Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's not my argument. It's the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal's argument. It's the Supreme Court's argument.
And I already posted the reply to your refutation IN THE ORIGINAL FREAKING POST!!!!!!
Watch the Alan Keyes video.
I don't care what Alan Keyes says, he's just trying to justify a logically flawed argument. As already pointed out, most constitutional and legal scholars, including the ABA, have rejected this argument. As Judge Ponser said, high courts are political entities. They protect the status quo on difficult political issues and sometimes use somewhat flawed logic to do so. I can fill this thread with poorly-reasoned judicial opinions. There is also always a dissent or lower court with a different opinion.
As already pointed out, most constitutional and legal scholars, including the ABA, have rejected this argument. As Judge Ponser said, high courts are political entities. They protect the status quo on difficult political issues and sometimes use somewhat flawed logic to do so. I can fill this thread with poorly-reasoned judicial opinions.
Then you (and Judge Ponser) undermine the entire legal system. Let's just have anarchy. If we shouldn't listen to the high courts, then why respect the law at all?
He doesn't defend the law. The department of justice is charged with that task. And he commanded them not to defend it, and in so doing he violated the law.
Wrong. The law is still the law. He directed the Dept of Justice not to defend legal challenges to the law, something most Presidents have done.
Well the great orator has already said he believes that DOMA is unconstitutional and has told the DOJ to not defend it in court which is by the way yet another direct violation of the big piece of paper. See Obama doesn't need the supreme court to tell him what is unconstitutional or not as he went to Harvard.
Just so you know, the DOJ is a part of the Executive Branch i.e the Cabinet. The president, being the Head of Government, can direct any and all Cabinet Departments to do as he pleases, without the directive of Congress, so long as it's legal. Not defended DOMA is not illegal.
It is the same idea when Gov Arnold refused the defend the Prop 8 lawsuit here in California.
Well, it's probably for the benefit of DOMA anyway. Obama telling the DOJ not to (poorly) defend DOMA opened up the position for a QUALIFIED team to defend DOMA.
Actually, the propagation of humanity is but one reason. There are many other reasons...
The next relevant state interest is related to the others. It is that marriage provides the next generation the training and attributes necessary to sustain a liberal democracy.
The link between marriage and social order has been noted by the U.S. Supreme Court in an oft-cited statement, Quote:
Other contracts may be modified, restricted, or enlarged, or entirely released upon the consent of the parties. Not so with marriage. The relation once formed, the law steps in and holds the parties to various obligations and liabilities. It is an institution, in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.
Remember, the SUPREME COURT said this.
to the quote:
the words in bold, sounds vaguely Hitleresque.
Still, homosexual marriage doesn't break down the fabric of society. I would love to know if so, how. Gay marriage has been 'legal' for almost a decade in my home state of Massachusetts [first in the nation!!!!]. the sky didn't fall, churches were not forced into anything they didn't want. In fact many communities have improved over the past decade-including my hometown of Springfield, where crime is down, home ownership is up. I'm not necessarily saying the two are connected, but it is in the same period of time.
If anything, it reinforces community, and reinforces civil liberties GUARANTEED-life, liberty and happiness.
PS, the reason I quote the word legal is because I see it not as a new law, but simply codifying a self-evident right.
Now I know this will be difficult for you to imagine, but try your best please. Imagine... what if homosexuality really is a mental illness. I know... I know... "but it's not." I said imagine. Please. Now that you are (fleetingly) imagining homosexuality to be a mental illness, imagine whether or not we should sanction it. Should we encourage people to embrace their mental illness? Again I know... "it's not a mental illness." Come on back to the point I'm raising. What if it is a mental illness. Yes yes... "science has proven that it's not." Except that it hasn't. Just stay with me... if homosexuality is a mental illness, then there is no reason to grant any special privileges to it. I know.. "but the civil rights..." Yes, people have civil rights to freedom, but it's legal to lock up people with schizophrenia. I'm not saying to lock up homosexuals. I'm saying what if it's a mental illness. Should we change our laws to allow people to indulge in a mental illness? Right.. "but studies show that reparative therapy is harmful." No it doesn't. And please stay with me. Remember, this is a "what if".
So, everything you (all) say, you are assuming that homosexuality is not a mental illness. Of course its understandable. You have grown up in a culture that has slowly embraced homosexuality. But I must inform you that it did so not because of any kind of scientific reasoning. The scientific reasoning changed because of political pressure, not because of science. The culture has changed its views on homosexuality because of social activism by homosexual uh... activists... the so called gay agenda. By the way, the gay agenda is real. It was outlined by homosexual activists in the book "After the Ball."
Of course it seems okay on the surface. But it also makes the assumption that homosexuality is okay. And everything you have been told about homosexuality has BEGUN with 1) Alfred Kinsey, a known pederast, bisexual, sado-masochist whose studies have been THOROUGHLY debunked. 2) The American Psychiatric Association board's controversial decision to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders, a decision it made against the views of its member body. All subsequent study about homosexuality has had to exist in a pro-gay environment. And as such all scientific study defending homosexuality is flawed. Not because I say so... but because... well... look at the studies. They don't make accurate comparisons. They compare apples to oranges. They ignore important information. Their sample sizes are too small. They jump to conclusions. They make commentary on data that doesn't support the conclusion. The studies are flawed. And the political environment in the psychology and medical fields make it darn near impossible to refute the claims that homosexuality is benign.
