I believe that this is an outrage. What is the world becoming? People should know that two of the same sex weren\’t made for each other because if they were two women could produce a child. The world needsto wake up and realize that we are only corrupting the souls and minds of today\’s youth.
You are correct. In the end, bigots of all stripes will be on the losing end of history. Imagine how great a day it will be when there is no one left for ignorant people to hate, other than themselves.
I am SO GLAD to see another step made in the direction of equality.
The ability to reproduce is a weak argument as to why \’marriage\’ should be restricted to a man-and-woman couple. Really weak. But most arguments in support of hate and bigotry are weak, lame and often full of holes.
If they\’re being afforded the same rights as everyone else, why wouldn\’t they be allowed to carry the \”married\” term and have their own marriages. Why do we still need to categorize the unions as \”partnerships\”?
\”But he who sins against me wrongs his own soul. All those who hate me love death,\” Proverbs 8:36.
God gave them up to vile passions. For their women changed the natural function into that which is against nature.
\”Likewise also the men, leaving the natural function of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another, men doing what is inappropriate with men, and receiving in themselves the due penalty of their error,\” Romans 1:26-27.
\”Or don\’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don\’t be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor extortioners, will inherit the Kingdom of God,\” 1 Cor. 6:9-10.
So I guess the Bible is bigoted hate speech, and your empty head contains more wisdom than 2,000 years of Christian cultural development.
They have the same rights as anyone else: Any sodomist can marry any woman that\’ll have him, and any lesbian can marry any man that\’ll have her.
In the name of \”equality\” next we will have people showing up at the courthouse with their ponies or goats, or three men who want to get married. Mark my words.
Then again, moral imbeciles won\’t see any problems with these \”alternate lifestyles.\”
Preferred over spending an eternity with scripture quoting, bigoted, hate mongers who believe only \”they\” are right and everyone who lives their lives opposite them is wrong.
I find it very interesting that self-proclaimed Christians will extrapolate select text from the Bible to support their positions of hatred and bigotry, which pretty much completely wipes out Jesus\’ message of peace, love and tolerance. 2 points, Bruce – first, the bible was written by MEN, not God, and therefore is subject to all the flaws and downfalls of an imperfect being (including \”spin\” – don\’t forget that Christianity in its early days was more a political decision by Constantinople backing the winning horse than anything else) and second, the stories in the bible are not factual, but rather allegories to explain \”the moral of the story.\” So it\’s interesting that you\’ll use word-for-word quoting when it suits you.
Quoting scripture in a country that openly supports MANY religions is one way to marginalize and polarize yourself. You don\’t want to marry your gay partner? Then don\’t – but others do and there\’s no harm to you. If there\’s judgment for their actions, it comes at God\’s hand, not your mortal one. How dare you try to legislate your religion onto all people of this country!
\”When I tell the wicked, \’You shall surely die,\’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life, the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity. But his blood will I require at your hand. Yet if you warn the wicked, and he doesn\’t turn from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered your soul,\” Ezekiel 3:18-19.
Wow. So you\’ve proven that the Bible is not divinely inspired. You oughta be famous. How come I never heard of you, with such a monumental accomplishment on your resume?
Why does the left always respond with name calling when someone disagrees with them. If the left wants to force their opinions on everyone else, aren\’t they just as bigoted and hateful for not yielding to their opposition.
No one has refuted one word that I\’ve said. One bugger asserted that the Bible is not divinely inspired but has offered no proof for that proposition.
Another point that I hope someone else noticed is that the court told the legislature to come up with a pro-sodomist marriage bill in the interest of \”the democratic process.\” Hilarious!
What if the legislature told the court to pound sand? What would/could the McGreevy appointees on the court do?
The legislators won\’t do this though because their spineless weenies have been given cover by the court for coming up with a marriage-for-buggers law so that they can tell their constituents that they had no choice, when in fact, the democratic process would assume that the elected representatives of the people introduce, debate, and vote on such a bill.
So you see, once people cut their moral moorings, Stalinism is not far away.
1. Although our morals and ethics are derivate partially from religion, our faith and environment, Religion has no part in government. I am not going to into the “separation of church and state” as most people misconstrue it anyway.
2. IF I did allow my religious beliefs to dictate my politics and “legal” view, then DIVORCE would be Illegal. Hit a note with anyone?
3. Have your religious beliefs, but also know that this is America and not everyone is Christian. Different religions, and/or beliefs are not bad, immoral, or corrupt they are just different.
We\’ve learned about talking points from the masters, the LIBERAL \”MIAN STREAM\” MEDIA…
It doesn\’t matter which Lib media outlet you watch tonight, they all will be saying the same thing, Rush Limbaugh\’s comments on Micheal J. Fox\’s misleading add about a referendum initive in MO about CLONING. Not about stem cell research which is what Mr. Fox wants you to believe…
1. Divorce is not illegal, this is evidenced by the number of Divorce Lawyers in the US.
2. Ever hear of an Annulment?
So let me get your point straight on #3, you would support NAMBLA? “Different religions, and/beliefs are not bad, immoral, or corrupt they are just different.” Mod Liberal
Every state that has allowed voters to decide has overwhelmingly voted against Gay Marriage.
That’s why the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy folks take everything to court. The Courts are full of left leaning activists that think the separation of power includes the ability for the Court to create a law no elected legislative body has seen fit to pass.
Religion has no part in government? \”Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.\” -John Jay, First Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and co-author of the Federalist Papers, letter to Jedidiah Morse, 28 Feb 1797.
\”Christianity becomes not merely an auxiliary, but a guide, to the law of nature; establishing its conclusions, removing its doubts, and evaluating its precepts.\” -Joseph Story, \”The Value and Importance of Legal Studies,\” a lecture delivered August 25, 1829 at his inauguration as Dane Professor of Law in Harvard University, cited in James McClellan, Joseph Story and the American Constitution (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma, 1971), p. 66.
\”Different religions, and/or beliefs are not bad, immoral, or corrupt they are just different.\” So then, everything\’s permitted. Once everything is permitted, then anything can be made mandatory.
You whine about \”church and state,\” as if the man/woman marriage that has existed for the whole of recorded history is the result of any-sodomist bigotry, but have no qualms about one court overturning the most fundamental of human institutions.
At any rate, sodomists do not get married much in the European countries that have allowed it for years because they cannot control their promiscuous impulses, and see no reason to be tied to only one mate. The average homo has had hundreds of partners by the time he is thirty. Not even randy straight men are this incautious.
So \”gay marriage\” in NJ is not going to amount to much. Evil social movements have come and gone and left little lasting imprint.
