Legality of Same Sex Marriage

[New day]

Originally Posted by odooley6985

Your a cool dude. I like you. Non homo of course. LOL

You say NON HOMO, if you are a Man then you are a HOMO.
One commonly known Latin word is homo (“man”). Many Bible translations quote Pilate’s comment about Jesus in Latin: “Ecce Homo!” (“Behold the Man”).

And of course, anyone who has ever had a basic science course has learned the name of the modern human species: Homo sapiens (“Man the Wise”).

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by Aquila

LOL

Agreed... but...

I'll take it a step further... even IF someone wanted to marry their dog (which is a stupid argument)... is it your's, mine, or the GOVERNMENT'S business??? Isn't that dog THEIR PROPERTY??? Or does the STATE have absolute authority over Fido too??? Fantastic... the STATE can require licenses for anyone wanting to own a dog, prosecute anyone with beastial tendencies, and ban you from buying peanut butter if you're a registered dog owner!!! LOL

Give me a break. Nobody is going to marry their dog. And IF someone does... it will just be another strange news story about some mentally ill quack.

Maybe not their dog, but I read about a guy that wanted to marry his horse. Not for sex, but because he wanted heirs besides his children, whom he had disowned. The Judge refused his request.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Cindy

Maybe not their dog, but I read about a guy that wanted to marry his horse. Not for sex, but because he wanted heirs besides his children, whom he had disowned. The Judge refused his request.

Yes... there are always going to be weird situations.

But I still believe that GOVERNMENT has no place regulating or managing marriage. Marriage pre-dates all religions, churches, and even governments. It's a "natural right". Here's the definition of a natural right:

natural right
noun
Definition of NATURAL RIGHT
: a right conferred upon man by natural law <a natural right … would hold in the absence of organized government — Lucius Garvin>— compare legal right

Now, a marriage may not be "God honoring"... but none the less... it's a marriage. And frankly... the government can't regulate who a person loves or desires to live with. It amazes me how statist we've become in our thinking.

[Godzchild]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Excellent post, Pliny.

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Yes... there are always going to be weird situations.

But I still believe that GOVERNMENT has no place regulating or managing marriage. Marriage pre-dates all religions, churches, and even governments. It's a "natural right". Here's the definition of a natural right:

natural right
noun
Definition of NATURAL RIGHT
: a right conferred upon man by natural law <a natural right … would hold in the absence of organized government — Lucius Garvin>— compare legal right

Now, a marriage may not be "God honoring"... but none the less... it's a marriage. And frankly... the government can't regulate who a person loves or desires to live with. It amazes me how statist we've become in our thinking.

So I take it you would be against welfare and such?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

So I take it you would be against welfare and such?

I really used to be for it. However, I've discovered a lot within the past year. I think that any welfare program should be strictly on the state level with state funding. I'd prefer a way to slowly transfer various welfare services to private charitable organizations.

[Aquila]

Let's face it... the Republicans want to use big government to control our private lives and the Democrats want to use big government to control our wealth. The only party that has principles of true liberty is the Libertarian Party.

[Aquila]

As for marriage.... WHY do we think that it should be the GOVERNMENT'S job to define and regulate it??? That's STATIST thinking. Marriage should be a PRIVATE contract between PRIVATE individuals. The STATE shouldn't have ANYTHING to say about marriage. I've grown to strongly detest the idea of the GOVERNMENT regulating our most private and intimate relationships and/or associations.

Why should we seek a "LICENSE" to marry? Why go groveling to some GOVERNMENT office to PAY for PERMISSION to marry??? That's not LIBERTY or FREEDOM of association. Yep, they got to get just a little bit of our money for it. Then they opt to give you tax benefits (or in some cases, tax penalties), making it a GOVERNMENT program. Bribing us to let GOVERNMENT regulate it. Then we as individuals and churches go marching along like oblivious bobble-heads to the beat of the GOVERNMENT'S drum.

The whole reason why marriage is a mess right now with high divorce rates etc. is because of... GOVERNMENT. Anything the GOVERNMENT touches falls apart. We should be saying, "My marriage, my business. Uncle Sam... GET OUT!"

What will they require a license for next??? Our children? No license... then the STATE comes and takes them???

We desperately need to get the STATE out of our families, our bedrooms, our businesses, and our pocket books.

Libertarian!!!

[J4Truth]

Originally Posted by Aquila

As for marriage.... WHY do we think that it should be the GOVERNMENT'S job to define and regulate it??? That's STATIST thinking. Marriage should be a PRIVATE contract between PRIVATE individuals. The STATE shouldn't have ANYTHING to say about marriage. I've grown to strongly detest the idea of the GOVERNMENT regulating our most private and intimate relationships and/or associations.

Why should we seek a "LICENSE" to marry? Why go groveling to some GOVERNMENT office to PAY for PERMISSION to marry??? That's not LIBERTY or FREEDOM of association. Yep, they got to get just a little bit of our money for it. Then they opt to give you tax benefits (or in some cases, tax penalties), making it a GOVERNMENT program. Bribing us to let GOVERNMENT regulate it. Then we as individuals and churches go marching along like oblivious bobble-heads to the beat of the GOVERNMENT'S drum.

