Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
111 user(s) are online (91 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 111

more...




Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users




« 1 2 3 4 (5) 6 7 8 »


Re: Gay marriage advocates lobby to override Christie's veto
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/11/30 12:46
Last Login :
2017/8/3 1:06
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1907
Offline
Quote:

AlexC wrote:
Can you imagine if every one in the world like you, Yvonne, practiced their beliefs and deprived people of services? I'm an atheist, so in theory I can deny any "believer" anything that is contrary to my belief.

Do you think that's okay?

Or do you think you're special because you believe in "god"

"god" is a fiction that has been propagated for 30,000 years. the fact that anyone subscribes to this nonsense shows that we have a long way to go

Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
There is a great deal of hypocrisy with this crowd, I don't care how people live their lives or who their partners are, my point is I do not want our legislators to pass a bill like this without public input. It will have a major impact on people like me who will be sued because they followed their religion. A right given in the first amendment. It is hypocritical to say it will not. Besides, what about living in a multicultural society? There are bigotry against religion, especially Catholics, who practice the faith as it is written. The next fashion on marriage might be plural marriage, marriage to family members (incest) and animals. I turned on my radio in the car and actually heard people advocating for these rights. I remember a man saying he wants to marry his sister. And another person talked about his special affection for his horse. The horse was more faithful than his wife.


Why would you set up a hypothetical of "Can you imagine if every one in the world like you" when it's clear that it's not based in reality? I think Catholicism is dumb if they want to practice it without harming others, then who cares? Let them be.

Posted on: 2013/9/19 1:54
 Top 


Re: Gay marriage advocates lobby to override Christie's veto
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/9/14 18:57
Last Login :
2020/1/27 22:17
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1053
Offline
Can you imagine if every one in the world like you, Yvonne, practiced their beliefs and deprived people of services? I'm an atheist, so in theory I can deny any "believer" anything that is contrary to my belief.

Do you think that's okay?

Or do you think you're special because you believe in "god"

"god" is a fiction that has been propagated for 30,000 years. the fact that anyone subscribes to this nonsense shows that we have a long way to go

Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
There is a great deal of hypocrisy with this crowd, I don't care how people live their lives or who their partners are, my point is I do not want our legislators to pass a bill like this without public input. It will have a major impact on people like me who will be sued because they followed their religion. A right given in the first amendment. It is hypocritical to say it will not. Besides, what about living in a multicultural society? There are bigotry against religion, especially Catholics, who practice the faith as it is written. The next fashion on marriage might be plural marriage, marriage to family members (incest) and animals. I turned on my radio in the car and actually heard people advocating for these rights. I remember a man saying he wants to marry his sister. And another person talked about his special affection for his horse. The horse was more faithful than his wife.

Posted on: 2013/9/19 1:46
 Top 


Re: Gay marriage advocates lobby to override Christie's veto
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/11/30 12:46
Last Login :
2017/8/3 1:06
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1907
Offline
My opinions..

1. Marriage is a contract. Therefore, if two or more consenting adults agree (straight, gays, etc) to said contract, there's no reason why the state should stop it.

2. If someone doesn't want to marry someone for a given reason, including sexuality, they shouldn't be forced to do it by law. Those wanting to get married can get married by someone who does want to marry them.

3. Marriage shouldn't qualify you for any government benefits (tax, etc). It should simply be a contract between two or more parties. If they choose to partake in a religious ceremony, they should be allowed to do so.

Disclaimer: I'm an atheist who is in a long-term relationship, but doesn't intend on getting married - so I have no skin in the game.

Posted on: 2013/9/19 1:02
 Top 


Re: Gay marriage advocates lobby to override Christie's veto
#99
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/11/13 18:42
Last Login :
2022/2/28 7:31
From 280 Grove Street
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4192
Offline
Quote:

CdeCoincy wrote:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles ... in_another_country_s_army

Rather than speculate on the citizenship of American Jewry, I spent 30 seconds finding this. Also, let's not forget that we owe our independence to the help of foreign volunteers.
Lafayette, nous voila (Lafayette, back at ya).



The US is based on laws not morals, religion or personal values - If its legal, then knock yourself out !

If you're not happy with a law, then you have every right to lobby for change, but continue to abide by the law.

Yvonne has every right to argue her point, as do the gay community for which they have successfully lobbied for change in many States and Countries for marriage rights.

