Breaking News - Gay Marriage Ruling

[frankenstein]

Heatherann, address the truth of the claims you copy and pasted in post 265. Was eHarmony in violation of New Jersey? EHarmony settled because New Jersey found there was probable cause that eharmony was in violation of the law. Does violating the law matter? The person fired from the University in Ohio, has yet to be resolved case, the out come is important, and I would say her rights were violated, However, that an action may violate someones rights does not always prevent the actor from committing the violation. The real test is whether the court will uphold the firing.

As for the photographer, she was also found to be in violation of the law, New Mexico law. Does that fact that she was in violation of the law matter?

As for the field trip, it was not mandatory and was arrainged by parents, do those facts matter, when someone is trying to suggest a school system if forcing the gay agenda on child?

I am surprised the website you copied from did not mention the Church which lost its tax exempt status, why did it loose it status, because the Church was in violation of the law, infact that Church was for intents and purposes a oath breaker, in that the Church did not want to fulfill its obligation required for Tax Exempt status.

The horror of the stories used by that anti-gay crowd loose a lot of force once the full picture is known

[HeatherAnn]

The reason you are accused of being homophobic is because your arguments are not rational.

Here, for example, if your are really concern about gay promiscuity, then you should support and endorse gay marriage, as a means to create stable long term monogamous relations in the gay community.

Anatomy isn't rational???

The United States Center for Disease Control is not rational???

Human Development studies are not rational???

How much more rational could I be???

It seems the fear is coming from gay-supporters, who fear truth.

Some marry & don't have children, but the primary societal purpose of marriage is to protect children, who cannot fend for themselves as 2 adults can, if the couple splits.

Redefining marriage for the purpose of sex is not in society's interest, at large. Just because an ambulence runs a light, doesn't mean we should take out the light.

And do you know what the divorce rate is? Marriage is not a guarantee for monogamy, especially when it comes to homosexuals, statistically.

One study showed 66% of gay couples had sex outside their relationship the first year...

Aprox 90% had sex outside their relationship if it lasted 5 years.

http://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf

[Jaybear]

The horror of the stories used by that anti-gay crowd loose a lot of force once the full picture is known

Some conservatives are starting to come around and admit that they were wrong. From David Frum:

Yet I find myself strangely untroubled by New York state's vote to authorize same-sex marriage -- a vote that probably signals that most of "blue" states will follow within the next 10 years.

I don't think I'm alone in my reaction either. Most conservatives have reacted with calm -- if not outright approval -- to New York's dramatic decision.

Why?

The short answer is that the case against same-sex marriage has been tested against reality. The case has not passed its test.

[HeatherAnn]

The horror of the stories used by that anti-gay crowd loose a lot of force once the full picture is known

You have not presented much of anything. Please provide links of credible sources regarding the "full picture."

[Jaybear]

Anatomy isn't rational???

Anatomy is not an argument, its a word.

Are you familiar with the concept of causation?

Specifically what problems will gay marriage cause, and why?

[TAO]

Anatomy is not an argument, its a word.

Are you familiar with the concept of causation?

Specifically what problems will gay marriage cause, and why?

Mordecai, can you please pull up those statistics about Eurpoean countries that passed gay mairrage laws in relation to the amount of children born out of wedlock and other stats?

Also Jaybear... if you look up... HeatherAnn did cite some statistics.

There are statistics out there =|.

[frankenstein]

You have not presented much of anything. Please provide links of credible sources regarding the "full picture."

cheeseypetes, if you were do some research before you copy and paste.

from foxnews field trip to gay wedding " The field trip was suggested by a parent"

but for duplicity purposes New Jersey Church looses tax exempt status the Church was required by virtue of tax status to be open to all persons.

press release from Alliance Defense Fund on New Mexico photographer who discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation being tried "under state antidiscrimination laws for sexual orientation discrimination."

as for the Crsytal Dixon, call the Thomas More law group which has her case. I did several hours ago and was told the case is still pending.

as for eharmony, from theAttorney General Office of New Jersey "eHarmony, Inc. entered into the settlement agreement after a discrimination complaint was filed by McKinley against the on-line matchmaker in 2005, triggering a Division on Civil Rights Investigation and Finding of Probable Cause in 2007."

and for a smorgisborge of gay and religious issues see here

now would you care to address the fullness of the claims? when you have done you research please respond.

[Jaybear]

Mordecai, can you please pull up those statistics about Eurpoean countries that passed gay mairrage laws in relation to the amount of children born out of wedlock and other stats?