The article quoted the decison to include \”committed couples\”. I would like to know how or where this term is defined, by statute, common law etc. Secondly, we would be extending benfits through unintended consequences. Ie. 35 year old unemployed son at home with employed mom that has health insurance through a group plan. Are they a \”committed couple\”? And if not, why not?
And we wonder why there is so much partisanship in our country. Just reading back over this so-called dialogue reveals that for some, it is not dialogue at all, but rather selective Bible quotations and assertions that government policy should be dictated by (Christian) religion, all laced with offensive hate speech. Most of the comments, both pro and con, are at least reasoned.
This just illustrates the perils of extremism, intolerance and yes, bigotry.
I pray to God that the United States never becomes a \”Christian nation\” as some people define that term. If it does, we will become very un-Christian.
I have terrible endometriosis and will never be able to have children as a result. Does that mean that I am not meant to be with ANYONE since we will never be able to produce a child?
Your comments are hilarious and completely misleading but using your \”logic\” one could state that if the Neocon/Crazy Christian people ran the court system then only white men would rule America, everyone would still own a slave and women couldn\’t vote or work and would be at home barefoot and pregnant. Hmmm, i will take my chances with the \”liberal left\”.
\”For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.\” Matthew 7:2
\”1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 \”Say to the Israelites: \’A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. 3 On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. 4 Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. 5 If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding.\” Leviticus 12:1-5
Take a look at Leviticus 13 for some words on cleansing from mildew, infectious skin diseases, clean and unclean foods and keeping your head covered.
I can pull arbitrary **** from the bible, too, Bruce. I\’m sure you also follow the ten commandments to a tee. I know someone like you would never have lied or done any work on the Sabbath. Glad there are still holy people out there.
I never thought I would be called upon to defend an idea so basic as the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman.
The fact is that throughout history, healthy societies universally recognized that man and woman are meant to live together in monogamous unions and raise children, i.e. a family. This simple truth corresponds to the human heart, be that heart American, European, Asian, Middle Eastern or African. Homosexual union, particularly gay marriage, does not.
It is one of society\’s (and government\’s) primary tasks to foster and encourage the family. Society has an interest in fostering families and even regulating conduct that affects the family (e.g. laws re educating and providing health care for children).
What the court has done has been to impose a homosexual agenda masquerading it in the guise of rights. While the Courts have done marvelous things to defend civil rights, that doesn\’t mean the court is right every time it seeks to impose an agenda. A rights argument can be fashioned to promote anything. We have to make judgments using our hearts and minds to decide what is best, not just for me, or for gays, but for our culture, our society, which ultimately means our future.
I for one am going to stand up for what has worked for the past 4,000 years, the family. Maybe some will threaten to assign me to history\’s trash heap of bigots, but I\’m not worried about that. I\’d rather take a stand for preserving society, marriage and the traditional family, because I believe, based on history and tradition, that gay marriage is simply wrong.
Why is it that some feel threatened by gay families versus the traditional role model. Is it the change they fear? I shall comfort myself with the words of William Blake…\”Without contrast there is no progress\”…
And for the Christians who chose to post scripture here…do you not feel it is blasphemous to post scripture to support your bigotry?
\”Without contrast there is no progress.\” So where\’s the contrast between two men in bed?
My views on the topic are taken from the Bible, as are the views of millions on this topic. Quoting the Bible in support of a belief that originates in the Bible can hardly be considered blasphemous by anyone with a functioning brain.
By the same logic that condemns normal people for opposing homosexuals marrying one another, you could start a crussade against fireman for being anti-fire bigots. By the same logic that argues that sodomists are born with an attraction to other men\’s anuses, a theif could argue before a judge that he was born a theif and can\’t help it.
You clowns who think that sodomy is just another way of life are indirectly responsible for the spread of AIDS. Once society began to discourage tobacco use, deaths from the diseases it causes started going down. Want to end AIDS, or at least greatly reduce it? Then discourage buggery and it will go down just like lung cancer and emphysema did.
Everyone here seems to miss the TRUE point here… according to the constitution of the state of New Jersey under the rules and guidlines of seperation of power and the governing rule of checks and balances, the Supream Court of this state has no authority to ledgislate, propose, or ammend laws and legal definition. That is the job of the ledgislative body. The only job of the court in this state is to find constitutionality of ledgislation ALREADY IN FORCE and only after being questioned by the executive body or populus at large. In short IT DOESN\’T MATTER WHAT THE COURT SAID BECAUSE IT IS AN UNSOLISITED OPINION WITH NO POWER OR ENFORCABLITY. Please go back to Local and State Government class in county college.
New Jersey has an equal protection clause in their constitution. Two gay men had been denied equal protection and submitted their complaint to the Court. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled the equal protection clause of the state\’s constitution requires that committed same-sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the
civil marriage statutes.
Why does this bother anyone? All it does is remove another boundary of prejudice against a class of individuals who have been denied equal protection under the law.
Denial of rights under the law is a tactic often used by one group to impose its will and domination over another. Far from wanting to remove boundaries of prejudice, people who scapegoat seek to use the courts and the entire political process to erect barriers to enable their domination. Just look to the 19th century and the arguments used to enforce slavery on people, based on the color of their skin.
Neocons really don\’t like democracy because it interferes with their desire to decide for others how society will be structured.
I didn\’t realize that \”neocons,\” whatever they are, invented marriage and structured it to suit their views.
And attempts to affiliate sexual perversion with racial equality are crass and desperate. One is based on behavior and the other on race. Anyone can stop searching out other men\’s genitals and anuses for enjoyment anytime he wishes, while no one can change his race. The law punishes and discourages behavior all the time, but has no business favoring one race over another. If you were right then all blacks would be in favor of buggering marriage.
As functionally retarded as I find bruce\’s views to be, he is right in the fact that comparing sexual PREFERENCE to race or gender is equally as absurd bruce\’s overall views on the state governing morality between two consenting adults in private which harms no one (other then possibly themselves.)I don\’t believe the courts have any business regulating or ledgislating anything regarding this matter (I include hetro couples actions as well.) Marrage should be about love and commitment, not laws and rights. I, for one, do not like the governments active involment in my life, and I cannot comprehend INVITING them into my bedroom. Just my two-cents.
You wrote…\”So I guess the Bible is bigoted hate speech, and your empty head contains more wisdom than 2,000 years of Christian cultural development.\”
Uh, Bruce, you provided quotes from the Old Testament. You will find more homosexuality in the Old Testament than you\’ll find at a gay bath house in San Francisco. You might recall the Old Testament was written for the Jews…I don\’t think that should be considered \”Christian cultural development\”…
Uh, you don\’t think so because you don\’t know anything about Christian theology.
Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament Law and the Prophets for us vicariously in that He led a sinless life as God incarnate, and died as the sacrifice for the sins of His people. Faith in His atoning work applies the merits of His sacrifice to our souls.
The ceremonial laws (can\’t eat pork, mustn\’t mix wool and cotton) were temporary and passed away with the destruction of the temple and the succession of the Church in its place as a spiritual temple. So adultery is still wrong, but we can enjoy crab cakes.
As you can see there\’s more involved than you might expect. Try visiting a Bible-believing church and talking to the pastor, even if only out of intellectual curiosity – if not honestly wanting to understand the gospel.
I would not call NAMBLA a religion because that would be saying that the supporters of such an organization (sodomizing liberals) actually had a religion.
I know of NAMBLA because Nancy Pelosi marched with them in the Pride Parade in San Francisco and it sickens me (NAMBLA does also).
I still see that ignorance is still amuck …..
The idea of families is a fairly new concept as far as history goes.
The Bible is a compilation of stories and letters, it was not Divinely written, if it was EVERYTHING it states would still be very applicable today, which it is not.
Bruce, DO NOT CONFUSE GAYS with pedophiles, they are not similar in anyway, Pedophiles harm children, male and female, and can even be found in the churches that are preaching the Bible.
You really do a disservice to ALL Faiths and Humankind when you allude to the fact that AIDS is a way to exterminate. No one is attacking your religion nor your faith, but realize that your faith is yours and may not be others.
Remember this is about RIGHTS, and the legal and insurance issues that might arise, not about Faith!
What a gay couple does (provided both are consenting adults) behind closed doors isn\’t any of my business. If a gay couple gets married, I don\’t see how it would adversely affect me.
If a gay couple is treated equally by an insurer, the same as how my husband and I are treated by an insurer, again… I don\’t see how it has a negative impact on me.
Bruce, I appreciate that you want people to see things from your perspective. I appreciate that you possibly want to change the minds or opinions of those who don\’t agree with you.
In what ways would you be personally harmed if gay couples were treated equally?
Clearly you do disagree with gay people and that\’s your perogative. You own your opinion and that\’s fine. You also have tools and publications that align with how you feel and you use those to support your opinion. That\’s completely fair.
However, it is also fair for other people to support equal rights for gay couples and it\’s fair for other people to have a neutral opinion. It\’s great that everyone is speaking their mind and exercising their freedom of speech.
Does a moral disagreement give someone grounds to deny equality to a group of people? Are we required by law to have morals?
How does the argument for or against equality for gay couples change if the morality issue is removed? I\’m most curious to read answers to this question.
I really like Tolerant Christian\’s message of peace, love and tolerance.
We may define ourselves as followers of certain faiths, members of political parties, by race or nationality… none of that matters in the big picture though. We are all *humans* and frankly, not one of us is superior to another. So perhaps we should try to practice a little bit of live-and-let-live in most situations?
(Please note, I qualified that with \”most situations\”. If someone is physically hurting my child or my self, I\’m not going to sit there and take it. There are times when live-and-let-live doesn\’t apply, but equal treatment for gay couples is, in my humble opinion, a situation where it absolutely DOES apply.)
\”The Bible is a compilation of stories and letters, it was not Divinely written…\”
Where is your proof? This is a bald assertion and would not be allowed in a jr high school debate.
\”…if it was EVERYTHING it states would still be very applicable today, which it is not.\”
I explained briefly why this is wrong in an earlier post. You have obviuosly never even attended Sunday school or you\’d know better.
\”Bruce, DO NOT CONFUSE GAYS with pedophiles…\”
You need a class in reading comprehension. I didn\’t say anything about pedophiles, though homosexual pedophila is much more likely to occur than heterosexual, but let\’s not change the subject, shall we?
\”You really do a disservice to ALL Faiths and Humankind when you allude to the fact that AIDS is a way to exterminate.\”
You need a class in reading comprehension. I didn\’t \”allude to the fact that AIDS is a way to exterminate,\” but if it were a *fact* as you allege, what could be wrong with mentioning it? You\’re as accomplished a thinker as you are a theologian.
AIDS is the most preventable fatal disease ever: don\’t share needles or let anyone bugger you and you won\’t get it. But no, liberals like you who want to seem tolerant and sophisticated tell people it\’s ok to put their johnsons anywhere they want, while the grave digger works overtime. YOUR BELIEFS KILL HOMOS, not mine.
You are obviously not very bright and have no understanding of the Bible, Christian theology, or how inventing a new class of \”married\” citizens will impact insurance rates.
\”Hey boss, I married both of my boyfriends, one of my girlfriends and my goat. Are they covered by our dental program?\”
\”In what ways would you be personally harmed if gay couples were treated equally?\”
Good question. For one thing, when I got married it meant one thing to be married. Now, to change the rules to suit some squeaky wheels, it is going to mean something else. If marriage becomes available to siblings and groups, as it must if we continue on this track, then it will eventually be a meaningless institution. In those Eurpoean nations that have allowed homosexuals to marry for decades, marriage rates have declined for precisely this reason – even though homos very rarely get married. They are too promiscuous to want to bother.
Secondly, I did not get married to obtain insurance and tax benefits, and so that the person with whom I have sex could visit me in the hospital, the reasons homos and their apologists routinely give. I got married to establish a covenant of exclusive intimacy with a woman so that she could be the mother of my children. The fact that homosexuals complain about insurance and tax issues primarily as the reasons for wanting to \”get in\” on marriage benefits, the shallow natures of both their arguements and character are revealed.
\”How does the argument for or against equality for gay couples change if the morality issue is removed? I\’m most curious to read answers to this question.\”
Another good question. I didn\’t appeal to morality in my answer to your first question, to take it as the answer to both.
However, the morality issue is imposible to remove from the human condition and questions of life. All legislation is someone\’s idea of right and wrong, so the law is a great teacher. If homos can get married (which few of them even care to do) it sends the message to young people that there is nothing wrong with sodomy: when in fact it is even more damaging to the human soul than it is to the anal suspensor muscle.
Before you start attacking a person\’s intelligence, you MIGHT want to do some reading and research yourself, instead of just spewing rhetoric. AND FYI, reading and regurgitating the Bible does not a Christian make.
You are obviously not very bright and have no understanding of the Bible, Christian theology, or how inventing a new class of \”married\” citizens will impact insurance rates.
