Psychoanalysts on Gay marriage

[Avatar4321]

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=120-03032004

A short statement from some psychoanalysts saying they dont think marriage should be denied from gay people. I wonder why. I mean it probably has nothing to do with the fact that it will cause more marital problems. And if there are more martial problems, the psychoanlysts have job security now does it?

 

[conservative86]

You are exactly right, avatar. It is a relief to see someone with some common sense. Also, are these not the same reprobates who told us spanking are children may cause future emotional disorders? Yeah, look how that turned out. Why is our country's morals incessantly being pushed down and pushed down and pushed down? Its depressing and mandates action.

 

[wonderwench]

Gee, how horrible.

Two consenting adults wanting to form a legally binding monogamous union.

What a heinous concept.

 

[conservative86]

You obviously lack the capacity to partake in political discourse. This "union" hurts society beyond comprehension. Why do you think God said all homosexuals should be put to death? The sin of one affects all.

 

[wonderwench]

The U.S. Constitution provides for separation of church and state. Your religious beliefs are not a basis for making law or amending the Consitution.

And thanks for the little ad hominem attack - it reveals quite a bit about you.

 

[conservative86]

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that there is to be a seperation of church and state. Why were schools required to read the Bible and have prayers in the past before the iniquity of liberalism surfaced? Do you think Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams sat down 200 years ago and meant for "freedom of expression" to entail pornography? Do you think they would denounce our calling CHRISTmas a national holiday? Do you think they would condone a godless society? NO. They would not even tolerate the slightest ramification of blasphemy.

 

[wonderwench]

You are so wrong:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by wonderwench
You are so wrong:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

http://www.no-apathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

Anytime religion is mentioned within the confines of government today people cry, "Separation of Church and State". Many people think this statement appears in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution and therefore must be strictly enforced. However, the words: "separation", "church", and "state" do not even appear in the first amendment. The first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The statement about a wall of separation between church and state was made in a letter on January 1, 1802, by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. The congregation heard a widespread rumor that the Congregationalists, another denomination, were to become the national religion. This was very alarming to people who knew about religious persecution in England by the state established church. Jefferson made it clear in his letter to the Danbury Congregation that the separation was to be that government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God. Jefferson's letter from which the phrase "separation of church and state" was taken affirmed first amendment rights. Jefferson wrote:

I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. (1)

The reason Jefferson choose the expression "separation of church and state" was because he was addressing a Baptist congregation; a denomination of which he was not a member. Jefferson wanted to remove all fears that the state would make dictates to the church. He was establishing common ground with the Baptists by borrowing the words of Roger Williams, one of the Baptist's own prominent preachers.

 

[Avatar4321]

While this thread really wasnt meant to turn into a debate on religion and government I cant help but make a few comments.

1)God a key part of the founding. 'Man was endowed by his Creator with certain unalieble rights' tends to have religious conotations. It is from God that all our rights come, not from government. If government gave us our rights, it could take them away.

2)The idea of separatation of Church and State simply means we dont have a National Church. Government does not support on denomination. We never have, we never will. It does not mean that religious views have no place in the public arena. The First ammendment was created for just that purpose. So that men can speak their views and that we could freely exercise our religions in public. If you try to eliminate all religious people from public life, you will eliminate alot of good virteous people from serving the public.

3)Marriage is not solely a religious issue. Marriage is a cultural issue as well. Marriage exists in almost every single solitary culture. Why? Because its purpose to help purpetuate the species the best way possible. With a father and a mother. Marriage is the fundamental building block of society. By allowing gay marriage will will undermine the institution even more and will soon be suffering from the same problems they are in scandinavia.

4)The government should be allowed to promote moral views if the majority of people agree. Thats the point of having a representative government. The people are allowed to govern their community the way they want. In fact the Constitution was established in a way that states could establish their own church. (there was a reason it said CONGRESS shall pass no law concerning...) It was to limit the powers of the federal government not the state governments and deffinately not the city laws. So if a majority of people say in New York want to vote to prevent smoking, they should be allowed to. Its a moral view, but the whole point of free societies is to let the majority rule the way they choose.

 

[Avatar4321]

WW, he is right. A separation of Church and state does not exist in the Constitution.

 

[wonderwench]

Bullshit to you both.

Creating legislation based upon the mores of one religion is a violation of the first amendment. Try to spin it all you want, but you will still be wrong. The Framers were very specific that the government not insitutionalize a particular set of religious beliefs.

We have a glaring example of the damage that can come from turning faith and dogma into laws: Sharia.