Posted on: 2013/9/19 0:04
My humor is for the silent blue collar majority - If my posts offend, slander or you deem inappropriate and seek deletion, contact the webmaster for jurisdiction.
 Top 


Re: Gay marriage advocates lobby to override Christie's veto
#98
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/8/17 1:45
Last Login :
2020/8/26 13:40
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3141
Offline
By Yvonnne's logic, Catholics should be refusing services to mortal sinners such as fat people, folks that are not up-to-date on their child support, people married outside Catholic churches, spouses with that late night "headache", anyone engaged in IVF...looks like about 95% or more of the US population.

Interesting that same-sex marriage doesn't seem to have "mortal sin" status. But perhaps Yvonne has some kind of papal dispensation on which sins apply and which mortal sins she can ignore.


Quote:


Source: http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teac ... lic-church/epub/index.cfm

10. Common-Law relationship
A common-law relationship involves two persons, a male and a female, living together outside of a Sacramental Marriage. It may involve adultery, whereas one of the two persons is married, or fornication, where both person are unmarried. Either way, those involved in such a relationship are considered to be living in a ongoing life of mortal sin....


25. Non-Sacramental Marriage
This means to marry outside the Catholic Church, usually in a non-Catholic Church, including in front of a Justice of the Peace.


26. Obesity
He who uses food (or drink) in such a way as to injure his health or impair the mental equipment needed for the discharge of his [marital] duties, is guilty of the sin of gluttony. The neglect of one's marital duties because of gluttony/obesity is a mortal sin.

33. Refusing the marriage duty

To refuse one's spouse a reasonable request to participate in the act of sexual intercourse is to commit a mortal sin.

35. Separating and refusing the marriage debt.

To withhold earned money from one spouse, be it in retaliation for being denied sex, because of limited visitations after separation, as a refusal to pay for the mortgage of the home that houses the children, such actions are mortal sins.

44. Vitro Fertilization
The Catholic Church considers the practice of In-Vitro Fertilization to be a mortal sin.
........................................................................
34. Same sex marriage

Marriage, as instituted by God, is a faithful, exclusive, lifelong union of a man and a woman joined in an intimate community of life and love. They commit themselves completely to each other and to the wondrous responsibility of bringing children into the world and caring for them. The call to marriage is woven deeply into the human spirit. Man and woman are equal. However, as created, they are different from but made for each other. This complementarity, including sexual difference, draws them together in a mutually loving union that should be always open to the procreation of children (C.C.C. # 1602-1605).

Same-sex union contradicts the nature of marriage: It is not based on the natural complementarity of male and female; it cannot cooperate with God to create new life; and the natural purpose of sexual union cannot be achieved by a same-sex union. Persons in same-sex unions cannot enter into a true conjugal union. Therefore, it is wrong to equate their relationship to a marriage.

Posted on: 2013/9/18 22:35
 Top 


Re: Gay marriage advocates lobby to override Christie's veto
#97
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/6/14 12:07
Last Login :
2014/12/21 14:01
Group:
Banned
Posts: 851
Offline
Quote:

heights wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
What about the religious rights of the taliban ? Why is ok for the American Jewish community to send their sons and daughters to do active service in Israel, yet a muslim is not permitted to fight for their cause in the middle east ? Interesting how every religion and country turned a blind eye to slavery !
What's more important, Country or religion - I'd suggest that many people would put religion well ahead of Country!

As for Christie, he's a self righteous idiot when it comes to gay marriage - I guess the next election will require people to ask more questions about certain topics when voting someone in - Christie doesn't represent my views, but the ass was elected and what HE wants goes!

Perhaps the American Jewish community has duel citizenship and the muslims do not. As far as our governor is concerned he was elected by a majority of the voters and majority wins. No one ever asks the real questions when these elected officials were "just candidates".


http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles ... in_another_country_s_army

Rather than speculate on the citizenship of American Jewry, I spent 30 seconds finding this. Also, let's not forget that we owe our independence to the help of foreign volunteers.
Lafayette, nous voila (Lafayette, back at ya).




Posted on: 2013/9/18 22:21
 Top 


Re: Gay marriage advocates lobby to override Christie's veto
#96
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/11/13 18:42
Last Login :
2022/2/28 7:31
From 280 Grove Street
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4192
Offline
Hindu's and Muslim's allow for mutiple wives / partners. Could a gay Hindu or Muslim have multiple same sex patrners too?

Its a grey area, but if its legal, then its legal.

