of HIV spreading in the US. Here's some more data for you to chew on.



Obviously, it does matter who rubs the bottle.
:rolleyes:
 
There is no such things as gay pedophiles, just as there is no such thing as straight pedophiles. When was the last time you heard the term "straight pedophile" or "heterosexual pedophile"? Equally, there is no reason to be referring to "gay pedophiles". There are only pedophiles.



Psst! Don't look now, but there are liberals hiding under your bed!



Until the end times?



Because shrimp and other shellfish just taste so good?
 
I explain controvesial decisions by judges to myself by noting that they very likely know the law better than I do.

On the face of it, I'm somewhat more inclined to think that some professional judges are more aware of the law than some random person in forum. Yes, it's an appeal to authority, and a fallacy at that, but unless you're also a member of the bar and have experience being a federal judge, they seem to have greater authority than you. Maybe you're a legal scholar, I don't know.
 
I would argue that the idealistic and romantic version of marriage promoted by the church never really existed. That is not to say that there have never been couples that are still happily married after a number of years. However, the Ward and June Cleaver marriages that people love to promote is nothing more than a myth.



I think that it is a mistake for people to insist that they are joining an institution, as if you are entering a prison or insane asylum. Marriage is what the people involved make of it, not what some people want to regulate it as.

[Quote- Taranaki] Of course, this would leave same-sex relationships out in the cold for most people.Thankfully, in my country, the government has recently taken a more enlightened approach.For those non-religious people who elect not to go down the path of marriage, there is the option of having your relationship legally recognised as a civil union.In fact, if you have been in a de facto relationship with the same person for more than two years, the law automatically allows you the same property status as a conventionally-married couple. These rules apply to everyone, hetero or homo. [/quote]

And that is all people who want to have their marriages want: Equal Protection.



This is overly simplistic. One of the things marriage creates is a [special] familial relationship where none existed previously. Wills can be (and have been) successfully contested in court by family members, not to mention how expensive they are.
 
BS. The Treaty of Tripoli (I think that's what it's called) clearly states that the U.S. is not a Christian nation. That treaty was ratified by one of the earliest Senates, in which several of the original Founding Fathers were present. Now, what religion is our country founded on, then? Muslim? Jewish? Pagan?
 
There is a plethora of places straight people ejaculate without protection and without conception. More populating isn't necessarily a good thing. Clearly sex serves many purposes among humans.
 
Back
Top