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
WW, he is right. A separation of Church and state does not exist in the Constitution.

Only if you want to do extreme contortions. Read the first amendment.

 

[Avatar4321]

Ive read the first ammendment. There is no National Church, There never has been. That is the separation of Church and state. To start telling people they cant exercise their religious views in public and that a majority cannot create legislation favoring their views is contrary to the first ammendment.

 

[conservative86]

You're a wonder. The founding fathers would in no way want to leave any room whatsoever in procreating a godless society. When they said "establishment of religion" they meant exactly what they said. Never in their dialogue did they consider religion NOT to be a part of our lives governed from the state authority. They simply stated they did not want religous conformity coerced upon the people(which I disagree with: We would all be better off). You are simply devoid of logic reasoning due to your militant secularism and liberal theology. You will always find a way to justify your wrong. Keep in mind: There is no civil right to do a moral wrong. All I can say is that on Judgement Day, I am going to have a tall glass of Pepsi and a big bowl of popcorn. You will get whats coming to you.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

conservative86, don't take this the wrong way, but your views on religious coercion are no better than the radicalized mullahs we're dealing with now. How do you feel about that?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by conservative86
You obviously lack the capacity to partake in political discourse. This "union" hurts society beyond comprehension. Why do you think God said all homosexuals should be put to death? The sin of one affects all.

Which "God" are you referring to?

There is no proof of any real, demonstrable damage to society, or anyone else, done by the legal union of a same gender couple. Strong families are the bedrock upon which any society rests. Thus they should be promoted and protected, tegardless of the form they take.

The religious absolutism you adhere to is more suitable to the Spanish Inquisition that to civilized society. Within the context of such a belief system, any act may be condoned, up to and including murder and genocide, so long as it is done in the name of one's favorite deity. The moral pay-off of this belief system lies, not in this world, but in some mythical, metaphysical after-life. The consequences in this life and in this world are irrelevant.

I know you won't understand, but for our values and the morals they are built upon to have any real meaning, they must be firmly rooted in the consequences to <i>this</i> life and in <i>this</i> world. <i><b>Humankind must be the measure of all things within this context.</b></i>

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
There is no proof of any real, demonstrable damage to society, or anyone else, done by the legal union of a same gender couple.

Of course not, but that's because the unions aren't legal!

There's PLENTY of proof that homosexuality produces MANY health risks as opposed to heterosexuals. More disease means more chance of it spreading. I don't see a need to give anyone a license to produce disease.

 

[conservative86]

My religious "absolutism" you are denouncing simply can be found in tradition. When this country was a great place, people like YOU would be found radical. If the concept of homosexuality were to be universally accepted, the human race would be killed off in 150 years. If you don't believe God telling you its wrong, believe nature.

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by conservative86
You're a wonder. The founding fathers would in no way want to leave any room whatsoever in procreating a godless society. When they said "establishment of religion" they meant exactly what they said. Never in their dialogue did they consider religion NOT to be a part of our lives governed from the state authority. They simply stated they did not want religous conformity coerced upon the people(which I disagree with: We would all be better off). You are simply devoid of logic reasoning due to your militant secularism and liberal theology. You will always find a way to justify your wrong. Keep in mind: There is no civil right to do a moral wrong. All I can say is that on Judgement Day, I am going to have a tall glass of Pepsi and a big bowl of popcorn. You will get whats coming to you.

You are delusional. Separation of Church and State does not mean a godless society. It means that individuals are free to choose how and if they worship a god. You also are ignoring the historical context and the intent of the founding documents.

Your hateful and meanspirited desire to watch others suffer is exactly the same mindset that radical Islamic terrorists use to justify killing the infidels.

Anyone who thinks they own a franchise on salvation is a threat to the liberty of others. You also disregard the concept of individual responsibility being cojoined with liberty. If someone makes a moral choice that harms nobody but themselves, and then accepts the consequences, that is what the Bill of Rights is all about.

Your vision of God as some ragefilled, vengeful entity is not something with which I agree. Each individual's relationship with God is a personal, private matter. How dare you sit there and pass judgement in his place. This is my last response to you. You are absolutely hateful. Have a nice life.

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by conservative86
My religious "absolutism" you are denouncing simply can be found in tradition. When this country was a great place, people like YOU would be found radical. If the concept of homosexuality were to be universally accepted, the human race would be killed off in 150 years. If you don't believe God telling you its wrong, believe nature.

Okay, one last response.

Are you so insecure in your own sexuality that if homosexuals were able to form civil unions that you would rush out to have a gay relationship yourself?

Get a bloody grip.