

Return to article »


  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended

Do not legalize pathological behavior.


'...but that they would sue the goverment to overthrow the law which prohibits their church from performing marriages in the way they want to.' - 3:43 p.m.

Trowe, I'm going to disgree here.

My reason? Inter-racial marriage. After the supreme court rulling that allowed it church's still had the right to deny black and white couples to marry. Only by a church's allowance were these marriages allowed. Not the goverment.

Also, the gay communtiy has never, ever, made it clear they want to 'force' religions to perform gay marriages. Only the goverment the gay community pays taxes into.

As there has never been a case before, a claim during, and no evidence for this claim to be true in the future, I do not think this is a valid reason to deny someone marriage.

re -- Anonymous | 4:04 p.m

["Do not legalize pathological behavior"]

what pathological behavior do you not want legalized? I believe it would be against the constitution to make religions illegal.


Even if gays succeed in redefining and thus making civil marriage meaningless there is some hope. They will never be able to change what is most important, the sealing ordinance performed in the temple.

re -- Trowe | 3:43 p.m

["Certainly churches will continue to practice their religion however they want, but the state will not be allowed to pick and choose which beliefs are valid."]

and the state has no business picking and choosing which beliefs are valid.

["As I've said, let the churches be in the marriage business for religious purposes, but have the legal ceremony be performed by the state."]

churches can do whatever they want as long as they don't break any laws and they don't take public funds.

I doubt any gay people care what little rituals churches want to do for weddings. they want the state and the fed gov't to recognize their marriage so they can have the same rights as everyone else.


to -- Trowe | 3:43 p.m

churches have no business being in the mariage business. they should stick to ceremonies and stay out of certifications.


To Pagan at 4:04.

My point is not the churches will be forced to perform same-sex marriages against there will, only that those churchces to desire to perform them would be allowed to. I think that as long as marriages are performed in churches by ministers, the same-sex marriage community has a legitimate claim on the first ammendments free-exercise clause. Civil marriages performed by the state according to how the people of that state feel they should be performed, religious marriages for those who also want to do that, however, religious ceremonies shouldn't have legal standing. Baptisms don't, christenings don't, sacraments don't...why marriage?

re -- Trowe | 4:36 p.m

["religious ceremonies shouldn't have legal standing. Baptisms don't, christenings don't, sacraments don't...why marriage?"]

actually, religious ceremonial "marriages" (and temple "sealings") have no legal standing. The minister or whoever may sign the marriage certificate stating that he/she performed the vows, but that is simply as a witness, same as a court clerk.

even now, you can get married in city hall without ever going to a church, but you CANNOT get married in a church without first going to city hall....

bottom line is - marriage is a civil issue. Some people like to throw in a ritual or ceremony, but it's the civil part that gets you all the rights and benefits.


to NY:
"Marriage is about creating a family by bringing together a man and a woman. Two guys or two gals hanging out is not the creation of a family."

What about an old widow and widower who may be older than 60? Why should they get married? To have kids? I think not, but to have love, companionship and possibly death benefits. Now, what do you think?


I say we "let" gays get married. We PREVENT them "getting" any children and the "problem" is solved!!!! In a few years we wont have anything to worry about.

Bank Robbery No Choice Either

Ever since I was born, I've had a strong urge to rob a bank. And to kill puppies. And to tell huge lies. And to steal candy from babies. And to spraypaint peoples' houses. And to run naked down the street. And to set buildings on fire. There is no choice. I just have to do it.

The DSM Lie

Speaking as a licensed Mental Health professional, I can tell you that the process behind the approval of the "gay" lifestyle, as specified diagnostically in the DSM-IV and other manuals, is politically and financially motivated. Homosexuals have lobbied hard and successfully in a carefully orchestrated campaign over the past few decades to get their "lifestyle" first tolerated, then accepted, and eventually praised. They've done so in psychological circles and others (education, politics, the media, etc.). Remember this, the DSM is just a book of codes used to validate health expenditures by insurance companies. The APA buy-in to the homosexual movement shows, as some critics of psychology say, that mental health really is a "pseudo science" after all. What a shame!


Re: teacher

Most gays come from heterosexual households.

You're also sidestepping the issue that gay marriage may not equate same-sex adoption.

Gay parents do and can raise children.