Gay marriage was approved in Mass in 2003. WHy go to Europe.

And why would gay marriage "cause" more children to be born out of wedlock. That makes no rational sense.

Also Jaybear... if you look up... HeatherAnn did cite some statistics.

Like this one: "One study showed 66% of gay couples had sex outside their relationship the first year..."

That is not an argument. The cite was a 2002 study, so it referred to UNMARRIED gay couples.

Go ahead finish the argument for her.

Start with the premise that unmarried gay couples cheat on each other.

[HeatherAnn]

Anatomy is not an argument, its a word.

Are you familiar with the concept of causation?

Specifically what problems will gay marriage cause, and why?

Jaybear,

Anatomy is "The branch of science concerned with the bodily structure of humans."

Sexual organs are obviously designed to be matched only between a man & a woman.

We are all evidence of this.

Yes, I am familiar with causation.

When 2 males (or a heterosexual couple) engage in **** sex, it can cause health problems like bacterial infection, urinary infection, colon rupture & pain.

Gay unions, conducted privately is their own business & is less likely to cause problems, except within their own sphere of influence.

Demanding EVERYONE believe that homosexual unions are what society should be based on is is a problem for several reasons...

1. Society CANNOT be based on homosexuals unions, since they cannot reproduce & left to themselves would die out.

2. Our country is founded on civil rights - including the freedom to believe as we choose, including that homosexual practices are morally wrong. (Feelings are not wrong - impulsively & harmfully behaving is.)

3. Homosexuals statistically, have more health problems. Most parents don't want children encouraged to be homosexuals, as has happened in some schools, where councilors sent confused 12-year-olds to a gay community center.

4. Statistically, the cases for STDS & AIDS among homosexuals is rising, because they switch partners more often... & gay marriage/union has NOT shown to help.

5. Legalizing gay marriage, along with general societal acceptance of homosexuality has caused more to be become homosexual, bisexual or experiment sexually.

6. Legalizing gay marriage is legalizing a lie - that fathers & mothers are not needed, when study after study has shown that children beneift most from both a mother & father.

7. When rights are curtailed by demanding beliefs, it is opening the door to other rights also being curtailed.

8. If marriage is defined as any couple that loves each other, it paves the way for unhealthy incestual relationships, or polygamy to be honored legally & maritally.

9. Legalizing gay marriage is ignoring environmental influences that contribute to homosexuality & denies & discourages responsibility.

10. If homosexuality is considered inborn under gay marriage, other deviant sexual behavior may also be considered inborn. Will rapists, child molesters & child pornophrahy industry start demanding "rights"?

There's probably many more reasons, but that's what came to mind right now.

Thanks for inspiring me to create this list.

[frankenstein]

Jaybear,

Anatomy is "The branch of science concerned with the bodily structure of humans."

Sexual organs are obviously designed to be matched only between a man & a woman.

We are all evidence of this.

Yes, I am familiar with causation.

When 2 males (or a heterosexual couple) engage in **** sex, it can cause health problems like bacterial infection, urinary infection, colon rupture & pain.

Gay unions, conducted privately is their own business & is less likely to cause problems, except within their own sphere of influence.

Demanding EVERYONE believe that homosexual unions are what society should be based on is is a problem for several reasons...

1. Society CANNOT be based on homosexuals unions, since they cannot reproduce & left to themselves would die out.

2. Our country is founded on civil rights - including the freedom to believe as we choose, including that homosexual practices are morally wrong. (Feelings are not wrong - impulsively & harmfully behaving is.)

3. Homosexuals statistically, have more health problems. Most parents don't want children encouraged to be homosexuals, as has happened in some schools, where councilors sent confused 12-year-olds to a gay community center.

4. Statistically, the cases for STDS & AIDS among homosexuals is rising, because they switch partners more often... & gay marriage/union has NOT shown to help.

5. Legalizing gay marriage, along with general societal acceptance of homosexuality has caused more to be become homosexual, bisexual or experiment sexually.

6. Legalizing gay marriage is legalizing a lie - that fathers & mothers are not needed, when study after study has shown that children beneift most from both a mother & father.

7. When rights are curtailed by demanding beliefs, it is opening the door to other rights also being curtailed.

8. If marriage is defined as any couple that loves each other, it paves the way for unhealthy incestual relationships, or polygamy to be honored legally & maritally.

9. Legalizing gay marriage is ignoring environmental influences that contribute to homosexuality & denies & discourages responsibility.

