Federal judge overturns Utah's ban on gay marriage

[HandyAndy]

I thought id do this up for people out there who find it easier with visual aids lol

http://s18.postimg.org/lf3ioixhl/incompatible1000.jpg

 

[josh987654321]

I have to say though, the most amazing thing to me about this whole push for same sex marriage, is the silence of the scientific community on the detrimental sexual practices of homosexuality.

I have come accross these good posts from some others on different threads that I would like to quote for people here.
Diana Catherine:

I am a nurse who has worked with AIDS patients in the past and have seen death from poor choices and I can’t tell you how many men regretted their past lives of being sexually involved with another man. I have seen the physical and emotional trauma that accompanies this lifestyle. The anger, the sadness because they didn’t listen or someone kept telling them it is okay, nothing will happen to you and believed the lie that it is okay…? Best look before you think this is not harming anyone.

Problem is today many don’t care. They would rather use the homosexual for a vote or a movie or tv show that brings in a lot of money or a youth novelist who thinks the subject would be popular and therefore can make a lot of money. That is not caring but just meanness and extremely sad. Using someone for personal gain without any care of the end result to that person, only selfish gain.

False hope is all the world is offering homosexuals or anyone for that matter. Jesus Christ is the only answer and he can individually bring peace to each and everyone but not if they listen to lies such as, “it doesn’t matter who anyone sleeps with.”

I would suggest you visit the website of the CDC (Center for Disease Control) and read for yourselves. It is really sad that the world has silenced the CDC and they are not loudly informing people of the dangers of an active homosexual lifestyle, yet allowing the world to encourage young men to pursue this lifestyle. It is like giving them poison. Check it out:

cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.html

Diana Catherine:

The politicians change their ideas about homosexuality because they want a vote, the motion picture industry and internet for money. People are even writing novels today that appeal to youth to spread and encourage homosexual behavior. They are lied to, everyday. Told by people that this lifestyle is okay and it is not.

Again I will include my link on the dangers of a homosexual lifestyle from the Center for Disease Control and hope and pray that we stop imposing and encouraging this lifestyle on young boys and men and start encouraging them to lead the life God intended for them. Each and every human being has an answer to the issues in their life and that answer is the person of Jesus Christ.

cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.html

When you have worked and cared for AIDS patients and seen the regret, physical hardships, emotional hardships and death that happens you have a whole different outlook. Notice in the link who is at greater risk. Why isn’t anyone talking about this? Why are people not warning young people of the dangers of engaging in homosexual sexual activities?

That is why the Catholic church speaks the way it does on this issue because we are concerned for peoples lives, not popularity.

Diana Catherine:

meltzerboy:

The sexual relationship makes no biological sense for the purpose of procreation. But sex between humans is also an expression of love, companionship, and pleasure for the self and one’s partner. In this, homosexual sex does make sense.

Not when you understand the way the body works. The reproductive system is the only system of the body that to work takes two people of opposite sex but (being a little graphic) homosexual sex between men is the working of the digestive system and the reproductive system. Those two systems don’t combine together and causes problems in each system. It is not the way nature intended this to happen.

Just had to bold that bit.

LisaA:

Those who claim somehow same sex relationships aren’t inherently unhealthy also need a bit of biology instruction. It’s fascinating to hear from a physician regarding the way we are fearfully and wonderfully made, even if he’s not a believer. For example male sperm as an “invader” would normally be rejected by the body, stimulating a chemical response as if a foreign bacteria had entered. But in fact a woman’s reproductive tract is designed to accept, and in fact encourage the transmission of sperm toward an egg. Not so with the entrance into the mouth or lower GI tract.

Ask yourself why all of our dentists are now checking us for oral cancer…could it be they think we’re all dipping “chew?” Nope. All of the oral sex that is of course no only practiced by homosexuals but more likely for their sexual activity, has resulted in the spread of STDs that result in mouth cancer. Nice huh? Oh and I don’t think anyone needs to be treated to the impact of anal penetration, with or without an STD being introduced.