The whole reason why marriage is a mess right now with high divorce rates etc. is because of... GOVERNMENT. Anything the GOVERNMENT touches falls apart. We should be saying, "My marriage, my business. Uncle Sam... GET OUT!"

What will they require a license for next??? Our children? No license... then the STATE comes and takes them???

We desperately need to get the STATE out of our families, our bedrooms, our businesses, and our pocket books.

Libertarian!!!

What is the penalty for a man and a woman to consider themselves married without a marriage license? Do the Government come in and split them up? Do they come and take children out of home because a couple is not licensed to married?

Now if the government is offering benefits to marriage than it makes sense for them to offer a license governing it.

I've been looking for some kind of penalty or punishment for someone getting married without a license, can't seem to find any, perhaps you can enlighten me because you most likely have more material on the subject.

[Powerful_one]

DR. Joseph Berger, FRCPC (Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians of Canada), DABPN (Diploma,American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology), DLFAPA (Distinguished Life Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association)
I was asked to make a statement with reference to a bill C279 that is under consideration.
It appears to me that this bill requests that some special allowances or attitudes or possibly even 'rights' be given to people who identify themselves as being 'transgendered'.
From a scientific perspective, let me clarify what 'transgendered' actually means. I am speaking now about the scientific perspective - and not any political lobbying position that may be proposed by any group, medical or non-medical.
'Transgendered' are people who claim that they really are or wish to be people of the sex opposite to which they were born as, or to which their chromosomal configuration attests to.
Sometimes, some of these people have claimed that they are 'a woman trapped in a man's body' or alternatively 'a man trapped in a woman's body'.
Scientifically, there is no such a thing.
Therefore anyone who actually truly believes that notion, is by definition deluded, psychotic.
The medical treatment of delusions or psychosis is not by surgery.
On the other hand, if these people are asked to clarify exactly what they believe, that is to say do they truly believe whichever of those above propositions applies to them and they say 'no', they know that such a proposition is not true, but that they 'feel' it, then what we are talking about scientifically, is just unhappiness, and that unhappiness is being accompanied by a wish - that leads some people into taking hormones that predominate in the other sex, and even having cosmetic surgery designed to make them 'appear' as if they are a person of the opposite sex.
The proper treatment of emotional unhappiness is not surgery.
Cosmetic surgery will not change the chromosomes of a human being.
Cosmetic surgery will not make a man become a woman, capable of menstruating, ovulating, and having children.
Cosmetic surgery will not make a woman into a man, capable of generating sperm that can unite with an egg or ovum from a woman and fertilize that egg to produce a human child.
These are the scientific facts. There seems to me to be no medical or scientific reason to grant any special rights or considerations to people who are unhappy with the sex they were born into, or to people who wish to dress in the clothes of the opposite sex - which I believe is not illegal.
I have read the brief put forward by those advocating special rights, and I find nothing of scientific value in it.

Words and phrases are used that have no objective scientific basis such as "the inner space".
The committee examining these proposals should be aware that there are indeed some quite rare examples where the sex of a baby at birth is uncertain.
Two particular conditions are well recognized. One is where the child is a boy, but the testes have not descended into the testicular sac, but remain somewhere 'stuck' in the abdomen.
The other well-recognized condition is where the child is a girl, but because of some abnormal hormonal levels as the baby was growing in the mother's uterus, the clitoris of the baby girl is unusually large, and might at first be mistaken for a penis.
Both these conditions are now diagnosed earlier, chromosome testing to confirm the genetic sex is widely available.They should not nowadays lead to any confusion about the real sex of the baby. Other than these and possibly even rarer abnormalities, the so-called 'confusion' about their sexuality that a teenager or adult has is purely psychological.
----------
Dr Berger says in all his years of practice, he had never come across a person who was inherently homosexual. Important social behavioural scientists David Halperin and Jean Foucault made this same point a long ago, when they said homosexuality had invented itself.
"The homosexual had been an aberration, and had then become a species, justifying itself with a new word."
Foucault went further, "homosexuality" appeared as a form of sexuality only "after it was transposed from the practice of sodomy into a kind of interior androgyny, a hermaphrodism of the soul." The gay community certainly has a creative identity vocabulary ("hero" "gay" "equality," "anti-discrimination," "queer," "trans-gender," "bi," "tri" etc) to which we have all been subject with some vociferous-ness for several decades.
---
Dr. Berger is certified as a specialist in Psychiatry by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada and by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, and is an elected Distinguished Life Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association. He is also a past Chairman of the Toronto district of the Ontario Medical Association and past President of the Ontario branch of the American Psychiatric Association. Berger has been an Examiner in Psychiatry for the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology for twenty five years, has taught as Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Toronto, and is the author of many published papers on different aspects of Diagnosis and Independent Psychiatric Assessments, as well as author of the book "The Independent Medical Examination in Psychiatry"