10. If homosexuality is considered inborn under gay marriage, other deviant sexual behavior may also be considered inborn. Will rapists, child molesters & child pornophrahy industry start demanding "rights"?

There's probably many more reasons, but that's what came to mind right now.

Thanks for inspiring me to create this list.

your post is insulting, I don't think anyone here thinks it is ever a person right to violate another person. The issue being discussed is two consenting adults..

as for polygamy, several here who are LDS have stated that polygamy falls within the definition of marriage as defined by California. The proponents of prop 8 also made the same claim that polygamy is within the definition of marriage that California use....read the court transcripts.

[HeatherAnn]

cheeseypetes, if you were do some research before you copy and paste.

from foxnews field trip to gay wedding " The field trip was suggested by a parent"

but for duplicity purposes New Jersey Church looses tax exempt status the Church was required by virtue of tax status to be open to all persons.

press release from Alliance Defense Fund on New Mexico photographer who discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation being tried "under state antidiscrimination laws for sexual orientation discrimination."

as for the Crsytal Dixon, call the Thomas More law group which has her case. I did several hours ago and was told the case is still pending.

as for eharmony, from theAttorney General Office of New Jersey "eHarmony, Inc. entered into the settlement agreement after a discrimination complaint was filed by McKinley against the on-line matchmaker in 2005, triggering a Division on Civil Rights Investigation and Finding of Probable Cause in 2007."

and for a smorgisborge of gay and religious issues see here

now would you care to address the fullness of the claims? when you have done you research please respond.

=

your post is insulting, I don't think anyone here thinks it is ever a person right to violate another person. The issue being discussed is two consenting adults..

Frankenstein,

Thanks for providing those links. I thought you were arguing with me. Those links support what I originally posted, thanks again.

You insulted yourself by childishly calling something "insulting" without explaining why.

I have no idea what you meant by "The issue being discussed is two consenting adults."

[cdowis]

your post is insulting, I don't think anyone here thinks it is ever a person right to violate another person. The issue being discussed is two consenting adults..

When you speak of two consenting adults, does this include father and daughter.... mother and son.... brother and sister. Is it a legitimate responsibility of society to prevent their right to marry?

[frankenstein]

Frankenstein,

Thanks for providing those links. I thought you were arguing with me. Those links support what I originally posted, thanks again.

You insulted yourself by childishly calling something "insulting" without explaining why.

I have no idea what you meant by "The issue being discussed is two consenting adults."

no heather you did not post what I posted. You deliberately left out the fact that some of the people you mention were violating the law. When the anti-gay agenda uses those cases they always forget to mention that the law was being violated by the "christian".

and as for you insulting post, yes it is insulting to the intelligence of the board, and similar statements have been addressed in other threads so there is no need to address your point by other than over all it is insulting.

cdowis....why not just copy and paste your post from page 3 or where ever you asked the same question, which is also insulting to the intelligence of the board and discussion, the answer you seek can be found in the fundamental nature of the right.

[TAO]

Gay marriage was approved in Mass in 2003. WHy go to Europe.

I think some of the countries there passed gay mairrage before 2003 (just looked, it's 2001)... thus they would be a good linking to what will happen if it is passed. More info is always good.

And why would gay marriage "cause" more children to be born out of wedlock. That makes no rational sense.

Devaluation of the traditional family. Once this thing become accepted, the world takes on a different tone. A bit more, and the world is supporting of the lifestyle that causes children to be born out of wedlock. 'Gay mairrage' is a step in the process, not the entire thing.

Like this one: "One study showed 66% of gay couples had sex outside their relationship the first year..."

That is not an argument. The cite was a 2002 study, so it referred to UNMARRIED gay couples.

So what? Marriage shouldn't be the only thing that binds you to one person. This shows that even given the option to only stick with one partner, many don't. Just because they aren't married doesn't mean they 'default' to having multiple partners.

Secondly, where was the location of the study done?

Go ahead finish the argument for her.

Start with the premise that unmarried gay couples cheat on each other.

I don't start with that premise. I am just pretty sure that 66% of heterosexual people don't cheat on their date/fiance/spouse, if you know what I mean. You'd have to look for studies to be sure though.

[TAO]

your post is insulting, I don't think anyone here thinks it is ever a person right to violate another person. The issue being discussed is two consenting adults.

What if it isn't a person, but is something that looks like a person? Or animals, for instance, who cannot say 'no'.

My friend, there are possibilities which have not been considered. The way the law could be taken could be very dangerous indeed. That is why I worry.