As this decision relates to insurance issues, it will be interesting to see how such a union would be defined. How long of a time span makes for a committed couple? What type of document will prove there is such a union rather than a couple (whether gay or hetero) that has been living together for several years? If there is going to be benefits granted to couples of such a union, then it seems there has to be some type of penalty if the couple breaks up…like a married couple that divorces.
I do not want to get embroiled in the debate of whether this is morally right or wrong. The court has ruled that a class of people were being treated differently, and that it is now up to the legistlature to do something about it.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion on this subject, and no one should be treated as a second class citizen because of their belief. This is what America was founded on.
Although I generally don\’t believe in arguing from scripture as it won\’t convince anyone who doesn\’t already agree, as the debate rages, I find myself agreeing more and more with Bruce. I agree that by permiting marriage between two men or two women, we are moving further down the road toward the breakdown of our society. Next year we will be debating whether we should allow marriage or civil unions among siblings. The following year we will debate bigamy, then polygamy. Finally, we will debate interspecies marriage. At some point, hopefully now, we will need to make a moral judgment for the good of society.
Gay marriage is not just about two consenting adults behind closed doors. Its about adopting children and what kind of upbringing those children will receive. So anyone who thinks society has nothing to say about that should think more deeply, in my view.
I don\’t understand why allowing gay marriage will lead to allowing marriage between siblings and different species.
When women were finally given the right to vote, were people genuinely worried that eventually apes and infants would also have the right to vote?
As for adopting children… many kids desperately need good homes. I personally know an infertile straight couple who adopted two children and unfortunately for the kids, these people probably should not have been permitted to adopt. Both boys are now grown and have attested to as much on more than one occasion.
Sexual orientation probably has no bearing whatsoever on one\’s ability to raise a child. I think it largely depends on other things, such as a person\’s intelligence, temperament and whether they have the ability to learn and practice parenting skills.
Putting aside the issue of morality (which, like personal responsibility, can\’t effectively be governed) what negative influence would a gay couple have on an adopted child that is worse than any negative influence a straight couple might have?
While I\’m trying to see this issue from other perspectives, I\’m struggling to understand. Perhaps my brand of common sense isn\’t so common.
As far as how the union would be defined in the eyes of the insurer, what defines common-law marriage in New Jersey? (Does NJ even recognize common-law marriage?) Possibly those statutes could be used as a model to establish the definition of a \”committed same-sex couple\”?
I can appreciate your comments and your assertion of, where will this all end? Point is, I do not know? Just like slavery was abolished, women gaining more rights and interracial marriage is now legally acceptable, times change. I can however assure you that although some of us believe our pets are family members, we will NEVER try to marry them.
I must however, point out that the \”sanctity\” of marriage argument has been used to death, but where is the sanctity? People get married and divorced with weeks, and even days! The demise of the concept and the sanctity of marriage.
For me, I believe that this issue needs to be separated. The concept of marriage should occur in a church, or some other religion institution, while a civil union, which allows all the legal rights, should be filed though the state.
As far as adoption, where did these kids come from in the first place? Heterosexuals!
Gay parents do not make gay children, just like straight parents do not make only straight children, hence gays. People are who they are, NO ONE can make them straight or gay. I will tell you that gay people fostering a child or adopting a child is not a decision that they take very lightly. Would a child really be better as a ward of the state than with a loving person or couple?
Why are we being ridiculed for try to take responsibly for all other unwanted child and be part of the solution and not the problem?
Bruce and Saddened, I am going to slippery slope this the other way seeing as how you are both so concerned over the possibility of inter species marriage.
If the government can madate that marriage is between one man and one woman, what is to stop them from mandating which specific man and which specific woman?
Also, the bible quoting is nice but has no place in this discussion. This is not a moral issue, but a civil rights issue. My 12 year old gets that. It amazes me that supposedly intelligent adults don\’t get it. You would discriminate against a group of people because of how they are? Sexual orientation is not a preference. When did you decide that you would be straight? I know I didn\’t wake up one day and say, wow, going to be straight- rather it is just a part of who I am. I can\’t imagine \’choosing to be gay\’ and having to put up with bigots such as yourselves.
ruce,
Since you asked, the proof that the bible was written by men (which is what tolerant christian states – you have somehow turned that into asking where is the proof that it was not divinely INSPIRED which is impossible to either prove nor disprove) is right on the bible itself. The bible as presented to christians today is the \”king james version\”. This is King James\’ VERSION of what might or might not be a divine document from ages ago. Now I didn\’t know the king personally but my guess is he had reason to not care much for many groups of people (women and intellectuals come to mind) and thus to skew his version of the bible to fit his ideas. Of course, I\’m a destined-for-hell-which-I-don\’t-believe-in-buddhist so I likely won\’t be listened to but any objective (I.E. not taught by a religious institution/instructor) class on the history of the bible will be happy to confirm my words.
In any case bruce, I wish you a peaceful, loving, tolerant place in your heart and an open, thoughtful, discerning place in your mind that you might learn to love the world you live in and the humanity with which you share it.
Many years ago my husband and I were on the Newlywed Game and we won a pool table, ping-pong table, computer and various other items. We decided to give the items to charity. We had a Super-Bowl Party with colleagues and friends and used the items. We invited a charity to pick up the items about 6:00 PM (PST). Out of respect for one of my colleagues who was gay and was fostering a child we donated the items to GLAAD. When they arrived to pick up the items many of my friends helped them to load them up. They had brought a tax receipt and some information about their organization and one of the guests at the party picked it up and started to read the information out loud. Initially, the intent was to embarass me for selecting that organization. It seems this person had not been brought into the confidence of our boss regarding his sexual orientation. He started asking her questions as did others. The ultimate insult to her was when EVERYONE at that party emptied their pockets of their cash and added checks to their donations and the charity walked out the door with an additional $833. She had scripture hanging all over her cubicle at work. She perceived herself as a higher being because of her beliefs. Her ignorance inspired others to get involved and to be charitable. Let\’s hope Bruce\’s commentary does the same for those who have visited here…
I believe that this is an outrage. What is the world becoming? People should know that two of the same sex weren\’t made for each other because if they were two women could produce a child. The world needsto wake up and realize that we are only corrupting the souls and minds of today\’s youth.
Oh please. Shut the **** up. Realize that the world\’s changing. Learn to roll with it.
These are the same arguments that were made during the fight for Civil Rights and the fight for Women\’s Rights…it is true…history repeats itself.
You are correct. In the end, bigots of all stripes will be on the losing end of history. Imagine how great a day it will be when there is no one left for ignorant people to hate, other than themselves.
It is nice to see only one ignorant opinion here…I was afraid to view the comments, as I though it would ruin my day.
This is a good thing. It treats more people as human beings…how can that be wrong?
