BREAKING: Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down DOMA In Opinion By Republican-Appointed Judge

[james&olya 1,121]

Homosexuals are not a "class" of people. It's a mental state, a human behavioural state, but not a class of person. Attraction has to do with emotion, brain waves, etc.. It has nothing to do with who you otherwise are.

And this is your opinion! Modern scientific research has shown otherwise. SCOTUS is far more likely to side with the body of scientific evidence out there than with the uninformed opinions of those who for whatever reason are uncomfortable with the concept of homosexuality.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

And this is your opinion! Modern scientific research has shown otherwise. SCOTUS is far more likely to side with the body of scientific evidence out there than with the uninformed opinions of those who for whatever reason are uncomfortable with the concept of homosexuality.

Not my simple 'opinion' but you can feel free to try again.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

And this is your opinion! Modern scientific research has shown otherwise. SCOTUS is far more likely to side with the body of scientific evidence out there than with the uninformed opinions of those who for whatever reason are uncomfortable with the concept of homosexuality.

He's an expert. His opinion is fact. Get used to it.

[decocker 7,198]

Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as if it were solely a characteristic of an individual, like biological sex, gender identity, or age. This perspective is incomplete because sexual orientation is defined in terms of relationships with others. People express their sexual orientation through behaviors with others, including such simple actions as holding hands or kissing. Thus, sexual orientation is closely tied to the intimate personal relationships that meet deeply felt needs for love, attachment, and intimacy. In addition to sexual behaviors, these bonds include nonsexual physical affection between partners, shared goals and values, mutual support, and ongoing commitment. Therefore, sexual orientation is not merely a personal characteristic within an individual. Rather, one’s sexual orientation defines the group of people in which one is likely to find the satisfying and fulfilling romantic relationships that are an essential component of personal identity for many people.

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

[JohnR! 5,495]

And this is your opinion! Modern scientific research has shown otherwise. SCOTUS is far more likely to side with the body of scientific evidence out there than with the uninformed opinions of those who for whatever reason are uncomfortable with the concept of homosexuality.

If it is not on Wikipedia then it mustn't be true. Modern scientific research has nothing on Wikipedia! :rofl:

[Danno 1,228]

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

Quote

Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as if it were solely a characteristic of an individual, like biological sex, gender identity, or age. This perspective is incomplete because sexual orientation is defined in terms of relationships with others. People express their sexual orientation through behaviors with others, including such simple actions as holding hands or kissing. Thus, sexual orientation is closely tied to the intimate personal relationships that meet deeply felt needs for love, attachment, and intimacy. In addition to sexual behaviors, these bonds include nonsexual physical affection between partners, shared goals and values, mutual support, and ongoing commitment. Therefore, sexual orientation is not merely a personal characteristic within an individual. Rather, one’s sexual orientation defines the group of people in which one is likely to find the satisfying and fulfilling romantic relationships that are an essential component of personal identity for many people.

It is interesting to note, this description would also fit the person attracted to children (Pedophile).

Or even pets, we have all seen people for whom their pet is nearly identical to the above minus the sex (in most cases).

I don't see what all this has to do with surrendering the foundation our society rests for the social benefit of 3- 5% of people.

Look folks there is sone fundamental truths there is no getting around.

- There are two halves of Humanity, Male and Female. Only these two can create children. To call any coupling which does not include both halves is silly and mimics the fad of handing out trophies to both the winning team and the loosing little league team.

-Children by any measure do best when raised by the two people who created them. (given there are sad exceptions but we are speaking broadly which is the aim of any policy)

-This is the foundation upon which our society was built and rests.

-Extending marriage to homosexuals will simply be the first step in a rapid set of steps, to further disintegrate the traditional family.

- Look at the areas in our country where the family is challenged the most or fractured the most, the biggest example being the Black americans for a more clear picture. We need to address that problem not mimic it.

-There is nothing new about Homosexuality nor cultures which have embraced it down through history...... someone name for me one of those you admire ...so we might know better what ours will be like.

-Granted, just as a house does not collapse the first day termites start eating, so it is with any social policy which is destructive but in the same way were have had the "successes" of the European welfare state rubbed in our face.... (until it stated to fall apart), so it will be with their success of their bold new social ideas which are held up as models of success.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Danno

[JohnR! 5,495]

- There are two halves of Humanity, Male and Female. Only these two can create children. To call any coupling which does not include both halves is silly and mimics the fad of handing out trophies to both the winning team and the loosing little league team.

-Children by any measure do best when raised by the two people who created them. (given there are sad exceptions but we are speaking broadly which is the aim of any policy)

-This is the foundation upon which our society was built and rests.

-Extending marriage to homosexuals will simply be the first step in a rapid set of steps, to further disintegrate the traditional family.

