Supreme Court & Same Sex Marriage

[Biblepoe]

Biblepoe
**
Even if you were able to dig up lots of evidence that psychiatry as a whole is an entirely corrupt field, you still have the fact that the overwhelming % of psychologists of every country thinks the same thing as well, that homosexuality is not a mental disease. **

Practice what you preach! Cite your sources!!!

I didn’t cite sources because you already agreed with me on this point back in post 18, thus citing a source in this discussion with you would be redundant. So I’m not failing in practicing what I preach. Plus it is common knowledge that psychologists overwhelming agree that homosexuality is not a mental disease. One does not need to cite sources for historical facts that constitute common knowledge (such as psychologists not considering homosexuality a mental disorder or the George Washington is the first US president). Since you insist, here is the official position of the American Psychological Association on homosexuality. It says, in part, “No, lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology.” Thus, it is overwhelmingly the position of American psychologists that homosexuality is not a disorder.

** For example, does it benefit society to bar these couples, but not infertile heterosexual couples, from getting marriage licenses (just like there is a good reason to prevent a pedophile from marrying a child). **

Infertile couples usually do not know they are infertile when they marry. Homosexual couples know they are!

But many heterosexual couple know they are infertile (many have had vasectomies), but yet are allowed to marry. Should people who choose to have vasectomies be permitted to marry? If not, why not? If so, there is no good reason to not also allow same-sex couples from also marrying.

Moreover, infertile heterosexual couples can adopt with good reason, and that is a benefit to society. Homosexual couples who adopt are not benefiting society since the heterosexual children they adopt are not being reared by the proper models for heterosexual love and procreation.

So you must be against single-parent adoption as well.

Can you cite any evidence that children adopted by same-sex couples are any worse off than those adopted by opposite-sex couples?

On the flip side, it is common knowledge that experts in the social sciences agree that the evidence to date has found no reason to suppose that children adopted by same-sex couples are any worse off than children adopted by opposite-sex couples.

Again no civilization in the history of the world has grown so lunatic in this matters as ours. Do some research and tell me of a civilization that endorsed heterosexual marriage.

I assume you mean homosexual marriage.

Actually, many European countries have permitted same-sex civil marriages and have found no societal problems resulting from it. However, it is well known that homosexuals in those countries report living happier, more genuine lives (which is, not surprisingly, confirmed by a recent study).

Not so. In the matter we are discussing, it is disgustingly sick and immoral.

It appears to me that you are letting your personal disgust with homosexuality cloud your judgment on this issue.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Biblepoe
**
Since you insist, here is the official position of the American Psychological Association on homosexuality. It says, in part, “No, lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology.” Thus, it is overwhelmingly the position of American psychologists that homosexuality is not a disorder.**

And here, fully documented, is the history of how that position was developed.

cleansingfiredor.com/2010/08/the-american-psychiatric-association-and-homosexuality/

But many heterosexual couple know they are infertile (many have had vasectomies), but yet are allowed to marry. Should people who choose to have vasectomies be permitted to marry? If not, why not? If so, there is no good reason to not also allow same-sex couples from also marrying.

Yes there is. You don’t get injurious sex from a vasectomy. You do get injurious results from anal sex. I can document this for you if you like. But it’s pretty common knowledge.
**
So you must be against single-parent adoption as well.**

It is in the interest of a child to be adopted by heterosexual parents. It is certainly not in the interest of a heterosexual boy child to be adopted by a homosexual man. What do you think is behind that?

Can you cite any evidence that children adopted by same-sex couples are any worse off than those adopted by opposite-sex couples?

lifesitenews.com/news/children-of-gay-couples-academically-disadvantaged-study

Actually, many European countries have permitted same-sex civil marriages and have found no societal problems resulting from it. However, it is well known that homosexuals in those countries report living happier, more genuine lives (which is, not surprisingly, confirmed by a recent study).

All this evidence is from the last 20-30 years. My point was that no previous civilization in the history of the world has suffered this lunacy of homosexual marriage licensed by the state. You still haven’t provided contrary evidence.

**It appears to me that you are letting your personal disgust with homosexuality cloud your judgment on this issue. **

It seems to me that your ignorance of history and human nature, not to mention your going along with a cultural milieu that is off its mental tracks, has clouded your judgment on this issue.

