Judge: Ky. must recognize same-sex marriages

[Chizzang]

Issues like that can be addressed through means other than calling a homosexual relationship "marriage." You and I both know that all the issues of that nature could be addressed and the "homosexual movement" would not be satisfied. You could set it up so that a person could designate someone to have visitation rights in situations like that. You could set it up so that a person could designate someone to receive all of the benefits a spouse enjoys. You could set it up so that the tax benefits would be the same.

But people in the "homosexual movement" would not be satisfied because that's not really what they're after. They want to institutionalize a lie. They want to institutionalize the lie that a homosexual relationship is equivalent to a heterosexual relationship; that being homosexual is just part of normal variation like having blue eyes vs. having brown eyes. So on and so forth.

And it's not true. It's just not.

But it won't be the first lie this culture has institutionalized and it won't be the last.

John,
Lets play your statement ^ all the way out to it's logical end
So one day we all agree (even homosexuals) that homosexuality is NOT RIGHT
We all come to agree it's a defect in genetics and a flaw in the human species

Then what..?

Well I'll tell you what...
we then teach people (the world) that being born homosexual is a defect
And even though it appears in nature throughout some 1500 different species
but it's wrong and it's defective

Then what..?

Then we begin the process of valuing one life as less than another

So I'll tell you what American homosexuals are doing
They're saying FUCK YOU JOHN

They're saying:
we are no less human than you and we experience the same range of emotions and life experiences as you
They are saying:
Your mind (Yours specifically John and those with minds just like yours)
possess more defects than we do as people and citizens



They feel like they are fighting for their very lives
and you as a fundamentalist Christian out to know how that feels (see old testament)

[JohnStOnge]

nd you as a fundamentalist Christian out to know how that feels (see old testament)

As you know or should know by now I am an agnostic.

Otherwise: Why do you think that recognizing something as a disorder is "bad?"

As I have before I will relate this to what I've encountered in having a deaf son. There is a very powerful movement that holds that deafness is not a disorder. It holds that being Deaf (they capitalize it) is what a person is; like being Black or being female. It's natural. You can be born that way (my son was). It occurs in other species. We should not think in terms of it being something that has to be "corrected" or "cured."

To those people, the people who came up with Cochlear Implants are criminals. They are committing genocide against the Deaf Culture.

What is the reason for being against looking for ways to prevent homosexuality or ways to take an individual who is expressing homosexual tendencies and ensure that they develop as a heterosexual?

Be honest now: Your son is doing things that make you think he may develop into a homosexual. Someone has developed a treatment that holds promise for having him develop into a heterosexual male. Would you turn the treatment down? Really?

Right now there is ferocious opposition to even investigating the possibility that such treatment would be effective. There is tremendous pressure to adopt the position that it is an immutable characteristic that cannot be altered.

All in the interest of facilitating homosexuals being able to be in denial about the fact that they are suffering a disorder.

[JohnStOnge]

Then we begin the process of valuing one life as less than another

Again: My son is deaf. I think deafness is a disorder. Do you think that I am beginning the process of valuing his life as less?

Do you think I am wrong for getting my son a Cochlear Implant when he was 2 so that he could have artificial hearing? A lot of "Deaf Culture" advocates would say that I am. They would say I should have just accepted the fact that he is Deaf. That's what he is. I should not think he needed to be "fixed."

So do you think I value him less because I felt the need to "fix" him with a Cochlear Implant so that he can function in the hearing culture?

[Chizzang]

Then we begin the process of valuing one life as less than another

Again: My son is deaf. I think deafness is a disorder. Do you think that I am beginning the process of valuing his life as less?

Do you think I am wrong for getting my son a Cochlear Implant when he was 2 so that he could have artificial hearing? A lot of "Deaf Culture" advocates would say that I am. They would say I should have just accepted the fact that he is Deaf. That's what he is. I should not think he needed to be "fixed."

So do you think I value him less because I felt the need to "fix" him with a Cochlear Implant so that he can function in the hearing culture?

I don't think deaf people should be allowed to have children (or get married)
They are defective and might pass on their defects
plus my Bible says that all human defects must be destroyed at birth
Your child is an abomination and must be put down



No offense but God says so
plus he's clearly "defective"

[JohnStOnge]

I don't think deaf people should be allowed to have children (or get married)
They are defective and might pass on their defects.

There is an argument for that in some cases. There is an argument also for requiring genetic testing. Cystic fibrosis, for instance. If you test two people and they both carry the gene there is a pretty good chance...actually one chance in 4 I think off the top of my head...that any given child they have will have cystic fibrosis.

