NJ Gov. vetoes gay marriage bill

Full story: CBS News 1,112
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie warns a questioner to be brief as he addresses a large gathering in Voorhees, N.J., during a town hall meeting Jan. Full Story
First Prev
of 56
Next Last

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#1137 May 16, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
We've been making laws based on GOD's Principles since we became a country.
I'm not saying we haven't. What I'm saying is your refusal to treat Gays and Lesbians with dignity, respect and equality conflicts with a lot of the teachings of Jesus. We don't deny people the right to marry for lots of "sins" that they may commit. Rapists, murderers and thieves get married even when they are in prison.

Neither you or I are God so all those laws are based on belief. One of those beliefs is that we are all equal. Many of those beliefs are based on the Golden Rule. You want to make exceptions to it.

I don't.

As you said in the other thread, see you at SCOUTUS. And SCOUTUS will have to interpret the wording of the Constitution not some religion's ideas about what God's Laws are.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#1138 May 16, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Do tell....which of GOD's Principles would make the world worse than what it is...honor your mother and father....keep to your own husban/wife....do not steal from your neighbors....Honor GOD with all your heart....Be nice to one another....love one another....help one another reach the Kingdom of GOD????? Which one are you referring to, I'm just curious????
<quoted text>
Well for that matter what 3 people who love each other and are committed to each other do is nobody's business, or 4 or 5. Certainly if you stick with two, you mean two brothers or two sisters right??? Not our business. Mom/son....not our business. It's all soooo not our business that they should all be able to call their relationships 'marriage' right?????
I really wish you'd make up your mind. On one hand you want marriage limited to one man and one woman. Then you argue that we should make it available to anyone.

And how does marriage of two people of the same sex violate honor your mother and father....keep to your own husban/wife....do not steal from your neighbors....Honor GOD with all your heart....Be nice to one another....love one another....help one another reach the Kingdom of GOD?????

I'm curious.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1139 May 17, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>I really wish you'd make up your mind. On one hand you want marriage limited to one man and one woman. Then you argue that we should make it available to anyone.
And how does marriage of two people of the same sex violate honor your mother and father....keep to your own husban/wife....do not steal from your neighbors....Honor GOD with all your heart....Be nice to one another....love one another....help one another reach the Kingdom of GOD?????
I'm curious.
One of your cohorts made a statement that GOD's Principles would make the world worse than it is...I was responding to that.....

I was also responding to the statement that any 2 people marrying is no one else's business, by putting up the following examples.......

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1140 May 17, 2012
---and the slippery slope gets even 'more' slippery...but we all know there's no such thing as the 'slippery slope', don't we......

Lawyer Cites Gay Marriage to Defend Professor Accused of Incest
by Kilian Melloy
Friday Dec 24, 2010

A lawyer for a Columbia University professor accused of incestuous sexual relationships with his adult daughter has pointed to same-sex relationships in attempting to argue that sex between closely-related consenting adults should not be criminalized.

The "gay marriage" defense of Columbia University’s David Epstein, who allegedly had sex with his grown, 24-year-old daughter over a three-year period, seems tailor-made to fulfill the predictions of anti-gay conservatives who assert that allowing same-sex couples marriage rights would unleash a flurry of challenges to laws and mores regarding sexuality, encouraging practitioners and legitimizing defenders of everything from pedophilia and bestiality to incest.

"It’s OK for homosexuals to do whatever they want in their own home," argued Epstein’s lawyer, Matthew Galluzzo, in a remark made to ABC News, the Huffington Post reported on Dec. 15. "How is this so different? We have to figure out why some behavior is tolerated and some is not

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1141 May 17, 2012
and that's not all..........