Mr. P.
I am SO GLAD to see another step made in the direction of equality.
The ability to reproduce is a weak argument as to why \’marriage\’ should be restricted to a man-and-woman couple. Really weak. But most arguments in support of hate and bigotry are weak, lame and often full of holes.
If they\’re being afforded the same rights as everyone else, why wouldn\’t they be allowed to carry the \”married\” term and have their own marriages. Why do we still need to categorize the unions as \”partnerships\”?
\”But he who sins against me wrongs his own soul. All those who hate me love death,\” Proverbs 8:36.
God gave them up to vile passions. For their women changed the natural function into that which is against nature.
\”Likewise also the men, leaving the natural function of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another, men doing what is inappropriate with men, and receiving in themselves the due penalty of their error,\” Romans 1:26-27.
\”Or don\’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don\’t be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor extortioners, will inherit the Kingdom of God,\” 1 Cor. 6:9-10.
So I guess the Bible is bigoted hate speech, and your empty head contains more wisdom than 2,000 years of Christian cultural development.
They have the same rights as anyone else: Any sodomist can marry any woman that\’ll have him, and any lesbian can marry any man that\’ll have her.
In the name of \”equality\” next we will have people showing up at the courthouse with their ponies or goats, or three men who want to get married. Mark my words.
Then again, moral imbeciles won\’t see any problems with these \”alternate lifestyles.\”
Preferred over spending an eternity with scripture quoting, bigoted, hate mongers who believe only \”they\” are right and everyone who lives their lives opposite them is wrong.
I find it very interesting that self-proclaimed Christians will extrapolate select text from the Bible to support their positions of hatred and bigotry, which pretty much completely wipes out Jesus\’ message of peace, love and tolerance. 2 points, Bruce – first, the bible was written by MEN, not God, and therefore is subject to all the flaws and downfalls of an imperfect being (including \”spin\” – don\’t forget that Christianity in its early days was more a political decision by Constantinople backing the winning horse than anything else) and second, the stories in the bible are not factual, but rather allegories to explain \”the moral of the story.\” So it\’s interesting that you\’ll use word-for-word quoting when it suits you.
Quoting scripture in a country that openly supports MANY religions is one way to marginalize and polarize yourself. You don\’t want to marry your gay partner? Then don\’t – but others do and there\’s no harm to you. If there\’s judgment for their actions, it comes at God\’s hand, not your mortal one. How dare you try to legislate your religion onto all people of this country!
This is a sad continuance of the decline of Western Civilization…
\”When I tell the wicked, \’You shall surely die,\’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life, the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity. But his blood will I require at your hand. Yet if you warn the wicked, and he doesn\’t turn from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered your soul,\” Ezekiel 3:18-19.
Pardon me for doing my duty.
Wow. So you\’ve proven that the Bible is not divinely inspired. You oughta be famous. How come I never heard of you, with such a monumental accomplishment on your resume?
Tut, tut, Bruce, sarcasm is the best you can come up with when your own arguments are refuted? Here I was hoping for an intellectual exchange……
Why does the left always respond with name calling when someone disagrees with them. If the left wants to force their opinions on everyone else, aren\’t they just as bigoted and hateful for not yielding to their opposition.
He made is point intellectually with backup.
What I\’ve read for detracters is \”hate\”, \”bigot\”… Name calling is the final act of despiration.
Does anyone know what Islam says about homosexuality?
No one has refuted one word that I\’ve said. One bugger asserted that the Bible is not divinely inspired but has offered no proof for that proposition.
I\’ve read this Bruce\’s comments on two other boards today. Probably one of the FreeRep bots who post GoPAC talking points on message boards all day
Another point that I hope someone else noticed is that the court told the legislature to come up with a pro-sodomist marriage bill in the interest of \”the democratic process.\” Hilarious!
What if the legislature told the court to pound sand? What would/could the McGreevy appointees on the court do?
The legislators won\’t do this though because their spineless weenies have been given cover by the court for coming up with a marriage-for-buggers law so that they can tell their constituents that they had no choice, when in fact, the democratic process would assume that the elected representatives of the people introduce, debate, and vote on such a bill.
So you see, once people cut their moral moorings, Stalinism is not far away.
Nice try, but it wasn\’t me, babe.
The Chief Justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court is a Republican appointee.
I just want to make a few points:
1. Although our morals and ethics are derivate partially from religion, our faith and environment, Religion has no part in government. I am not going to into the “separation of church and state” as most people misconstrue it anyway.
2. IF I did allow my religious beliefs to dictate my politics and “legal” view, then DIVORCE would be Illegal. Hit a note with anyone?
3. Have your religious beliefs, but also know that this is America and not everyone is Christian. Different religions, and/or beliefs are not bad, immoral, or corrupt they are just different.
We\’ve learned about talking points from the masters, the LIBERAL \”MIAN STREAM\” MEDIA…
It doesn\’t matter which Lib media outlet you watch tonight, they all will be saying the same thing, Rush Limbaugh\’s comments on Micheal J. Fox\’s misleading add about a referendum initive in MO about CLONING. Not about stem cell research which is what Mr. Fox wants you to believe…
I\’ll take on your point,
1. Divorce is not illegal, this is evidenced by the number of Divorce Lawyers in the US.
2. Ever hear of an Annulment?
So let me get your point straight on #3, you would support NAMBLA? “Different religions, and/beliefs are not bad, immoral, or corrupt they are just different.” Mod Liberal
Every state that has allowed voters to decide has overwhelmingly voted against Gay Marriage.
That’s why the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy folks take everything to court. The Courts are full of left leaning activists that think the separation of power includes the ability for the Court to create a law no elected legislative body has seen fit to pass.
Religion has no part in government? \”Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.\” -John Jay, First Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and co-author of the Federalist Papers, letter to Jedidiah Morse, 28 Feb 1797.
\”Christianity becomes not merely an auxiliary, but a guide, to the law of nature; establishing its conclusions, removing its doubts, and evaluating its precepts.\” -Joseph Story, \”The Value and Importance of Legal Studies,\” a lecture delivered August 25, 1829 at his inauguration as Dane Professor of Law in Harvard University, cited in James McClellan, Joseph Story and the American Constitution (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma, 1971), p. 66.
\”Different religions, and/or beliefs are not bad, immoral, or corrupt they are just different.\” So then, everything\’s permitted. Once everything is permitted, then anything can be made mandatory.
You whine about \”church and state,\” as if the man/woman marriage that has existed for the whole of recorded history is the result of any-sodomist bigotry, but have no qualms about one court overturning the most fundamental of human institutions.