I was watching “The Doctors” the other day and even on their show they are always talking about how “sex is good for you” it relieves stress etc etc, but not once do they mention the dangers of oral sex, or all of those other sexual activities that are gravely dangerous and which is practically the only kind available to the homosexual community.

I also heard from another poster about how the scientific community (can’t remember where) removed “homosexuality” as a disorder, not due to any science, but due to a vote! because they didn’t like what the science had to say.

I cannot make this any clearer, the sexual acts of homosexuality means to use the bodies organs in a manner in which they were not designed to be used for, it’s not only immoral, but highly unhealthy, and society wants to advocate this?

“It’s better to be awakened by a hard truth than put to sleep by a seductive lie.” Dr Phil.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Monkey1976]

So, let us ignore the exceptions. You are saying that ALL marriages must have the possibility of procreation. What then do you do with the exceptions, the marriages with no possibility of procreation? Do you declare them invalid? Do you allow them? If you declare them invalid, then you will declare a minority of opposite-sex marriages invalid, along with all the same-sex marriages. If you allow them, then you are allowing the same-sex marriages along with the infertile opposite-sex marriages. The exceptions do exist. What are you going to do with them?

Show me the 100% accurate fertility test that does not involve an invasion of privacy or disclosure of medical information, and that argument might have merit.

 

[livingwordunity]

One more time: Male female sexual activity has POTENTIAL to create human life. Not all sexual activity, not even every marital embrace will result in conceiving a child. That does not negate the fact that there IS the possibility within the continuum of male female sexual activity.

And, if liberals didn’t believe this they wouldn’t be claiming that they can’t live without their artificial contraception and abortions. But, when they talk about so-called same-sex ‘marriage’ suddenly we are supposed to believe that it’s so rare that a heterosexual couple is fertile and can have a baby. It is a full 180 degree contradiction that they swing back and forth with continually.

This post linked here (#823)

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

I also heard from another poster about how the scientific community (can’t remember where) removed “homosexuality” as a disorder, not due to any science, but due to a vote! because they didn’t like what the science had to say.

Unfortunately you’ve been told an oft repeated claim which is not entirely factual. The decision to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder was not a mere show of hands. There was research and there were studies into the matter in the years leading up to that decision; a decision which was made and ratified by the majority of APA members based on their knowledge of the research and the results of those studies.

 

[josh987654321]

Unfortunately you’ve been told an oft repeated claim which is not entirely factual. The decision to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder was not a mere show of hands. There was research and there were studies into the matter in the years leading up to that decision; a decision which was made and ratified by the majority of APA members based on their knowledge of the research and the results of those studies.

Thank you for clearing that up for me EmperorNapoleon.

 

[livingwordunity]

Unfortunately you’ve been told an oft repeated claim which is not entirely factual. The decision to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder was not a mere show of hands. There was research and there were studies into the matter in the years leading up to that decision; a decision which was made and ratified by the majority of APA members based on their knowledge of the research and the results of those studies.

There’s a reason that you aren’t providing the research and studies - it’s because there was none. The fact is that the removal of homosexuality from the list of pychological disorders was purely a political move motivated entirely by a take over of the APA by the “gay” lobby. And, the APA continues to be bullied by the political correctness liberal lobbies even on other issues outside of this one such as the political tug-of-war in the APA over whether PMS should be taken off of the list of psychological disorders. The radical feminists are the ones leading the charge to take PMS off the list.

 

[Monkey1976]

Unfortunately you’ve been told an oft repeated claim which is not entirely factual. The decision to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder was not a mere show of hands. There was research and there were studies into the matter in the years leading up to that decision; a decision which was made and ratified by the majority of APA members based on their knowledge of the research and the results of those studies.

So there wasn’t an effort by gay psychiatrists - one of whom was the APA president-elect - to specifically remove homosexuality as a diagnosis from the DSM? (Hint - the grandson of John Spiegel - the aforementioned president-elect - gave the history of what happened in this interview.)