- Look at the areas in our country where the family is challenged the most or fractured the most, the biggest example being the Black americans for a more clear picture. We need to address that problem not mimic it.

-There is nothing new about Homosexuality nor cultures which have embraced it down through history...... someone name for me one of those you admire ...so we might know better what ours will be like.

-Granted, just as a house does not collapse the first day termites start eating, so it is with any social policy which is destructive but in the same way were have had the "successes" of the European welfare state rubbed in our face.... (until it stated to fall apart), so it will be with their success of their bold new social ideas which are held up as models of success.

And yet none of the reasons you mention above are prerequisites for anyone to get married in the US.

Having said that, I define my own marriage on my own terms and I would welcome the notion that others do the same and extend that to same-sex couples.

The arguments you bring about are, quite incidentally, the same ones used to justify the banning of interracial marriages. Ironic isn't it that one who is married to a foreigner should be proselytizing about the virtues of the American family?

Edited October 19, 2012 by Gegel

[Danno 1,228]

And yet none of the reasons you mention above are prerequisites for anyone to get married in the US.

Having said that, I define my own marriage on my own terms and I would welcome the notion that others do the same and extend that to same-sex couples.

The arguments you bring about are, quite incidentally, the same ones used to justify the banning of interracial marriages. Ironic isn't it that one who is married to a foreigner should be proselytizing about the virtues of the American family?

Dude, if you can't post something meaningful and on topic move over to the shallow end.

I mean who cares what "you define"..... as if we all just get to make up our own reality.

[JohnR! 5,495]

I mean who cares what "you define".....

Precisely. Who cares what anyone defines... Me, you or anyone else for that matter?

We are speaking about the law, not a popularity contest, nor time travelling back to the 1950s..

Edited October 19, 2012 by Gegel

[decocker 7,198]

I mean who cares what "you define"..... as if we all just get to make up our own reality.

and who cares what you define? i don't get that attitude at all..

my mom and dad begged me to marry the father of my son for the sake of saving their 'traditional christian' face and creating a 'traditional family' for my son. even though i didn't want to and my now ex husband didn't want to - we wanted to give them the illusion that our reality was their ideal. so we got that piece of certified paper and lo and behold saying vows in front of a little old lady i wrote a twenty five dollar check to didn't change the dynamic between me and my ex at all. we define our own relationships within marriage. marriage defines nothing.

all anyone does is live in their own reality. allowing gay people the legal pros and cons of marriage doesn't infringe on your marriage, your faith or your reality in the slightest - and has nothing to do with pedophiles or animals, despite what you're fed by religious fear mongers...

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Dude, if you can't post something meaningful and on topic move over to the shallow end.

I mean who cares what "you define"..... as if we all just get to make up our own reality.

Um, exactly. Who cares what you define as wrong or immoral or disgusting? Nobody. So stop supporting your definitions being made into laws for everyone to follow.

[Danno 1,228]

and who cares what you define? i don't get that attitude at all..

my mom and dad begged me to marry the father of my son for the sake of saving their 'traditional christian' face and creating a 'traditional family' for my son. even though i didn't want to and my now ex husband didn't want to - we wanted to give them the illusion that our reality was their ideal. so we got that piece of certified paper and lo and behold saying vows in front of a little old lady i wrote a twenty five dollar check to didn't change the dynamic between me and my ex at all. we define our own relationships within marriage. marriage defines nothing.

all anyone does is live in their own reality. allowing gay people the legal pros and cons of marriage doesn't infringe on your marriage, your faith or your reality in the slightest - and has nothing to do with pedophiles or animals, despite what you're fed by religious fear mongers...

Thank you for reinforcing my point.

-Extending marriage to homosexuals will simply be the first step in a rapid set of steps, to further disintegrate the traditional family.

But don't stop there, rather continue on and show me in history the society which followed this path so we might get a glimpse of it's success and our future.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Danno

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Thank you for reinforcing my point.

-Extending marriage to homosexuals will simply be the first step in a rapid set of steps, to further disintegrate the traditional family.

Who cares what you define as traditional?

Your reality isn't everyone else's. Why does yours end up being the "right" one and mine ends up being the one that "disintegrates family"?

Edited October 19, 2012 by Evylin

[JohnR! 5,495]

-Extending marriage to homosexuals will simply be the first step in a rapid set of steps, to further disintegrate the traditional family.

If you live in the 1950s to be sure...

[Danno 1,228]

Um, exactly. Who cares what you define as wrong or immoral or disgusting? Nobody. So stop supporting your definitions being made into laws for everyone to follow.

Not sure I used the words immoral, or disgusting in my post.... but feel free to add what you must to avoid my points.

This is not about my opinion (which alone means little) it is more about our history and the social order of western society for many many centuries, and you would discard that with so little forethought?