[blackstrap]

I am not opposed to SSM .50 years ago I would have been but not now. After decades of the Hollywood types making a travisty of marriage,of Las Vegas making it a joke, and now reality TV showing the true colors of participants ala "Rich Bride.." etc. I find the whole argument a waste . As a Canadian I saw the writing on the wall over a decade ago when the government quietly accepted the "gay" agenda without any vote of any kind anywhere.I watched as a lesbian couple was married one day and applied for divorce the next so as to begin establishing legal precidents of gay couples. It had very little to do with love and wanting to be together.

It is my opinion ,as it is with some on this board,that the government should regulate only civil unions,that all those wishing to make a parnership do so through the civil union requirements.period. Marriage could be reserved only for those who regard it as a religious commitment.The word "marriage" would then refer only to the concept of Holy Matrimony.Maybe,just maybe that might restore some of the sacredness that it once had. Wishful thinking,I know.

[Mordecai]

Here's the article on European countries: http://old.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200406030910.asp

This may be somewhat informative, but I think the real damage will be evident when children whose brains were still in their linguistically sensitive period when "gay marriage" became law, start having children. That'll be a better measure. So that'll take another decade or so.

[california boy]

What if it isn't a person, but is something that looks like a person? Or animals, for instance, who cannot say 'no'.

My friend, there are possibilities which have not been considered. The way the law could be taken could be very dangerous indeed. That is why I worry.

Oh come on Tao, you can't tell the difference between consenting adults and barn animals? The thing that drives me the most crazy about those that oppose gay marriage is their willingness to distort things and make up scenarios that are totally unrelated to the issue. Do you not have one argument against gay marriage that you have to resort to distortions and barn animals? These kinds of statements that we have seen repeatedly on this board and all over the internet just reinforces the idea that there are no rational arguments against gay marriage. People are willing to cite statistics from countries that were already moving away from marriage prior to gay marriage being passed and try to blame that trend on gay marriage. Their cultures are much different than in the US. They think that a 2 year difference in passage of gay marriage some how makes their statics accurate and toss out any statistics from Mass. If they have such a strong case for their argument, why not cite US numbers. Don't they like what those numbers suggest???

Or the post that cites discrimination cases against homosexuals but in states that DIDN'T EVEN HAVE GAY MARRIAGE. Then they claim it is gay marriage that caused these discrimination judgements. In fact, they BROKE the discrimination laws already on the books at both the state and federal level that have NOTHING to do with gay marriage. Even though the court cases had nothing to do with gay marriage, they want to perpetuate the LIE that they were connected. Come on, do you have no integrity. If you are going to make a case, do it in fact not some A +B = D scenarios.

I personally have such distain for people who claim to value honesty but yet constantly twist facts and statistics for their own use. Stick with the fact or don't present an argument.

Sorry to rag on you Tao. This comment is more universally directed at supposed honest people who have no problem distorting truth to try and make their case. And when confronted with the truth, and the facts of the case are unwilling to admit their distortions. Instead come up with different and equally insulting statements. I am usually able to igonre these tired and completely disproven statement, but I guess like you I grow weary of the willingless of some to walk away from integrety in order to feed on peoples fears to get what they want.

[Jaybear]

I personally have such distain for people who claim to value honesty but yet constantly twist facts and statistics for their own use. Stick with the fact or don't present an argument.

You would think that at some point they would realize that if they have to twist the facts, ignore relevant facts, or resort to rhetorical hyperbole to make their case, they would stop and rethink whether they even have a valid case.

This over the top argument is a beauty:

1. Society CANNOT be based on homosexuals unions, since they cannot reproduce & left to themselves would die out.

HeatherAnn seems to think that if people are given a choice to enter into a gay or heterosexual marriage, everyone will choose to enter into a homosexual union.

Mordie: Here's the article on European countries: http://old.nationalr...00406030910.asp

2004 article. Great. Why didn't the Prop 8 introduce Mr. Kurtz at the trial. Perhaps it because he couldn't withstand cross examination, where he have to explain facts he choose to overlook in his article like these:

Denmark ... began allowing for gay civil unions in 1989. Ten years later, the heterosexual marriage rate had increased by 10.7 percent. Norway did the same in 1993. Ten years later, the heterosexual marriage rate had increased by 12.7 percent. Sweden followed suite in 1995. Ten years later, the heterosexual marriage rate had increased by 28.7 percent. And these marriages were actually lasting; during the same time frame, the divorce rate dropped by 13.9 percent in Denmark, 6 percent in Norway, and 13.7 percent in Sweden.