Galluzzo himself weighed in at the readers’ comments section of the Huffington Post article in order to "clarify" his argument. "I did not say that homosexual­ity was the moral equivalent of incest, nor would I," wrote the attorney. "I also did not say that I condone incestuous conduct, nor would I. I do question, however, whether the government has the right to interfere with the private sexual conduct of consenting adults in light of
------Texas v. Lawrence.---------

Imagine someone taking a ruling for something totally different than what it is meant for and applying it to their own situation, like it was for them to begin with......
Obama Eats Dogs

Maple Shade, NJ

#1142 May 18, 2012
Barrack Obama is married a man. A big scary hairy knuckle dragging man at that.
salifman007

Douala, Cameroon

#1143 May 18, 2012
we have huge amount of Mephedrone for sale contact us on emadydolphins@gmail.com as soon as possible

“Really? Really?”

Since: Apr 08

G'View

#1144 May 18, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Save your stupid articles...none of them changed to ssm, did they????
That's not the point - the point is that your view that Marriage has always been the domain of the Church is not valid. The concept of Marriage has changed drastically over the years, and the Church didn't even get involved until the 12th Century.

And of course you'd say that my articles are "stupid": if you read about the history of Marriage you'd know that a good percentage of your arguments against legally recognizing SSM are hogwash and you'd have to come to terms with the only thing you have left is your own bigotry.
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
You all are sooooo delusional believing your complaints paralell those of African Americans.
Denying one group the rights that another group enjoys is EXACTLY the issue at the heart of the Civil Rights movement. And like it or not, there are multitudes of parallels that can be drawn between the Civil Rights Movement and the Marriage Issue, even down the the language used by both sides.

It all boils down to Group A telling Group B that they're not allowed to enjoy the same Rights as Group A.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1145 May 18, 2012
Hold please wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not the point - the point is that your view that Marriage has always been the domain of the Church is not valid. The concept of Marriage has changed drastically over the years, and the Church didn't even get involved until the 12th Century.
And of course you'd say that my articles are "stupid": if you read about the history of Marriage you'd know that a good percentage of your arguments against legally recognizing SSM are hogwash and you'd have to come to terms with the only thing you have left is your own bigotry.
<quoted text>
Denying one group the rights that another group enjoys is EXACTLY the issue at the heart of the Civil Rights movement. And like it or not, there are multitudes of parallels that can be drawn between the Civil Rights Movement and the Marriage Issue, even down the the language used by both sides.
It all boils down to Group A telling Group B that they're not allowed to enjoy the same Rights as Group A.
Actually that 'is' the point. You want to point out how marriage has changed over time, but one thing it didn't do was change the sex of the participants, so whatever reason you are presenting has nothing to do with granting ssm.....

Group A procreates for Group A & B...so yes, there are certain things group A has that do not apply to group B.

“Really? Really?”

Since: Apr 08

G'View

#1146 May 18, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
This is too funny! I hope this is not true, but it is absolutely absurd! LOL!!!!
Homosexual Man Suing for Right to Donate Blood Donated While Infected with Syphilis...It's against his civil rights to test his blood before they infect somebody with it...what next???
Unfortunately, this person was the wrong person to be the poster child for this issue, but his claim is valid - you cannot deny someone the ability to donate blood just because of their sexual preference and what MIGHT happen because of it. That's called discrimination.
Now, in this case, the person in question WAS infected by STDs, but the fact is that, prior to them testing him, the Blood Bank didn't know that.
Everyone is more at risk for something, but you cannot discriminate against them for it.

“Really? Really?”