Would US immigration allow a person with multiple wives enter the US to live, with all their patrners - How would our laws deal with that, and would it be discrimination because of religion if we didn't allow them to enter ?

Posted on: 2013/9/18 22:09
My humor is for the silent blue collar majority - If my posts offend, slander or you deem inappropriate and seek deletion, contact the webmaster for jurisdiction.
 Top 


Re: Gay marriage advocates lobby to override Christie's veto
#95
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/9/25 17:46
Last Login :
2014/8/10 19:04
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 63
Offline

Posted on: 2013/9/18 21:41
 Top 


Re: Gay marriage advocates lobby to override Christie's veto
#94
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/6/10 16:06
Last Login :
2020/10/28 15:39
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 290
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
There is a great deal of hypocrisy with this crowd, I don't care how people live their lives or who their partners are, my point is I do not want our legislators to pass a bill like this without public input. It will have a major impact on people like me who will be sued because they followed their religion. A right given in the first amendment. It is hypocritical to say it will not. Besides, what about living in a multicultural society? There are bigotry against religion, especially Catholics, who practice the faith as it is written. The next fashion on marriage might be plural marriage, marriage to family members (incest) and animals. I turned on my radio in the car and actually heard people advocating for these rights. I remember a man saying he wants to marry his sister. And another person talked about his special affection for his horse. The horse was more faithful than his wife.


"Fashion" on marriage? Like this is some trend that will come and go? Comparing same sex marriage to bestiality? That is so incredibly insulting to the millions of homosexuals in this world.

You may be better suited for a place like Iran, where former President Ahmadinejad confirmed there are zero sinning homosexuals to interfere with your life. Or Westboro Baptist Church may work for you.

Posted on: 2013/9/18 20:02
 Top 


Re: Gay marriage advocates lobby to override Christie's veto
#93
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43
Last Login :
2023/9/5 18:27
From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1980
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
There is a great deal of hypocrisy with this crowd, I don't care how people live their lives or who their partners are, my point is I do not want our legislators to pass a bill like this without public input. It will have a major impact on people like me who will be sued because they followed their religion. A right given in the first amendment. It is hypocritical to say it will not. Besides, what about living in a multicultural society? There are bigotry against religion, especially Catholics, who practice the faith as it is written. The next fashion on marriage might be plural marriage, marriage to family members (incest) and animals. I turned on my radio in the car and actually heard people advocating for these rights. I remember a man saying he wants to marry his sister. And another person talked about his special affection for his horse. The horse was more faithful than his wife.

I fail to see how you will get sued, but whatever.

What if they decided to put to a vote "Can Catholics marry?" Would you be ok with that? Would you be ok with someone deciding on whether or not you can get married based on the religion you choose to follow?

Homosexuals don't even get a choice. Yet, you are pushing your religion onto them. Why are you unwilling to let a judge, mayor or a priest of a gay-friendly church marry them?

Why do you hide behind some nebulous argument that you can't even clearly make?

Posted on: 2013/9/18 19:35
Dos A Cero
 Top 


Re: Gay marriage advocates lobby to override Christie's veto
#92
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/17 2:16
Last Login :
3/21 23:34
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5375
Offline
There is a great deal of hypocrisy with this crowd, I don't care how people live their lives or who their partners are, my point is I do not want our legislators to pass a bill like this without public input. It will have a major impact on people like me who will be sued because they followed their religion. A right given in the first amendment. It is hypocritical to say it will not. Besides, what about living in a multicultural society? There are bigotry against religion, especially Catholics, who practice the faith as it is written. The next fashion on marriage might be plural marriage, marriage to family members (incest) and animals. I turned on my radio in the car and actually heard people advocating for these rights. I remember a man saying he wants to marry his sister. And another person talked about his special affection for his horse. The horse was more faithful than his wife.

Posted on: 2013/9/18 18:54

Edited by Yvonne on 2013/9/18 19:14:11
 Top 


Re: Gay marriage advocates lobby to override Christie's veto
#91
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/1/19 4:04
Last Login :
2017/4/20 19:08
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1080
Offline
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

radryan03 wrote:
Clown - where have I, at any point, discussed politics?

My irritation is at folks that keep making poorly worded arguments while pandering to personal insecurity through religion and politics.

Just say - I don't like gays. They creep me out. I find the way they sexually express themselves to be disgusting. I don't think they should be allowed to get married. I find all of the above to be perfectly acceptable. It's your opinion... express it as you please.