I know it's difficult to accept this because you want life to be fair. It's not fair that homosexuals can't have children. It's not fair that homosexuals shouldn't marry. And it's not fair that blind people can't see. It's not fair that deaf people can't hear. I know. It's not fair. But threatening 97% of the population isn't the answer.
Whether or not homosexuality is a mental illness... it is at best a physical defect. And homosexuality is not benign.
And by the way, calling me a bigot or a homophobe or hater also requires homosexuality to not be a mental illness or a physical defect. I'm not stating my "opinion" based on bigotry. I'm stating the facts. Homosexuality has never been proven to be biologically based. If any study does find a biological cause, then it is a case of "something going wrong" in the development of the child/fetus. And finally, homosexuality is proven to be detrimental to the individual, and to society itself.
ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE!!! And also people are losing their jobs in states that legalized gay marriage if they practice their first amendment rights and refuse to stamp a gay marriage certificate.
Please show me where the separation of church and state is "constitutionally mandated."
Atheistic organizations are allowed to donate. Why can't religious organizations be allowed to donate to protect their own self interests?
Cheese. You can cut the ignorance in here with a frikkin knife.
Oh really........well show your fellow posters the statistics that gay marriage causes job losses...what a ridiculous statement and NOT from a homophobic organization like N.O.M.
I'm sick and tired of the religious crap....it's clearly stated the state shall sponsor nor inhibit any religion! That's pretty plain to me and the majority of educated Americans.
Now I know this will be difficult for you to imagine, but try your best please. Imagine... what if homosexuality really is a mental illness. I know... I know... "but it's not." I said imagine. Please. Now that you are (fleetingly) imagining homosexuality to be a mental illness, imagine whether or not we should sanction it. Should we encourage people to embrace their mental illness? Again I know... "it's not a mental illness." Come on back to the point I'm raising. What if it is a mental illness. Yes yes... "science has proven that it's not." Except that it hasn't. Just stay with me... if homosexuality is a mental illness, then there is no reason to grant any special privileges to it. I know.. "but the civil rights..." Yes, people have civil rights to freedom, but it's legal to lock up people with schizophrenia. I'm not saying to lock up homosexuals. I'm saying what if it's a mental illness. Should we change our laws to allow people to indulge in a mental illness? Right.. "but studies show that reparative therapy is harmful." No it doesn't. And please stay with me. Remember, this is a "what if".
So, everything you (all) say, you are assuming that homosexuality is not a mental illness. Of course its understandable. You have grown up in a culture that has slowly embraced homosexuality. But I must inform you that it did so not because of any kind of scientific reasoning. The scientific reasoning changed because of political pressure, not because of science. The culture has changed its views on homosexuality because of social activism by homosexual uh... activists... the so called gay agenda. By the way, the gay agenda is real. It was outlined by homosexual activists in the book "After the Ball."
Of course it seems okay on the surface. But it also makes the assumption that homosexuality is okay. And everything you have been told about homosexuality has BEGUN with 1) Alfred Kinsey, a known pederast, bisexual, sado-masochist whose studies have been THOROUGHLY debunked. 2) The American Psychiatric Association board's controversial decision to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders, a decision it made against the views of its member body. All subsequent study about homosexuality has had to exist in a pro-gay environment. And as such all scientific study defending homosexuality is flawed. Not because I say so... but because... well... look at the studies. They don't make accurate comparisons. They compare apples to oranges. They ignore important information. Their sample sizes are too small. They jump to conclusions. They make commentary on data that doesn't support the conclusion. The studies are flawed. And the political environment in the psychology and medical fields make it darn near impossible to refute the claims that homosexuality is benign.
I know it's difficult to accept this because you want life to be fair. It's not fair that homosexuals can't have children. It's not fair that homosexuals shouldn't marry. And it's not fair that blind people can't see. It's not fair that deaf people can't hear. I know. It's not fair. But threatening 97% of the population isn't the answer.
Whether or not homosexuality is a mental illness... it is at best a physical defect. And homosexuality is not benign.
And by the way, calling me a bigot or a homophobe or hater also requires homosexuality to not be a mental illness or a physical defect. I'm not stating my "opinion" based on bigotry. I'm stating the facts. Homosexuality has never been proven to be biologically based. If any study does find a biological cause, then it is a case of "something going wrong" in the development of the child/fetus. And finally, homosexuality is proven to be detrimental to the individual, and to society itself.
Your posts are extremely homophobic....anyone still ranting about gays being mentally disturbed is uneducated and obviously not willing to read the scientific literature....that proves them wrong.
Your Gay parents link crap is written by a "man" that the Southern Poverty Law Center cites as being "close to a Nazi".......try again and read your links before posting them......because the article actually REFUTES what you are claiming and you just lost ALL credibility by trying to push your agenda without any facts or scientific data.
And you first link was discredited over a decade ago...you must be new to debating. I will no longer reply to your posts.....since you use unreliable links and don't bother to even read them first.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
