Did you see 300k people were protesting in Paris today against gay marriage.
I could not careless about what crap the elitist, liberals communists or others state or not say, I will never accept feces sex as a step to marriage and then have children be adopted by these people to then tell me they;re a fmaily and then have it taught in the schools like fisting
If marriage is no longer : one man and one woman , then we can avoid inheritance taxes by marrying our children.
Our brief explains how there is currently no social science supporting the conclusions of liberal interest groups like the American Psychiatric Association when they support gay marriage.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Look at what the APA is considering now.
Several well-known researchers recently made unexpected arguments on pedophilia at an academic conference in Baltimore.
Liberty Counsel Action’s Matt Barber attended the conference and says he felt he was on a different planet, as the presenting professionals aimed to remove pedophilia from the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). That would mean that pedophilia would no longer be considered a mental disorder.
“The entire focus of the event was on the victimhood of the pedophile,” Barber accounts. There was “very little concern for the children who are the victims of these individuals when they are raped, who these individuals lust after,” he adds.
And he says the experts’ discussions were focused on “destigmatizing pedophilia ... removing the stigma, and [getting] the public to stop demonizing pedophiles.”
But the attorney reports that the APA is already moving toward declassifying pedophilia as a mental disorder “by saying that a pedophile is only a pedophile in their latest DSM ... if they are distressed by their attractions or behaviors.”
So Barber decides that would bring the APA one step closer to de-classifying pedophilia as a mental disorder, as they did homosexuality in the 1970s.
George Will seems to be confused over the difference between a “bad law” and an unconstitutional law. There is nothing unconstitutional about DOMA. Gay unions are not identical to heterosexual unions and the government routinely differeniates based on different forms of sexual behavior in the application of law. The problem is that even many so called conservatives have gone limp noodle on this. Its one reason why this issue is far more dangerous than it seems. The idea that expediancy of the desire to overturn a law that some dislike or think is unwieldy is enough reason to declare it unconstitional is just another indicator of judicial decline. The reasons for DOMA was to prevent exactly the things we are seeing any place SSM takes hold which is a suppression of religious and personal liberty of anyone who simply disagrees with any element of homosexual activism. The law which I believe is imperfect and would’ve been better had it been a more general augmentation/protection of religious and personal liberty and association is proving to have been necessary at least in intent. If SSM is so inevitable then Congress can simply repeal DOMA a law which was entirely bipartisan.
The point of law that advances homosexual ‘marriage’ is to force the citizens into supporting and servicing homosexual behavior.
The govt does not belong in the affairs of marriage.