Prop 8?

Nothing at all wrong with a little social pressure on scientists to get your view of the universe approved is that your position?

Hmm Lest see you explain to all of us how that is not the same as when a little social pressure where placed on the scientist Galileo to declare that he was in error and the earth does not in fact revolve around the sun but the other way around.

You can to this day proudly point out that the great scientist Galileo stated as a scientific fact that the earth is the center of the universe.

Sorry you can not at one hand, at lest honestly, declare something is a scientific fact and with the other hand applause the pressure that was place to have it so declare a fact.

Science does not disagree with my position a social movement that is powerful enough to limit and bend expert opinions disagree with my position science sadly had nothing to do with it.

One fact we do know before that little social pressure was place on the APA it position was that homosexuality was a disorder, just as before a little social pressure was place on Galileo he was under the ‘wrong’ impression that the earth revolve around the sun.

This question of homosexual rights is not over by a long shot. The weather is changing fast, if homosexuals are going to get more rights to individual freedom it will not be based upon their claim that they can not be denied, it will be because they prove that it is in the majorities best interest to allow for it.

I should add that...

Actually, I am not in favor of easy divorces.

If it were up to me I would make divorce much more difficult and time consuming.

It would also partly negate one of the arguments against gay marriage, that gay relationships are much more transient then heterosexual relationship.

Quote:

The argument is: "I am, I am, who are you to tell me I'm not?" Your argument is the wall paper: You want not for them and you can't understand your limits.

You can't seem to get away from thinking in terms of the construct of the individual, which we have made up and which may or may not be useful. In any case the individual is shaped by the community, by culture, by the collective, so what the collective chooses to do as as important as what the individual chooses to do. You take your slavishness to individuality and then claim that the collective has no rights. Wake up......the collective always maintains its rights and the collective will not be talked out of exercising its rights.

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove....

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists....

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property....

Debra you do know that the Supreme Court had no problem with slavery and it rulings supported slavery until the 13 amendment was pass?

If you wish to have a constitution right to gay married I suggest you begin to try to talk your fellow citizens into passing a new amendment.

If Obama had not been elected president there would had been a real chance that abortion rights would had gone back into thin air where it first came from in the 1970s.

Surely the Government, absent a showing of a compelling subordinating state interest, could not decree that all husbands and wives must be sterilized after two children have been born [381 U.S. 479, 497] to them. Yet by their reasoning such an invasion of marital privacy would not be subject to constitutional challenge because, while it might be "silly," no provision of the Constitution specifically prevents the Government from curtailing the marital right to bear children and raise a family. While it may shock some of my Brethren that the Court today holds that the Constitution protects the right of marital privacy, in my view it is far more shocking to believe that the personal liberty guaranteed by the Constitution does not include protection against such totalitarian limitation of family size, which is at complete variance with our constitutional concepts. Yet, if upon a showing of a slender basis of rationality, a law outlawing voluntary birth control by married persons is valid, then, by the same reasoning, a law requiring compulsory birth control also would seem to be valid. In my view, however, both types of law would unjustifiably intrude upon rights of marital privacy which are constitutionally protected.

As we described in [505 U.S. 833, 859] Carey v. Population Services International, supra, the liberty which encompasses those decisions "includes "the interest in independence in making certain kinds of important decisions." While the outer limits of this aspect of [protected liberty] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions "'relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and childrearing and education.'" 431 U.S., at 684 -685 (citations omitted).

The soundness of this prong of the Roe analysis is apparent from a consideration of the alternative. If indeed the woman's interest in deciding whether to bear and beget a child had not been recognized as in Roe, the State might as readily restrict a woman's right to choose to carry a pregnancy to term as to terminate it, to further asserted state interests in population control, or eugenics, for example. Yet Roe has been sensibly relied upon to counter any such suggestions. E.g., Arnold v. Board of Education of Escambia County, Ala., 880 F.2d 305, 311 (CA11 1989) (relying upon Roe and concluding that government officials violate the Constitution by coercing a minor to have an abortion); Avery v. County of Burke, 660 F.2d 111, 115 (CA4 1981) (county agency inducing teenage girl to undergo unwanted sterilization on the basis of misrepresentation that she had sickle cell trait); see also In re Quinlan, 70 N. J. 10, 355 A.2d 647, cert. denied sub nom. Garger v. New Jersey, 429 U.S. 922 (1976) (relying on Roe in finding a right to terminate medical treatment).