How do you acount for gay parents who marry into heterosexual relationships, divorce, the gay parent, whether gay or lesbian, has the custody of the children, the gay custodial parent either marries or at least enters into a gay committed relationship, and how do you account for the part of same-sex parents where one of the parents is the bio parent?

At that, there is also surrogacy.

It sounds like the discrimination would not only be for same-sex parents to be married, but from having families as well.


To Teacher,

Further, in light of the ongoing case regarding Prop 8,

from San Francisco Chronicle, January 16

Gays make fine parents, psychologist testifies

A psychologist took aim at one of the central justifications for California's ban on same-sex marriage in federal court Friday, saying researchers overwhelmingly agree that gays and lesbians make just as good parents as heterosexuals.

More than 100 studies have found that "children who are raised by gay and lesbian parents are just as likely to be well-adjusted," Michael Lamb, chairman of the department of social and developmental psychology at Cambridge University in England, testified at the San Francisco trial of a lawsuit seeking to overturn Proposition 8.

Lamb quoted the American Psychological Association's 2004 policy statement that gays and lesbians are "as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children." Seven other nationwide professional organizations have taken similar positions, he said.

It is a choice


His opinion has no bearing



It's good to hear his opinion on the matter but he can vote like everyone else. It is not the role of the Courts to decide whether something is good or bad public policy. Their role is to decide whether something is legal, to punish criminality and to decide whether something is constitutional or not. Whether gays or lesbians make good parents doesn't have anything to do with whether a constitutional amendment to a state constitution violates the U.S. Constitution which in this case doesn't.

Those who profess to be liberals and who support a court overturning Prop. 8 aren't real liberals since real liberals would be appalled that anyone would want to overturn a vote of the majority based on such an irrational argument as the majority defining marriage as being between a man and woman violates the equal protection of the laws for gays even though gays are able to marry according to law


Re: His opinion has no bearing

I don't know that I agree what constitutes a real liberal or not.

I can't think of a single instance in which civil rights were won by the voice of the people.

The Bill of Rights
Women's Emancipation
Civil Rights of the 1960s
Banning types of discrimination in regards to race, national origin, ethniticity, etc.

all of the above were won by legislative action, court rulings, or executive orders.

Majority rule or voice of the people can and has been overturned in the past. Remember Prop 187 in California?

Your other argument defeats the purpose of marriage.

You wrote, "gays are able to marry according to law."

It makes as much sense as my saying that heterosexuals have the right to marry the same gender in Canada or Massachusetts.

They don't want it.

But they have the right.

It is a nonsensical argument.

However, you are right in one regard, the basic essence of the argument in the court right now is whether the ban on same sex marriage violates equal protection under the law.

To that, however, are the all very common arguments regarding gays


This is the intended 'compassionate' counseling has provided for gays who attempted and who continue to attempt to change their sexual orientation through various forms of therapy.


In the study were included the following organizations that perpetuate the "fix therapy."

Exodus International
Masters & Johnson
Schroeder & Shidlo
OCRT pilot study
Spitzer and


'...religious ceremonies shouldn't have legal standing. Baptisms don't, christenings don't, sacraments don't...why marriage?' - 4:36 p.m.


I think I understand the confusion. Many share this. Religious marriage does NOT have any legal standing. You can get any religious ceremony (temple sealing for example) and it will have zero of the over 1,200 legally protected rights of marriage.

Now, if you have it done at any city hall in America (I think it's $75 for a marriage license) it is legal. The religious ceremony is not. Many do it to support tradition however it has zero legal benifit.

The gay community want's marriage in city halls. Legal recognition. It has never, ever petitioned to have those marriages in any religious place of worship. If that religion allows them, fine, but it has never been an issue to the gay community to force churches to marry gay couples.

Until anti-gay marriage deniers brought it up.


Ok. So now the 'choice' of being gay is 'irelivant'. You can 'control' your actions, just like the straight community. By the way, it is estimated that someone in the world is engaging in sexual activity every 6 seconds.

If something is inherrent, it is not an option. If something cannot be fought against, it is inevitible.

Many in the religious community chastise the gay community for not 'controling yourself' and yet ignore the 50% divorce rate for traditional marriages. Not to mention the continuing escalation of teen pregnancy and the 40% of US children being raised in single-parent households.

If you want to deny something based on a better example, fine. However, as we have established, straight people are no better off at being examples of morality than gay people.

to comment

About comments