But I do not take that position. I don't think we should be saying people can't have sex with whoever they want to have sex with. And that includes homosexual sex.

What I'm saying is that "marriage" is a recognition. If you're in a State where people, through the process of representative government, have said they do not want to recognize homosexual relationships as marriage, you should not wish to force them to bestow a particular recognition upon your relationship just because you want to feel validated. If you do something like go to court to force those people to do it you are an asshole. Plain and simple.

And that's what it is. Homosexuals want to feel validated. So they're engaged in forcing other people to do things they don't want to do. THEY are the ones interested in denying liberty.

BTW my son is not deaf due to genetics. He's deaf due to infectious disease. My wife had a primary cytomegalovirus infection while she was pregnant.

[Chizzang]

I don't think deaf people should be allowed to have children (or get married)
They are defective and might pass on their defects.

There is an argument for that in some cases. There is an argument also for requiring genetic testing. Cystic fibrosis, for instance. If you test two people and they both carry the gene there is a pretty good chance...actually one chance in 4 I think off the top of my head...that any given child they have will have cystic fibrosis.

But I do not take that position. I don't think we should be saying people can't have sex with whoever they want to have sex with. And that includes homosexual sex.

What I'm saying is that "marriage" is a recognition. If you're in a State where people, through the process of representative government, have said they do not want to recognize homosexual relationships as marriage, you should not wish to force them to bestow a particular recognition upon your relationship just because you want to feel validated. If you do something like go to court to force those people to do it you are an asshole. Plain and simple.

And that's what it is. Homosexuals want to feel validated. So they're engaged in forcing other people to do things they don't want to do. THEY are the ones interested in denying liberty.

BTW my son is not deaf due to genetics. He's deaf due to infectious disease. My wife had a primary cytomegalovirus infection while she was pregnant.

John, I'm just screwing around (as I'm sure you know)
I wish you and your family all the best sincerely and have no ill feelings for you and hold no grudge

-and- as always you provide an interesting argument

[houndawg]

I don't think deaf people should be allowed to have children (or get married)
They are defective and might pass on their defects.

There is an argument for that in some cases. There is an argument also for requiring genetic testing. Cystic fibrosis, for instance. If you test two people and they both carry the gene there is a pretty good chance...actually one chance in 4 I think off the top of my head...that any given child they have will have cystic fibrosis.

But I do not take that position. I don't think we should be saying people can't have sex with whoever they want to have sex with. And that includes homosexual sex.

What I'm saying is that "marriage" is a recognition. If you're in a State where people, through the process of representative government, have said they do not want to recognize homosexual relationships as marriage, you should not wish to force them to bestow a particular recognition upon your relationship just because you want to feel validated. If you do something like go to court to force those people to do it you are an asshole. Plain and simple.

And that's what it is. Homosexuals want to feel validated. So they're engaged in forcing other people to do things they don't want to do. THEY are the ones interested in denying liberty.

BTW my son is not deaf due to genetics. He's deaf due to infectious disease. My wife had a primary cytomegalovirus infection while she was pregnant.[

You shouldn't have let her go through her pregnancy in the filthiest state in the nation.

[kalm]

Sorry John. The thought police don't own the word "marriage".

I'm not getting the "thought police" reference. Nobody's saying homosexuals can't think whatever they want to think about their relationships.

If there's any "thought police" aspect here it's no the part of the homosexual marriage supporters. They want to force other people to recognize their relationships as having a certain status and think about them in a certain way. They want to force other people to accept what homosexuals do as "normal." So on and so forth. It's ALL about compulsion. If it were not they wouldn't be using the courts when they fail to prevail through the political process.

You want to define marriage and have that definition codified based on your opinions. Would you tell a church that wanted to ordain a gay marriage that they couldn't because it doesn't jive with your definition?

Thought police.

[89Hen]

Chart on AIDS cases...

Point?

The VAST majority of those people are suffering from the effects of their OWN choices.

Why can't you see the difference here?

Point being, the spread of AIDS is bad for society. The rate of spreading is extremely higher amongst the gay community. Using the logic displayed here, it should be illegal for gays to have sex. I'm not advocating for that, just pointing out how ridiculous it is that you and others can't admit that we DO pass laws based in morality and DO make judgement calls based on personal beliefs. Get over yourself jelly.

[YoUDeeMan]

Married people are not required to have sex with each other. . .

Hey now, let's not let that cat out of the bag.