At any rate, sodomists do not get married much in the European countries that have allowed it for years because they cannot control their promiscuous impulses, and see no reason to be tied to only one mate. The average homo has had hundreds of partners by the time he is thirty. Not even randy straight men are this incautious.
So \”gay marriage\” in NJ is not going to amount to much. Evil social movements have come and gone and left little lasting imprint.
The article quoted the decison to include \”committed couples\”. I would like to know how or where this term is defined, by statute, common law etc. Secondly, we would be extending benfits through unintended consequences. Ie. 35 year old unemployed son at home with employed mom that has health insurance through a group plan. Are they a \”committed couple\”? And if not, why not?
And we wonder why there is so much partisanship in our country. Just reading back over this so-called dialogue reveals that for some, it is not dialogue at all, but rather selective Bible quotations and assertions that government policy should be dictated by (Christian) religion, all laced with offensive hate speech. Most of the comments, both pro and con, are at least reasoned.
This just illustrates the perils of extremism, intolerance and yes, bigotry.
I pray to God that the United States never becomes a \”Christian nation\” as some people define that term. If it does, we will become very un-Christian.
I have terrible endometriosis and will never be able to have children as a result. Does that mean that I am not meant to be with ANYONE since we will never be able to produce a child?
I\’m sure your hundreds of partners by thirty comment came from a respresentative and fair poll. Lies, damn lies and statistics.
alright, why don\’t you offer proof FOR that proposition then?
Your comments are hilarious and completely misleading but using your \”logic\” one could state that if the Neocon/Crazy Christian people ran the court system then only white men would rule America, everyone would still own a slave and women couldn\’t vote or work and would be at home barefoot and pregnant. Hmmm, i will take my chances with the \”liberal left\”.
Is NAMBLA a religion? And how do you know about NAMBLA, are you a member?
\”For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.\” Matthew 7:2
\”1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 \”Say to the Israelites: \’A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. 3 On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. 4 Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. 5 If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding.\” Leviticus 12:1-5
Take a look at Leviticus 13 for some words on cleansing from mildew, infectious skin diseases, clean and unclean foods and keeping your head covered.
I can pull arbitrary **** from the bible, too, Bruce. I\’m sure you also follow the ten commandments to a tee. I know someone like you would never have lied or done any work on the Sabbath. Glad there are still holy people out there.
I never thought I would be called upon to defend an idea so basic as the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman.
The fact is that throughout history, healthy societies universally recognized that man and woman are meant to live together in monogamous unions and raise children, i.e. a family. This simple truth corresponds to the human heart, be that heart American, European, Asian, Middle Eastern or African. Homosexual union, particularly gay marriage, does not.
It is one of society\’s (and government\’s) primary tasks to foster and encourage the family. Society has an interest in fostering families and even regulating conduct that affects the family (e.g. laws re educating and providing health care for children).
What the court has done has been to impose a homosexual agenda masquerading it in the guise of rights. While the Courts have done marvelous things to defend civil rights, that doesn\’t mean the court is right every time it seeks to impose an agenda. A rights argument can be fashioned to promote anything. We have to make judgments using our hearts and minds to decide what is best, not just for me, or for gays, but for our culture, our society, which ultimately means our future.
I for one am going to stand up for what has worked for the past 4,000 years, the family. Maybe some will threaten to assign me to history\’s trash heap of bigots, but I\’m not worried about that. I\’d rather take a stand for preserving society, marriage and the traditional family, because I believe, based on history and tradition, that gay marriage is simply wrong.
GOD, I told them not to do it, but they wouldn\’t listen!
Why is it that some feel threatened by gay families versus the traditional role model. Is it the change they fear? I shall comfort myself with the words of William Blake…\”Without contrast there is no progress\”…
And for the Christians who chose to post scripture here…do you not feel it is blasphemous to post scripture to support your bigotry?
\”Without contrast there is no progress.\” So where\’s the contrast between two men in bed?
My views on the topic are taken from the Bible, as are the views of millions on this topic. Quoting the Bible in support of a belief that originates in the Bible can hardly be considered blasphemous by anyone with a functioning brain.
By the same logic that condemns normal people for opposing homosexuals marrying one another, you could start a crussade against fireman for being anti-fire bigots. By the same logic that argues that sodomists are born with an attraction to other men\’s anuses, a theif could argue before a judge that he was born a theif and can\’t help it.
You clowns who think that sodomy is just another way of life are indirectly responsible for the spread of AIDS. Once society began to discourage tobacco use, deaths from the diseases it causes started going down. Want to end AIDS, or at least greatly reduce it? Then discourage buggery and it will go down just like lung cancer and emphysema did.
Everyone here seems to miss the TRUE point here… according to the constitution of the state of New Jersey under the rules and guidlines of seperation of power and the governing rule of checks and balances, the Supream Court of this state has no authority to ledgislate, propose, or ammend laws and legal definition. That is the job of the ledgislative body. The only job of the court in this state is to find constitutionality of ledgislation ALREADY IN FORCE and only after being questioned by the executive body or populus at large. In short IT DOESN\’T MATTER WHAT THE COURT SAID BECAUSE IT IS AN UNSOLISITED OPINION WITH NO POWER OR ENFORCABLITY. Please go back to Local and State Government class in county college.
New Jersey has an equal protection clause in their constitution. Two gay men had been denied equal protection and submitted their complaint to the Court. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled the equal protection clause of the state\’s constitution requires that committed same-sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the
civil marriage statutes.
Why does this bother anyone? All it does is remove another boundary of prejudice against a class of individuals who have been denied equal protection under the law.
Denial of rights under the law is a tactic often used by one group to impose its will and domination over another. Far from wanting to remove boundaries of prejudice, people who scapegoat seek to use the courts and the entire political process to erect barriers to enable their domination. Just look to the 19th century and the arguments used to enforce slavery on people, based on the color of their skin.
Neocons really don\’t like democracy because it interferes with their desire to decide for others how society will be structured.
I didn\’t realize that \”neocons,\” whatever they are, invented marriage and structured it to suit their views.
And attempts to affiliate sexual perversion with racial equality are crass and desperate. One is based on behavior and the other on race. Anyone can stop searching out other men\’s genitals and anuses for enjoyment anytime he wishes, while no one can change his race. The law punishes and discourages behavior all the time, but has no business favoring one race over another. If you were right then all blacks would be in favor of buggering marriage.
As functionally retarded as I find bruce\’s views to be, he is right in the fact that comparing sexual PREFERENCE to race or gender is equally as absurd bruce\’s overall views on the state governing morality between two consenting adults in private which harms no one (other then possibly themselves.)I don\’t believe the courts have any business regulating or ledgislating anything regarding this matter (I include hetro couples actions as well.) Marrage should be about love and commitment, not laws and rights. I, for one, do not like the governments active involment in my life, and I cannot comprehend INVITING them into my bedroom. Just my two-cents.