Laws 8.836c-e, in which Plato discusses what laws should regulate sexual conduct. It’s plain that Plato sees a historical decline in morals since the time of Laius.

“Suppose you follow nature’s rule and establish the law that was in force before the time of Laius. You’d argue that one may have sexual intercourse with women but not with men or boys. As evidence for your view, you’d point to the animal world, where (you’d argue) the males do not have sexual relations with each other, because such a thing is unnatural. But in Crete and Sparta your argument would not go down well, and you’d probably persuade nobody. However, another argument is that such practices are incompatible with what in our view should be the constant aim of the legislator - that is, we’re always asking, ‘which of our regulations encourages virtue, and which does not?’ Now then, suppose in the present case we agreed to pass a law that such practices are desirable, or not at all undesirable - what contribution would they make to virtue? Will the spirit of courage spring to life in the soul of the seduced person? Will the soul of the seducer learn habits of self-control? No one is going to be led astray by that sort of argument - quite the contrary. Everyone will censure the weakling who yields to temptation, and condemn his all-too-effeminate partner who plays the role of the woman. So who on earth will pass a law like that? Hardly anyone, at any rate if he knows what a genuine law really is.”

 

[Biblepoe]

Here you go again not realizing that psychiatrists and psychologists are two different professions with different organizations. You respond to the statement from the American **
Psychological** Association about homosexuality not being a disease by giving an article presenting a conspiracy theory about how the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from a list of recognized disorders:

Biblepoe
**
Since you insist, here is the official position of the American Psychological** Association on homosexuality. It says, in part, “No, lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology.” Thus, it is overwhelmingly the position of American psychologists that homosexuality is not a disorder.

And here, fully documented, is the history of how that position was developed.

cleansingfiredor.com/2010/08/the-american-psychiatric-association-and-homosexuality/

Your “fully documented” article cites a grand total of one historical source (with the other two sources being commentary about history, which have little more relevance than opinion pieces. I can explain the huge difference if you like). That one historical source is a Newsweek article from 1971, which basically just says that there were some disruptive homosexual activists. So you are basically making the assumption that because there were some disruptive activists that American Psychiatrists as a whole agreed to no longer consider homosexuality a mental disease?! What a conspiracy theory!

Even if your conspiracy theory about the American Psychiatric Association caving due to some activists is true, American psychologists are completely independent of that (the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association are two different organizations), and it is not just American psychiatrists and psychologists who are in agreement the homosexuality is not a mental disease, it is psychiatrists and psychologists around the world who agree with that. Do you want me to go citing sources for each individual country? That is common knowledge so I think you could choose a random country and easily find the info yourself.

 

[Biblepoe]

But many heterosexual couple know they are infertile (many have had vasectomies), but yet are allowed to marry. Should people who choose to have vasectomies be permitted to marry? If not, why not? If so, there is no good reason to not also allow same-sex couples from also marrying.

Yes there is. You don’t get injurious sex from a vasectomy. You do get injurious results from anal sex. I can document this for you if you like. But it’s pretty common knowledge.

There is so much wrong with this that it’s hard to know where to start.

First, anal sex is not the only way for a same-sex couple to have sex. In fact, there are quite a few homosexuals who don’t particularly like anal sex.

Second, like vaginal sex, anal sex can be harmful, but also may be very safe if done right.

Third, many opposite sex couples cannot have vaginal sex for health reasons. If this is known ahead of time, would you favor not allowing that couple to marry?

So you must be against single-parent adoption as well.

It is in the interest of a child to be adopted by heterosexual parents. It is certainly not in the interest of a heterosexual boy child to be adopted by a homosexual man. What do you think is behind that?

Yes or no. Are you for banning single heterosexuals, who don’t plan on marrying, from adopting? If not, do you have any evidence whatsoever that children adopted by one parent are better off than those adopted by two parents of the same sex?

Can you cite any evidence that children adopted by same-sex couples are any worse off than those adopted by opposite-sex couples?

lifesitenews.com/news/children-of-gay-couples-academically-disadvantaged-study

The study that the article is referring to does not compare children adopted by a same-sex couple to those adopted by an opposite-sex couple, it basically compares children of intact families to children of opposite-sex families that were torn apart by an extramarital same-sex relationship. In other words, it only shows that children of intact families are better off than those of families torn apart by affairs. What a surprise!

In order to do good research, you need to look at the published study itself, not just a commentary about the study.