Next thing you'll be saying is that marriages don't require the woman to leave the toilet seat up after she's done. It is, indeed, a slippery slope on which you are traveling.

[YoUDeeMan]

Maybe you're biting too hard?

Don't try to follow my comedy with your own, HD.

I'm like Michaelangelo and you're a buck toothed 4 year old with a fvcking crayon. It just isn't fair

My wife, an art teacher, will appreciate this one, CID.

[YoUDeeMan]

analjelly fails once again.

At least he is consistent.

If we have laws against siblings marrying because of the potential for birth defects, then we need laws to prevent marriages between any two people that have the potential for birth defects.

Tying this in with the abortion issue, we WILL (it is only a matter of time) have the ability to determine specific behavioral impacts on unborn children, and even good enough to determine behavioral impacts on sperm/eggs that could negatively affect the conceived child. Do drugs, damage your sperm, and that results in a miscarriage...a death, and some folks will want you to serve time.

It's coming...yes indeed.

[YoUDeeMan]

BTW, Treehouse Masters had two of the biggest flamers on their show...from Seattle.

Holy crap, they must have found each other at the very end of scramble hour and their relationship is doomed because they are constantly arguing about who gets to be on the bottom. Typical little yappy lap dog pet, too.























houndpuppy, I apologize if this post in any way arouses you. It is meant to be serious reading and not bathroom material.

[Ibanez]

I'm quite shocked at Republicans (conservatives, whatever.) From a business standpoint, same-sex marriage will be a boon in revenue. The wedding industry makes about $50 billion a year. Think of the impact on local catering companies, restaurants, venues, florists, suit rentals, musicians, etc.. if we allowed MORE people to legally marry. Plus, the benefit for lawyers who will have to represent them in divorce procedures. It's win-win!!!

If I were a Republican candidate, I would back gay rights 100%. It's foolish not to.

[houndawg]

Maybe you're biting too hard?

Don't try to follow my comedy with your own, HD.

I'm like Michaelangelo and you're a buck toothed 4 year old with a fvcking crayon. It just isn't fair

Not intended as humor, CID, just trying to help with your o-ring issue...


You're trying too hard to be funny CID, and the strain shows, kinda of like T'man when he was in high school desperately trying to find somebody that wouldn't laugh at him. Just be who you are, if that means writing parking tickets in the embassy lot, so be it. The world needs parking cops too and your job is just as important as anybody elses and none of us think any the less of you.

[houndawg]

Don't try to follow my comedy with your own, HD.

I'm like Michaelangelo and you're a buck toothed 4 year old with a fvcking crayon. It just isn't fair

My wife, an art teacher, will appreciate this one, CID.

She has always been very appreciative, cuck, that's why she is so popular.

[kalm]

I'm quite shocked at Republicans (conservatives, whatever.) From a business standpoint, same-sex marriage will be a boon in revenue. The wedding industry makes about $50 billion a year. Think of the impact on local catering companies, restaurants, venues, florists, suit rentals, musicians, etc.. if we allowed MORE people to legally marry. Plus, the benefit for lawyers who will have to represent them in divorce procedures. It's win-win!!!

If I were a Republican candidate, I would back gay rights 100%. It's foolish not to.

If you were a Republican candidate, you'd lose .

[Ibanez]

I'm quite shocked at Republicans (conservatives, whatever.) From a business standpoint, same-sex marriage will be a boon in revenue. The wedding industry makes about $50 billion a year. Think of the impact on local catering companies, restaurants, venues, florists, suit rentals, musicians, etc.. if we allowed MORE people to legally marry. Plus, the benefit for lawyers who will have to represent them in divorce procedures. It's win-win!!!

If I were a Republican candidate, I would back gay rights 100%. It's foolish not to.

If you were a Republican candidate, you'd lose .

Why? Because I'd be the only Republican that actually BELIEVES in keeping the gov't out of our personal lives?

Well, ya got me there.

[kalm]

If you were a Republican candidate, you'd lose .

Why? Because I'd be the only Republican that actually BELIEVES in keeping the gov't out of our personal lives?

Well, ya got me there.

I'm never paying you a compliment again...

[Pwns]

Here's an example of the practical impact of the lie, though:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/california- ... e-therapy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So if you're a parent and you want to give your kid treatment to try to get them away from homosexuality you are prohibited from doing it.

And that's a problem I saw long ago. Part of this whole thing is establishing the lie that there is nothing "off" about homosexuality, that a person is born that way, that there is no way to change or prevent it, and that we should not even look for ways to change or prevent it.