You wrote…\”So I guess the Bible is bigoted hate speech, and your empty head contains more wisdom than 2,000 years of Christian cultural development.\”
Uh, Bruce, you provided quotes from the Old Testament. You will find more homosexuality in the Old Testament than you\’ll find at a gay bath house in San Francisco. You might recall the Old Testament was written for the Jews…I don\’t think that should be considered \”Christian cultural development\”…
Uh, you don\’t think so because you don\’t know anything about Christian theology.
Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament Law and the Prophets for us vicariously in that He led a sinless life as God incarnate, and died as the sacrifice for the sins of His people. Faith in His atoning work applies the merits of His sacrifice to our souls.
The ceremonial laws (can\’t eat pork, mustn\’t mix wool and cotton) were temporary and passed away with the destruction of the temple and the succession of the Church in its place as a spiritual temple. So adultery is still wrong, but we can enjoy crab cakes.
As you can see there\’s more involved than you might expect. Try visiting a Bible-believing church and talking to the pastor, even if only out of intellectual curiosity – if not honestly wanting to understand the gospel.
I would not call NAMBLA a religion because that would be saying that the supporters of such an organization (sodomizing liberals) actually had a religion.
I know of NAMBLA because Nancy Pelosi marched with them in the Pride Parade in San Francisco and it sickens me (NAMBLA does also).
I still see that ignorance is still amuck …..
The idea of families is a fairly new concept as far as history goes.
The Bible is a compilation of stories and letters, it was not Divinely written, if it was EVERYTHING it states would still be very applicable today, which it is not.
Bruce, DO NOT CONFUSE GAYS with pedophiles, they are not similar in anyway, Pedophiles harm children, male and female, and can even be found in the churches that are preaching the Bible.
You really do a disservice to ALL Faiths and Humankind when you allude to the fact that AIDS is a way to exterminate. No one is attacking your religion nor your faith, but realize that your faith is yours and may not be others.
Remember this is about RIGHTS, and the legal and insurance issues that might arise, not about Faith!
What a gay couple does (provided both are consenting adults) behind closed doors isn\’t any of my business. If a gay couple gets married, I don\’t see how it would adversely affect me.
If a gay couple is treated equally by an insurer, the same as how my husband and I are treated by an insurer, again… I don\’t see how it has a negative impact on me.
Bruce, I appreciate that you want people to see things from your perspective. I appreciate that you possibly want to change the minds or opinions of those who don\’t agree with you.
In what ways would you be personally harmed if gay couples were treated equally?
Clearly you do disagree with gay people and that\’s your perogative. You own your opinion and that\’s fine. You also have tools and publications that align with how you feel and you use those to support your opinion. That\’s completely fair.
However, it is also fair for other people to support equal rights for gay couples and it\’s fair for other people to have a neutral opinion. It\’s great that everyone is speaking their mind and exercising their freedom of speech.
Does a moral disagreement give someone grounds to deny equality to a group of people? Are we required by law to have morals?
How does the argument for or against equality for gay couples change if the morality issue is removed? I\’m most curious to read answers to this question.
I really like Tolerant Christian\’s message of peace, love and tolerance.
We may define ourselves as followers of certain faiths, members of political parties, by race or nationality… none of that matters in the big picture though. We are all *humans* and frankly, not one of us is superior to another. So perhaps we should try to practice a little bit of live-and-let-live in most situations?
(Please note, I qualified that with \”most situations\”. If someone is physically hurting my child or my self, I\’m not going to sit there and take it. There are times when live-and-let-live doesn\’t apply, but equal treatment for gay couples is, in my humble opinion, a situation where it absolutely DOES apply.)
\”The Bible is a compilation of stories and letters, it was not Divinely written…\”
Where is your proof? This is a bald assertion and would not be allowed in a jr high school debate.
\”…if it was EVERYTHING it states would still be very applicable today, which it is not.\”
I explained briefly why this is wrong in an earlier post. You have obviuosly never even attended Sunday school or you\’d know better.
\”Bruce, DO NOT CONFUSE GAYS with pedophiles…\”
You need a class in reading comprehension. I didn\’t say anything about pedophiles, though homosexual pedophila is much more likely to occur than heterosexual, but let\’s not change the subject, shall we?
\”You really do a disservice to ALL Faiths and Humankind when you allude to the fact that AIDS is a way to exterminate.\”
You need a class in reading comprehension. I didn\’t \”allude to the fact that AIDS is a way to exterminate,\” but if it were a *fact* as you allege, what could be wrong with mentioning it? You\’re as accomplished a thinker as you are a theologian.
AIDS is the most preventable fatal disease ever: don\’t share needles or let anyone bugger you and you won\’t get it. But no, liberals like you who want to seem tolerant and sophisticated tell people it\’s ok to put their johnsons anywhere they want, while the grave digger works overtime. YOUR BELIEFS KILL HOMOS, not mine.
You are obviously not very bright and have no understanding of the Bible, Christian theology, or how inventing a new class of \”married\” citizens will impact insurance rates.
\”Hey boss, I married both of my boyfriends, one of my girlfriends and my goat. Are they covered by our dental program?\”
\”In what ways would you be personally harmed if gay couples were treated equally?\”
Good question. For one thing, when I got married it meant one thing to be married. Now, to change the rules to suit some squeaky wheels, it is going to mean something else. If marriage becomes available to siblings and groups, as it must if we continue on this track, then it will eventually be a meaningless institution. In those Eurpoean nations that have allowed homosexuals to marry for decades, marriage rates have declined for precisely this reason – even though homos very rarely get married. They are too promiscuous to want to bother.
Secondly, I did not get married to obtain insurance and tax benefits, and so that the person with whom I have sex could visit me in the hospital, the reasons homos and their apologists routinely give. I got married to establish a covenant of exclusive intimacy with a woman so that she could be the mother of my children. The fact that homosexuals complain about insurance and tax issues primarily as the reasons for wanting to \”get in\” on marriage benefits, the shallow natures of both their arguements and character are revealed.
\”How does the argument for or against equality for gay couples change if the morality issue is removed? I\’m most curious to read answers to this question.\”
Another good question. I didn\’t appeal to morality in my answer to your first question, to take it as the answer to both.