Actually, many European countries have permitted same-sex civil marriages and have found no societal problems resulting from it. However, it is well known that homosexuals in those countries report living happier, more genuine lives (which is, not surprisingly, confirmed by a recent study).

All this evidence is from the last 20-30 years. My point was that no previous civilization in the history of the world has suffered this lunacy of homosexual marriage licensed by the state. You still haven’t provided contrary evidence.

So you arbitrarily decided to reject any evidence from the last 20-30 years of history just to say, “You still haven’t provided contrary evidence!” How intellectually dishonest of you. Even with you arbitrarily rejecting this time period, a law in the Theodosian Code was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, which prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were already married were to be executed. That is, before 342, there were same-sex couples in the Roman empire who were recognized as married! The Roman Empire eventually had many problems (like all major empires do), but they recognized same-sex marriages for a long time without any problems associated with it.

Even if the were no or few civilizations which recognized same-sex marriage, that only tells us that many civilizations were anti-gay. And if a civilization that accepts gay marriage has problems, it doesn’t mean those problems have anything to do with recognition of same-sex marriage. However, if a civilization, such as many contemporary European countries or ancient Rome, allowed for same-sex marriage evidently without any problems arising from it, that is a good indicator that civil same-sex marriage doesn’t harm society.

**It appears to me that you are letting your personal disgust with homosexuality cloud your judgment on this issue. **

It seems to me that your ignorance of history and human nature, not to mention your going along with a cultural milieu that is off its mental tracks, has clouded your judgment on this issue.

Actually my undergraduate degree (from a rigorously Catholic college I might add) is in mental health with history being one of my minors. I changed my opinions on this matter by reading actual research – you know, published studies in journal articles, not opinion pieces – to help me learn about history and ‘human nature’. Reading through the journal articles that this article cites is a good start for such rigorous research.

Laws 8.836c-e, in which Plato discusses

I don’t know why Plato’s opinion on this matter is any more relevant than ours or mine, but I’ll indulge you anyways:

“Now then, suppose in the present case we agreed to pass a law that such practices are desirable, or not at all undesirable - what contribution would they make to virtue?”

As mentioned preveously, it seems to be the case in countries that have allowed it, increase happiness among same-sex couples, increased the virtue of charity between them and their neighbors, and has shown no signs of society becoming worse off.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**Even if your conspiracy theory about the American Psychiatric Association caving due to some activists is true, American psychologists are completely independent of that (the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association are two different organizations), and it is not just American psychiatrists and psychologists who are in agreement the homosexuality is not a mental disease, it is psychiatrists and psychologists around the world who agree with that. Do you want me to go citing sources for each individual country? That is common knowledge so I think you could choose a random country and easily find the info yourself. **

No need to go on citing sources, since you have already been refuted by the history of the scandalous caving in of psychologists and psychiatrists.
**
First, anal sex is not the only way for a same-sex couple to have sex. In fact, there are quite a few homosexuals who don’t particularly like anal sex.**

Cite your source.

Third, many opposite sex couples cannot have vaginal sex for health reasons. If this is known ahead of time, would you favor not allowing that couple to marry?

No. They are still in a normal, rather than a perverse, relationship; also, they could adopt children and rear them in a normal heterosexual environment.

Yes or no. Are you for banning single heterosexuals, who don’t plan on marrying, from adopting? If not, do you have any evidence whatsoever that children adopted by one parent are better off than those adopted by two parents of the same sex?

No. so what’s your point? Two sick parents are better than one normal parent?

So you arbitrarily decided to reject any evidence from the last 20-30 years of history just to say, “You still haven’t provided contrary evidence!” How intellectually dishonest of you. Even with you arbitrarily rejecting this time period, a law in the Theodosian Code was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, which prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were already married were to be executed. That is, before 342, there were same-sex couples in the Roman empire who were recognized as married! The Roman Empire eventually had many problems (like all major empires do), but they recognized same-sex marriages for a long time without any problems associated with it.

This is a bald face lie. What is your source? I expect it is one of the homosexual historians who are intent on revising human history in their favor. Give his name and the title of his book.

As mentioned preveously, it seems to be the case in countries that have allowed it, increase happiness among same-sex couples, increased the virtue of charity between them and their neighbors, and has shown no signs of society becoming worse off.