Quote:

Monroe wrote:

Are you as angry at Obama as you may be towards Christie? Obama 'evolved' in time for the election, but has he directed Eric Holder and the Justice Department to file suit to make gay marriage a civil right, like the gay 'marriage' supporters try to imagine it? (Actually, Obama has not supported gay marriage as a civil right, so I'm not surprised-except for the silence of criticism from the gay 'marriage' advocates towards him). Carry on.


The thread was about governments intrusion into changing the definition of marriage. When gay 'marriage' proponents try to make it a 'civil right' issue then it opens the conversation to another level.

And please, don't try to put words in my mouth that I don't espouse. It only cheapens your argument to paint everyone who supports traditional marriage as homophobes-I'm not saying there aren't some who aren't, but I'm not among them.


At some point, someone will need to make an actual argument on why two women or two men cannot get married by a judge if they want to. So far, the only argument on here is that some people?s religion doesn?t like it. In short, bigotry.


This is the argument that yvonne is making:

Based on my Christian religion, I want the ability to deny services/goods to other people. If my Christian faith tells me that gay marriage is wrong then I don't have to do anything which benefits two gay individuals getting married or even getting a civil union. If I'm a Christian bus driver and a gay couple needs to get on a bus to their engagement party, I can deny them service.

However, all other religions don't have this right. If I go to a doctor and ask for a blood transfusion and if that doc is a Jehovah's Witness, then I expect he orders me a blood transfusion.

I'm expecting yvonne to reply back to this thread and talk about not being sued again....

Posted on: 2013/9/18 17:57
 Top 


Re: Gay marriage advocates lobby to override Christie's veto
#90
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43
Last Login :
2023/9/5 18:27
From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1980
Offline
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

radryan03 wrote:
Clown - where have I, at any point, discussed politics?

My irritation is at folks that keep making poorly worded arguments while pandering to personal insecurity through religion and politics.

Just say - I don't like gays. They creep me out. I find the way they sexually express themselves to be disgusting. I don't think they should be allowed to get married. I find all of the above to be perfectly acceptable. It's your opinion... express it as you please.


Quote:

Monroe wrote:

Are you as angry at Obama as you may be towards Christie? Obama 'evolved' in time for the election, but has he directed Eric Holder and the Justice Department to file suit to make gay marriage a civil right, like the gay 'marriage' supporters try to imagine it? (Actually, Obama has not supported gay marriage as a civil right, so I'm not surprised-except for the silence of criticism from the gay 'marriage' advocates towards him). Carry on.


The thread was about governments intrusion into changing the definition of marriage. When gay 'marriage' proponents try to make it a 'civil right' issue then it opens the conversation to another level.

And please, don't try to put words in my mouth that I don't espouse. It only cheapens your argument to paint everyone who supports traditional marriage as homophobes-I'm not saying there aren't some who aren't, but I'm not among them.

There really is no such thing as ?traditional marriage.? It has been an ever changing item since documents were first kept.

Prior to Jesus ever existing, the Romans had gay marriage. As you?ve decided to point out, there are some locations where plural marriage exists. The one overriding factor that has existed is that marriage has been a product of the government first and co-opted by religions second.

The purpose of marriage here is so that two individuals who wish to live together may obtain benefits off of this. It has been mentioned many times over about living wills, hospital visitations, inheritance, but all of that is a merely end-of-life argument.

An unspoken aspect that comes into play is legal residence. Should someone fall in love with someone from a foreign country it opens a gateway to citizenship. This same right is not shared by huge percentage of the population because they are not attracted and have no desire to spend their life with someone of the opposite sex.

If you are going to argue that the Bible is where we are basing this decision off of, why are Buddhists allowed to marry? Why are Mayors of towns, which could be Muslim, Atheist or Wiccan, marry two people? Judges are another group of people that can marry two people, legally.

Religion can be part of marriage if those that are getting married choose to make that part of their ceremony. However, those that choose this direction are forced to get the legal documents in order first so that they may present them to the official performing the ceremony. The state allows religious leaders to also be an officiant at the behest of those that are getting married.

At some point down the road, a lot of these churches which scream about how it is an abomination will change. They?ll eventually wake up to the fact that they are wrong. The State will not make that happen.

At some point, someone will need to make an actual argument on why two women or two men cannot get married by a judge if they want to. So far, the only argument on here is that some people?s religion doesn?t like it. In short, bigotry.