That outlook is pretty close to self-evidently not true. We know that from identical twin studies. We are, or should be, almost completely positive that while genetics is a factor in homosexuality it is not an absolute determinant. It is clear that the environment plays a role in at least a large proportion of cases and it's possible that it plays a role in all of them.

But "homosexual movement" people don't even want us to look at that.

It's a disorder and we should be looking for ways to eliminate it. But we're in a situation where we are in cultural denial about it even being a disorder. And we've got the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association facilitating the denial.

You don't have to tell me about the lack of rigor in Psychology and Psychiatry, but one thing that is definitely concrete and straight-forward is how disorders are defined. If it can disrupt living a normal life as far as work and relationships with people (not counting being ostracized by others) then it's a disorder. You can't tell me that homosexuality is on the same level as schizophrenia, alcoholism, severe autism, or even Tourette's. It's just ridiculous to do that.

Recognizing same-sex marriages doesn't affirm that gay unions are equal in the eyes of nature or in any god. "Marriage" in this context is a government construct with privileges like power of attorney, joint checking accounts, hospital visitation rights, and things like that. These things come from the government, not religious institutions.

I agree with some of what you say about homosexuality and the science behind it but you seem to be quibbling over minutia and semantics

[BDKJMU]

I'm not getting the "thought police" reference. Nobody's saying homosexuals can't think whatever they want to think about their relationships.

If there's any "thought police" aspect here it's no the part of the homosexual marriage supporters. They want to force other people to recognize their relationships as having a certain status and think about them in a certain way. They want to force other people to accept what homosexuals do as "normal." So on and so forth. It's ALL about compulsion. If it were not they wouldn't be using the courts when they fail to prevail through the political process.

You want to define marriage and have that definition codified based on your opinions. Would you tell a church that wanted to ordain a gay marriage that they couldn't because it doesn't jive with your definition?

Thought police.

Would you tell a church that wanted to ordain a polygamist marriage that they couldn't because it doesn't jive with your definition?

[Chizzang]

Would you tell a church that wanted to ordain a polygamist marriage that they couldn't because it doesn't jive with your definition?

Polygamy is only illegal for tax reasons
You can't have 25 deductions (or whatever)



Get the government OUT of the marriage business (period)

[JohnStOnge]

Would you tell a church that wanted to ordain a gay marriage that they couldn't

No. I'm an agnostic. Why would I want to tell some Church what to do? Aside form that, I certainly wouldn't support violating what that first part of the First Amendment is REALLY all about.

[JohnStOnge]

but one thing that is definitely concrete and straight-forward is how disorders are defined. If it can disrupt living a normal life as far as work and relationships with people (not counting being ostracized by others) then it's a disorder.

I don't know if I'd have posted what I'm about to post if you hadn't wrote that but I'm aware of that and have been thinking about the fact that pedophilia is defined as a disorder but homosexuality not. And, really, what it all comes down to is what disrupts living a normal life, etc. There really is no difference in terms of deviation from the "norm" in terms of sexual behavior.

What we call "pedophilia" does occur among other animals. Like Bonobos for instance. They're the ones who use sexual behavior in a social way and are pointed to a lot. There is sex between adults and individuals that have not reached sexual maturity among Bonobos. Also a pedohphile is arguably "born that way." It's what they are. And they can't be "cured."

I'm talking about true "pedophilia" now. I'm not talking about what you guys rag on me about where I talk about how it's natural to be attracted to sexually mature individuals. I'm talking about people who have a "thing" for individuals that are NOT sexually nature. Like 5 year old girls. That kind of thing.

The sexual orientation of such people is no more misdirected than the sexual orientation of a homosexual is. It is "natural" in the sense that it occurs both among humans and among other animals. People that are like that can't really "help" being like that.

Believe me, I'm not saying we shouldn't have laws against people having sex with 5 year olds. We should. but in terms of biology the preference for having sex with a 5 year old over having sex with a sexually mature member of the opposite sex is no more "deviant" than the preference for having sex with a member of your own sex over a member of the opposite sex is.

There is no "scientific" reason for defining pedophilia as a disorder while not defining homosexuality as such. It's a social, philosophical reason.

[kalm]

Would you tell a church that wanted to ordain a gay marriage that they couldn't

No. I'm an agnostic. Why would I want to tell some Church what to do? Aside form that, I certainly wouldn't support violating what that first part of the First Amendment is REALLY all about.

So you're ok with gay marriage as long as it's endorsed by a church?