Since: Apr 08

G'View

#1147 May 18, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
Actually that 'is' the point. You want to point out how marriage has changed over time, but one thing it didn't do was change the sex of the participants, so whatever reason you are presenting has nothing to do with granting ssm.....
Not yet.
The point is Marriage, or should I say the DEFINITION of Marriage has changed over time. Your argument is that SSM would change the definition of Marriage, but History shows us that the definition has been in CONSTANT flux. The definition of marriage to which you hold so tight isn't the definition that people knew 100, 1000 or 2000 years ago.
So changing it now isn't really that unusual nor without precedent.
Get That Fool wrote:
Group A procreates for Group A & B...
And Group B could raise the children that Group A had that they didn't want or couldn't care for.
Get That Fool wrote:
so yes, there are certain things group A has that do not apply to group B.
And THAT'S the point.
Group A does not have the right, ability or responsibility to tell Group B what does not apply to them. Who are you to say what rights (and, BTW, if it's a Right, it applies to EVERYONE) apply to which groups? What would you say if someone came out and said, "Religious speech, due to it's ability to create intense feelings in those who hear it, is considered inflammatory and therefore no protected by the First Amendment. Therefore, it can never be heard outside of a Church or a Private Home,"? Or, "Studies have shown that those of Faith are not as effective at making rational decisions, so, People of Faith are hereby forbidden from owning firearms, due to the possibility that they will use them irresponsibly, and for the greater good, the 2nd Amendment will no longer be applicable to anyone who openly practices Religion,"?
That would be Group A making decisions for Group B, is it okay then? These are valid arguments for denying those of a Religious background the first two Amendments of the Bill of Rights.

Because what you're doing is exactly the same thing.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#1148 May 19, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
One of your cohorts made a statement that GOD's Principles would make the world worse than it is...I was responding to that.....
I was also responding to the statement that any 2 people marrying is no one else's business, by putting up the following examples.......
I understand all that. You still refuse to consider you may be mistaken. Here's an excerpt from a column a fellow Christian wrote:

My Take: The Christian case for gay marriage. By Mark Osler
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/19/my-t...

"I am a Christian, and I am in favor of gay marriage. The reason I am for gay marriage is because of my faith.

What I see in the Bible’s accounts of Jesus and his followers is an insistence that we don’t have the moral authority to deny others the blessing of holy institutions like baptism, communion, and marriage. God, through the Holy Spirit, infuses those moments with life, and it is not ours to either give or deny to others.

A clear instruction on this comes from Simon Peter, the “rock” on whom the church is built. Peter is a captivating figure in the Christian story. Jesus plucks him out of a fishing boat to become a disciple, and time and again he represents us all in learning at the feet of Christ.

During their time together, Peter is often naïve and clueless – he is a follower, constantly learning.

After Jesus is crucified, though, a different Peter emerges, one who is forceful and bold. This is the Peter we see in the Acts of the Apostles, during a fevered debate over whether or not Gentiles should be baptized. Peter was harshly criticized for even eating a meal with those who were uncircumcised; that is, those who did not follow the commands of the Old Testament.

Peter, though, is strong in confronting those who would deny the sacrament of baptism to the Gentiles, and argues for an acceptance of believers who do not follow the circumcision rules of Leviticus (which is also where we find a condemnation of homosexuality).

His challenge is stark and stunning: Before ordering that the Gentiles be baptized Peter asks “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”

None of us, Peter says, has the moral authority to deny baptism to those who seek it, even if they do not follow the ancient laws. It is the flooding love of the Holy Spirit, which fell over that entire crowd, sinners and saints alike, that directs otherwise."

Editor's Note: Mark Osler is a Professor of Law at the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis, Minnesota. I've posted this column in the Religion Forum on TOPIX and hope many will join the discussion there.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 56
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Voorhees Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Anyone have memories of downtown Clementon in 5... (May '07) Oct 17 Dotty 817
Review: Majestic Home Remodeling (Sep '13) Oct 15 LouC 24
Review: Genesis Healthcare Voorhees Powerback (Mar '13) Oct 2 another ex-employee 32
Heroin & Prostitution Sep 26 laurenm0 2
Among workers at Revel there's shock, anxiety, ... Sep '14 2chainz babymama 4
Camden Home for Children was a haven for 114 years (Sep '08) Sep '14 Resident 4
Who do you support for U.S. House in New Jersey... (Oct '10) Aug '14 Crack Corn 34

Voorhees News Video

Voorhees Dating
Find my Match

Voorhees Jobs

Voorhees People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Voorhees News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Voorhees

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]