However, the morality issue is imposible to remove from the human condition and questions of life. All legislation is someone\’s idea of right and wrong, so the law is a great teacher. If homos can get married (which few of them even care to do) it sends the message to young people that there is nothing wrong with sodomy: when in fact it is even more damaging to the human soul than it is to the anal suspensor muscle.
Bruce,
Before you start attacking a person\’s intelligence, you MIGHT want to do some reading and research yourself, instead of just spewing rhetoric. AND FYI, reading and regurgitating the Bible does not a Christian make.
You are obviously not very bright and have no understanding of the Bible, Christian theology, or how inventing a new class of \”married\” citizens will impact insurance rates.
As this decision relates to insurance issues, it will be interesting to see how such a union would be defined. How long of a time span makes for a committed couple? What type of document will prove there is such a union rather than a couple (whether gay or hetero) that has been living together for several years? If there is going to be benefits granted to couples of such a union, then it seems there has to be some type of penalty if the couple breaks up…like a married couple that divorces.
I do not want to get embroiled in the debate of whether this is morally right or wrong. The court has ruled that a class of people were being treated differently, and that it is now up to the legistlature to do something about it.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion on this subject, and no one should be treated as a second class citizen because of their belief. This is what America was founded on.
Although I generally don\’t believe in arguing from scripture as it won\’t convince anyone who doesn\’t already agree, as the debate rages, I find myself agreeing more and more with Bruce. I agree that by permiting marriage between two men or two women, we are moving further down the road toward the breakdown of our society. Next year we will be debating whether we should allow marriage or civil unions among siblings. The following year we will debate bigamy, then polygamy. Finally, we will debate interspecies marriage. At some point, hopefully now, we will need to make a moral judgment for the good of society.
Gay marriage is not just about two consenting adults behind closed doors. Its about adopting children and what kind of upbringing those children will receive. So anyone who thinks society has nothing to say about that should think more deeply, in my view.
I don\’t understand why allowing gay marriage will lead to allowing marriage between siblings and different species.
When women were finally given the right to vote, were people genuinely worried that eventually apes and infants would also have the right to vote?
As for adopting children… many kids desperately need good homes. I personally know an infertile straight couple who adopted two children and unfortunately for the kids, these people probably should not have been permitted to adopt. Both boys are now grown and have attested to as much on more than one occasion.
Sexual orientation probably has no bearing whatsoever on one\’s ability to raise a child. I think it largely depends on other things, such as a person\’s intelligence, temperament and whether they have the ability to learn and practice parenting skills.
Putting aside the issue of morality (which, like personal responsibility, can\’t effectively be governed) what negative influence would a gay couple have on an adopted child that is worse than any negative influence a straight couple might have?
While I\’m trying to see this issue from other perspectives, I\’m struggling to understand. Perhaps my brand of common sense isn\’t so common.
As far as how the union would be defined in the eyes of the insurer, what defines common-law marriage in New Jersey? (Does NJ even recognize common-law marriage?) Possibly those statutes could be used as a model to establish the definition of a \”committed same-sex couple\”?
I can appreciate your comments and your assertion of, where will this all end? Point is, I do not know? Just like slavery was abolished, women gaining more rights and interracial marriage is now legally acceptable, times change. I can however assure you that although some of us believe our pets are family members, we will NEVER try to marry them.
I must however, point out that the \”sanctity\” of marriage argument has been used to death, but where is the sanctity? People get married and divorced with weeks, and even days! The demise of the concept and the sanctity of marriage.
For me, I believe that this issue needs to be separated. The concept of marriage should occur in a church, or some other religion institution, while a civil union, which allows all the legal rights, should be filed though the state.
As far as adoption, where did these kids come from in the first place? Heterosexuals!
Gay parents do not make gay children, just like straight parents do not make only straight children, hence gays. People are who they are, NO ONE can make them straight or gay. I will tell you that gay people fostering a child or adopting a child is not a decision that they take very lightly. Would a child really be better as a ward of the state than with a loving person or couple?
Why are we being ridiculed for try to take responsibly for all other unwanted child and be part of the solution and not the problem?
Bruce and Saddened, I am going to slippery slope this the other way seeing as how you are both so concerned over the possibility of inter species marriage.
If the government can madate that marriage is between one man and one woman, what is to stop them from mandating which specific man and which specific woman?
Also, the bible quoting is nice but has no place in this discussion. This is not a moral issue, but a civil rights issue. My 12 year old gets that. It amazes me that supposedly intelligent adults don\’t get it. You would discriminate against a group of people because of how they are? Sexual orientation is not a preference. When did you decide that you would be straight? I know I didn\’t wake up one day and say, wow, going to be straight- rather it is just a part of who I am. I can\’t imagine \’choosing to be gay\’ and having to put up with bigots such as yourselves.
ruce,
Since you asked, the proof that the bible was written by men (which is what tolerant christian states – you have somehow turned that into asking where is the proof that it was not divinely INSPIRED which is impossible to either prove nor disprove) is right on the bible itself. The bible as presented to christians today is the \”king james version\”. This is King James\’ VERSION of what might or might not be a divine document from ages ago. Now I didn\’t know the king personally but my guess is he had reason to not care much for many groups of people (women and intellectuals come to mind) and thus to skew his version of the bible to fit his ideas. Of course, I\’m a destined-for-hell-which-I-don\’t-believe-in-buddhist so I likely won\’t be listened to but any objective (I.E. not taught by a religious institution/instructor) class on the history of the bible will be happy to confirm my words.
In any case bruce, I wish you a peaceful, loving, tolerant place in your heart and an open, thoughtful, discerning place in your mind that you might learn to love the world you live in and the humanity with which you share it.
sorry Bruce, I missed the B in your name. not intentional.
Peace my friend.
Many years ago my husband and I were on the Newlywed Game and we won a pool table, ping-pong table, computer and various other items. We decided to give the items to charity. We had a Super-Bowl Party with colleagues and friends and used the items. We invited a charity to pick up the items about 6:00 PM (PST). Out of respect for one of my colleagues who was gay and was fostering a child we donated the items to GLAAD. When they arrived to pick up the items many of my friends helped them to load them up. They had brought a tax receipt and some information about their organization and one of the guests at the party picked it up and started to read the information out loud. Initially, the intent was to embarass me for selecting that organization. It seems this person had not been brought into the confidence of our boss regarding his sexual orientation. He started asking her questions as did others. The ultimate insult to her was when EVERYONE at that party emptied their pockets of their cash and added checks to their donations and the charity walked out the door with an additional $833. She had scripture hanging all over her cubicle at work. She perceived herself as a higher being because of her beliefs. Her ignorance inspired others to get involved and to be charitable. Let\’s hope Bruce\’s commentary does the same for those who have visited here…