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

There’s a reason that you aren’t providing the research and studies - it’s because there was none.

Start with “The adjustment of the male overt homosexual”, a study conducted by Dr. Evelyn Hooker and published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Projective Techniques in 1957. You can work your way up to 1974 from there.

 

[livingwordunity]

Start with “The adjustment of the male overt homosexual”, a study conducted by Dr. Evelyn Hooker and published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Projective Techniques in 1957. You can work your way up to 1974 from there.

Okay, so you provided a study. But, the APA’s decision to actually take homosexuality off the list of psychological disorders was still politically motivated. It happened right at the height of the “gay rights” political revolution. The APA was under a lot of political pressure when they finally gave in to the screaming protesters.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Okay, so you provided a study. But, the decision to actually take homosexuality off the list of psychological disorders was still politically motivated. It happened right at the height of the “gay rights” political revolution.

Whatever the catalyst for reviewing the decades of scientific literature which came before what you call “the gay rights political revolution”; they still made the right decision because it mirrored the majority conclusions which had been reached by the experts in the field for almost twenty years.

 

[livingwordunity]

Whatever the catalyst for reviewing the decades of scientific literature which came before what you call “the gay rights political revolution”; they still made the right decision because that it mirrored the majority conclusions reached by the experts in the field for almost thirty years.

I don’t know if you know this, but there’s a reason why Psychology can’t be considered a “hard science”. It’s because it is extremely subjective and subject to political influence. This weakness is even admitted in the field of Psychology itself.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

I don’t know if you know this, but there’s a reason why Psychology can’t be considered a “hard science”. It’s because it is extremely subjective and subject to political influence. This weakness is even admitted in the field of Psychology itself.

Then why do you care what the APA classifies as a mental disorder?

 

[livingwordunity]

Then why do you care what the APA classifies as a mental disorder?

Whether I care what they say is besides the point that the reason they changed their position was politics. As I was saying, one of the current political dilemmas for the APA is whether to take PMS off of their list of psychological disorders. And, the ones that could make the difference in their decision is the radical feminist lobby. The APA is a slave to political pressures.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

All this talk of biology and genitalia and gender. Can we not recognize that marriage occurs between humans? That love, attachment, coupling, bonding, or whatever you want to call it or whatever it is that brings two people together occurs between people regardless of gender?

Homosexuals are free to love, attach, couple, bond, or whatever. Call it “marriage” if you like, the state can call “marriage” what is not (union of two men or two women) notwithstanding it has neither authority nor competence to declare so, no more than it can declare up is down or left is right. But the rest of society should not be expected to recognize such unions as marriage. This is not based upon hostility against homosexual persons; it is based on the belief that the sine qua non of marriage is the potential begetting of children, therefore making marriage necessarily a social contract between opposite sexed partners in forming the family, society’s building block.

This is going off topic but same-sex couples don’t have to take that kind of abuse sitting down.

You must have a different definition of abuse.
,

 

[rossum]

Show me the 100% accurate fertility test that does not involve an invasion of privacy or disclosure of medical information, and that argument might have merit.

I am not advocating fertility tests, I am merely pointing out the logical consequences of the “couples must be fertile to be married” argument. The current system allows infertile couples to marry. I think that is fine, and does not need to be changed.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Homosexuals are free to love, attach, couple, bond, or whatever. Call it “marriage” if you like, the state can call “marriage” what is not (union of two men or two women) notwithstanding it has neither authority nor competence to declare so, no more than it can declare up is down or left is right.

The state has the right to declare what is, and what is not, a legal civil marriage. That is, after all, what a civil marriage is: a marriage recognised in law.

Religious marriages are, of course a different matter, where the state has no authority.

rossum

 

[LisaA]

And, if liberals didn’t believe this they wouldn’t be claiming that they can’t live without their artificial contraception and abortions. But, when they talk about so-called same-sex ‘marriage’ suddenly we are supposed to believe that it’s so rare that a heterosexual couple is fertile and can have a baby. It is a full 180 degree contradiction that they swing back and forth with continually.