Society is always worse off when perverse moralities prevail.

Actually my undergraduate degree (from a rigorously Catholic college I might add) is in mental health with history being one of my minors.

Apparently not rigorous enough.

** Reading through the journal articles that this article cites is a good start for such rigorous research.**

Reading through the first paragraph the homosexual author/historian Boswell is cited. He died of AIDS. So much for reliable sources, rigorous research, and the joys of sodomy.

I don’t know why Plato’s opinion on this matter is any more relevant than ours or mine, but I’ll indulge you anyways:

Plato was a rigorous thinker. Thought you would be interested. Also, since this thread is about laws relating to same-sex marriage, it’s clear that Plato is weighing in. Why would you object to hearing from the great thinkers?

Here’s another one from Plato and one from Aristotle (note the sources are documented).

Plato, Laws [636c] “And whether one makes the observation in earnest or in jest, one certainly should not fail to observe that when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature, but contrary to nature when male mates with male or female with female, and that those first guilty of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure.”

Aristotle
Nichomacean Ethics Book 7, Section 5:
“Some things are not naturally pleasant, but can become so through injury, habit or congenital depravity. And for each unnatural pleasure there is an abnormal state of character. There is the brutish character, as in those tribes around the Black Sea who eat human flesh. Also, morbid states, like nail-biting or homosexuality … may have been acquired by habit, for instance if someone has been sexually misused as a child.”

Can you give the name of a comparable great thinker who thought sodomy was normal?

 

[Yeoman]

While every supreme court is different I think they may look at the same reasons the other nations supreme courts ruled and then compare those arguments the ones that are being made here. Which if that is the case, is not encouraging.

The US Supreme Court makes no use of foreign precedent, so that won’t be a factor.

Also, it’s easy to forget the question before the court here is a relatively narrow one. It will not be “is there a right for homosexuals to marry same sex partners”. At least not this go around.

 

[epan]

The US Supreme Court makes no use of foreign precedent, so that won’t be a factor.

Also, it’s easy to forget the question before the court here is a relatively narrow one. It will not be “is there a right for homosexuals to marry same sex partners”. At least not this go around.

You are right, but I also recall reading a decision in which foreign precedents were cited. If it comes back to me, what the case was, I’ll mention it here. I recall being surprised when I read the opinion.

I am no lawyer or legal expert. But what surprises me is that they took up the prop 8 case, after it was on their calendar to discuss five or more times. I sent an email to a buddy who has been a US Supreme Court clerk, to ask him if that is unusual, but no answer yet. The thing that i am wondering about is, that if they decided to take up the case, then it seems that they must agree that there is a possibility of changing overruling the opinion of the lower court. That could go either way. They could broaden the scope, to embrace the Walker decision, or they could uphold Prop 8. I suppose they could just affirm the 9th circuit opinion, but why would they take the case up then?

 

[rossum]

I suppose they could just affirm the 9th circuit opinion, but why would they take the case up then?

That would send more of a signal to the other Appeals Circuits than merely not taking the case. Quite what that signal might be we will have to wait and see.

rossum

 

[Giants]

You are right, but I also recall reading a decision in which foreign precedents were cited. If it comes back to me, what the case was, I’ll mention it here. I recall being surprised when I read the opinion.

I believe it was Atkins vs. Virginia (2002) - a case involving the Constitutionality of executing the mentally retarded. The majority opinion cited an amicus brief filed in the EU. An amicus brief isn’t a law, however - it’s simply an opinion filed by an outside party to help the court decide on its ruling.

 

[epan]

I thought it was relevant to this discussion. It made the news at the time. Here is an excerpt from the USA Today coverage, found with a quick google search:

Writing for the majority in a landmark decision supporting gay civil rights, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that the European Court of Human Rights and other foreign courts have affirmed the “rights of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct.”

Never before had the Supreme Court’s majority cited a foreign legal precedent in such a big case. Kennedy’s opinion in Lawrence vs. Texas, which was signed by four other justices, has ignited a debate among analysts over whether it was a signal that the justices will adopt foreign courts’ views of individual liberties.

Here is a link to the article: usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-07-07-foreign-usat_x.htm

 

[Charlemagne_II]

There are six Catholics on the Supreme Court. This, however, is no indication of how the Court will rule. The only Catholic on the Supreme Court in the 60s voted for Roe v Wade.