But in any event, if someone is so bigoted agaisnt homosexuals, that they will not enter into marriage if gays are allowed to marry, then isn't that a good thing for society. Do we really want someone that bigoted to marry and breed? I know I don't.

[Jaybear]

Devaluation of the traditional family. Once this thing become accepted, the world takes on a different tone. A bit more, and the world is supporting of the lifestyle that causes children to be born out of wedlock. 'Gay mairrage' is a step in the process, not the entire thing.

Why does gay marriage "devalue" the traditional family? The trends seem to show that, as society has allowed them to emerge from the closet, gays have come to embrace marriage and family.

In New York, because gays can now marry, they are expecting a wedding boom which will bring hundreds of millions into the economy.

Your reasoning reminds me of that joke, people don't go to that restaurant anymore because its to crowded.

Moreover, children being born out of wedlock is heterosexual problem. Gays couples don't have accidental pregnancy. Could you please explain how gay marriage leads to more children born out of wedlock.

In any event, if you cared about children being raised out of wedlock, why would you deny gay parents the right to marry? That makes not sense, unless you are just pretending to care about the children, to make a point.

[cdowis]

In New York, because gays can now marry, they are expecting a wedding boom which will bring hundreds of millions into the economy.

I'm puzzled.

Are you suggesting that NY should also legalize prostitution, universal gambling, legalize drug use. The economic impact would far surpass SS marriage. If, as you claim, SS marriage could bring hundreds of millions of dollars, these would certainly bring billions.

[HeatherAnn]

Frankenstein,

lol Ok, then, please explain exactly which law they all were violating... law against opposing homosexuality??

How is stating facts isulting to the board?... Unless the board cannot handle truth.

I don't mean to be rude, but calling something or someone a name & then running away without explanation reminds me of child's behavior on the playground.

For the 2nd time, PLEASE explain EXACTLY how each explanation on my list of problematic reasons of gay marriage is insulting.

Jaybear,

Gay marriage devalues the traditional family by devaluing mothers or fathers.

BOTH mothers AND fathers are needed. Gay marriage is saying, "No, kids don't really need a mother, or a father. Just moms or just dads are ok."

This is an obvious & provable lie. Many research findings & articles confirm that just as children are naturally created by the union of a man & women,

children also benefit most from being raised by a MOTHER and a FATHER.

"Children Need Both A Mother And A Father"

Dr. A. Dean Byrd

http://www.narth.com...s/needboth.html

"Why Children need both Mother-Love and Father-Love"

Glenn T. Stanton

http://www.jashow.or...es/2SI0804G.pdf

"Mothers' and Fathers' Socializing Behaviors in Three Contexts: Links with Children's Peer Competence"

Pettit, Gregory S.; Brown, Elizabeth Glyn; Mize, Jacquelyn; Lindsey, Eric

http://www.eric.ed.g...&accno=EJ563106

"Why Children Need a Mother and a Father"

Bill Muehlenberg

http://www.billmuehl...r-and-a-father/

[Jaybear]

Jaybear,

Gay marriage devalues the traditional family by devaluing mothers or fathers.

BOTH mothers AND fathers are needed. Gay marriage is saying, "No, kids don't really need a mother, or a father. Just moms or just dads are ok."

Causation please. I have told you over and over, you can't throw out an insult directed at gays, or gay parents, and just leave it on the table. You need to tie your derogatory comment of gays to the issue of gay marriage.

Gay couples are not raising any children who, but for gay marriage, would be raised by their biological parents in a loving, caring heterosexual household.

If a gay couple is not allowed to marry, they are not going to give up on homosexuality and instead raise children in a "traditional family."

[Jaybear]

I'm puzzled.

Are you suggesting that NY should also legalize prostitution, universal gambling, legalize drug use. The economic impact would far surpass SS marriage. If, as you claim, SS marriage could bring hundreds of millions of dollars, these would certainly bring billions.

Right, that was my point. In fact, every time someone points out that taking an action would be good for the economy, they are likewise advocating legalization of prostitution, gambling and drug use.

Oh, by the way, I am being sarcastic.

[frankenstein]

Frankenstein,

lol Ok, then, please explain exactly which law they all were violating... law against opposing homosexuality??

After the first time I told you, you asked for links.

I provided links and even quoted one of the Lawyers defending the NM photographer. I quoted the Attorney general concerning eharmony. I provided a link to the Church in New Jersey.

And now you to ask "which law"!? It is readily apparent that you are not interested in finding out or knowing the what law was violated. I provided you the information you requested, it is your responsibility to read what you requested learn for yourself.