This post linked here (#823)

YES! You have pointed out yet another amazing hypocrisy of the Left. Great point!
Lisa

 

[LisaA]

So, let us ignore the exceptions. You are saying that ALL marriages must have the possibility of procreation. What then do you do with the exceptions, the marriages with no possibility of procreation? Do you declare them invalid? Do you allow them? If you declare them invalid, then you will declare a minority of opposite-sex marriages invalid, along with all the same-sex marriages. If you allow them, then you are allowing the same-sex marriages along with the infertile opposite-sex marriages. The exceptions do exist. What are you going to do with them?

We are discussing civil marriages in Utah. There is a far wider range of “relationships” than civil marriages in Utah. Adulterous liaisons come under the heading “relationships”, but they do not come under the heading of “civil marriage”. You cannot equate marriage and relationships. The two are different.

Infertile couples can legally marry. Opposite-sex infertile couples can marry, and in some places same-sex infertile couples can marry. Fertility is not a legal requirement for civil marriage.

Show me the law that requires a fertility test for both partners before a civil marriage. Show me the law that requires a certain number of children to be born otherwise the civil marriage is automatically dissolved.

You are arguing on the basis of fertility and procreation, and neither fertility nor procreation is a legal requirement for civil marriage. Your argument is irrelevant. There is no legal fertility requirement placed on civil marriage.

We are discussing one of the many different versions of the institution of marriage: civil marriage. We are not discussing Catholic marriage. We are not discussing Moslem marriage or any of the other versions of marriage. I am arguing about civil marriage, as per the topic of this thread.

In the context of civil marriage, procreation and fertility are not a consideration because they are not mentioned in the relevant laws.

rossum

rossum you think you are so clever and that you can simultaneously take two opposite positions and sound credible. It’s not working.

Again the discussion is of MARRIAGE, not of the particular situation of a particular marriage. The institution of marriage was and is based on its function as a building block for society through the birth and raising of children. So fertility is relevant to the institution of marriage but it is not essential to every marriage. Quit creating strawmen with your individual fertility test theory.

You admit that not all relationships are marriage. Touche’ You are right and same sex relationships fall right into that category.

Society has no vested interest in promoting an unhealthy, non-procreative and statistically unstable relationship. How is SOCIETY benefitting by Joe and Bob calling themselves married? What homosexualists cannot seem to grasp is that their sexual practices have zero SOCIETAL benefit. They may give you transitory pleasure (and an array of health problems) but SOCIETY does not benefit by someone’s non-procreative and unhealthy sex practices.

Again quit looking at the issue through your own self interest. Same sex “marriage” might be a financial benefit to the individuals but it does not benefit society. The purpose of state support of various institutions such as marriage is that it was deemed society benefits, not that it makes a few individuals happy.

BTW I’ve been meaning to ask. You claim to be a Buddhist but as I understand it, sodomy is prohibited by your faith and specifically anal intercourse. Why are you such an advocate for societal recognition of a practice your faith prohibits?

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

All this talk of biology and genitalia and gender. Can we not recognize that marriage occurs between humans? That love, attachment, coupling, bonding, or whatever you want to call it or whatever it is that brings two people together occurs between people regardless of gender?

You make OUR point. Love, attachment, bonding does exist between humans of the same sex and opposite sex. But not all “love, bonding, and attachment” is marriage. I dearly love my female friends. I love my sister (also a female). I love my mother. But my relationship with these other females are not marriage.

It is the homosexualists who demand we recognize their sexual activity as making their relationship “equivalent” to a male female marriage. Thus “all this talk of biology, genitalia and gender…” It IS your issue, the state recognition of a non-procreative and unhealthy relationship.

With or without “marriage” you are free to love, bond, attach yourself as you wish. It’s when you demand society recognize sodomy or other non-procreative activity as being equivalent to male/female marriage that your whole argument fails. Then to say it’s NOT all about sex becomes truly laughable. It IS all about sex.

Lisa