Posted on: 2013/9/18 17:39
Dos A Cero
 Top 


Re: Gay marriage advocates lobby to override Christie's veto
#89
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/10/29 12:17
Last Login :
2018/9/5 2:01
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 449
Offline
Yeah, yeah, kiddo. I read the thread heading, but it's not what I focused on.

I didnt put words in your mouth... you chose to reflect my words upon yourself. We dont see eye to eye on homophobic... cheers.


Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

radryan03 wrote:
Clown - where have I, at any point, discussed politics?

My irritation is at folks that keep making poorly worded arguments while pandering to personal insecurity through religion and politics.

Just say - I don't like gays. They creep me out. I find the way they sexually express themselves to be disgusting. I don't think they should be allowed to get married. I find all of the above to be perfectly acceptable. It's your opinion... express it as you please.


Quote:

Monroe wrote:

Are you as angry at Obama as you may be towards Christie? Obama 'evolved' in time for the election, but has he directed Eric Holder and the Justice Department to file suit to make gay marriage a civil right, like the gay 'marriage' supporters try to imagine it? (Actually, Obama has not supported gay marriage as a civil right, so I'm not surprised-except for the silence of criticism from the gay 'marriage' advocates towards him). Carry on.


The thread was about governments intrusion into changing the definition of marriage. When gay 'marriage' proponents try to make it a 'civil right' issue then it opens the conversation to another level.

And please, don't try to put words in my mouth that I don't espouse. It only cheapens your argument to paint everyone who supports traditional marriage as homophobes-I'm not saying there aren't some who aren't, but I'm not among them.

Posted on: 2013/9/18 17:23
 Top 


Re: Gay marriage advocates lobby to override Christie's veto
#88
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/5/15 14:11
Last Login :
2020/10/5 21:44
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4652
Offline
Quote:

radryan03 wrote:
Clown - where have I, at any point, discussed politics?

My irritation is at folks that keep making poorly worded arguments while pandering to personal insecurity through religion and politics.

Just say - I don't like gays. They creep me out. I find the way they sexually express themselves to be disgusting. I don't think they should be allowed to get married. I find all of the above to be perfectly acceptable. It's your opinion... express it as you please.


Quote:

Monroe wrote:

Are you as angry at Obama as you may be towards Christie? Obama 'evolved' in time for the election, but has he directed Eric Holder and the Justice Department to file suit to make gay marriage a civil right, like the gay 'marriage' supporters try to imagine it? (Actually, Obama has not supported gay marriage as a civil right, so I'm not surprised-except for the silence of criticism from the gay 'marriage' advocates towards him). Carry on.


The thread was about governments intrusion into changing the definition of marriage. When gay 'marriage' proponents try to make it a 'civil right' issue then it opens the conversation to another level.

And please, don't try to put words in my mouth that I don't espouse. It only cheapens your argument to paint everyone who supports traditional marriage as homophobes-I'm not saying there aren't some who aren't, but I'm not among them.

Posted on: 2013/9/18 16:56
 Top 


Re: Gay marriage advocates lobby to override Christie's veto
#87
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/10/29 12:17
Last Login :
2018/9/5 2:01
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 449
Offline
Clown - where have I, at any point, discussed politics?

My irritation is at folks that keep making poorly worded arguments while pandering to personal insecurity through religion and politics.

Just say - I don't like gays. They creep me out. I find the way they sexually express themselves to be disgusting. I don't think they should be allowed to get married. I find all of the above to be perfectly acceptable. It's your opinion... express it as you please.


Quote:

Monroe wrote:

Are you as angry at Obama as you may be towards Christie? Obama 'evolved' in time for the election, but has he directed Eric Holder and the Justice Department to file suit to make gay marriage a civil right, like the gay 'marriage' supporters try to imagine it? (Actually, Obama has not supported gay marriage as a civil right, so I'm not surprised-except for the silence of criticism from the gay 'marriage' advocates towards him). Carry on.

Posted on: 2013/9/18 16:46
 Top 


Re: Gay marriage advocates lobby to override Christie's veto
#86
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/5/15 14:11
Last Login :
2020/10/5 21:44
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4652
Offline
Quote:

radryan03 wrote:
Logical fallacy... again.

My assertion on the basis of the definition is pretty much on - the epic fail is in the quality of your response.

Quote:

Monroe wrote:

Ah, the old throw the bigot label on someone whose views differs from yours-it's always a nice distraction from the facts. It's exactly the tactic people use to label people who oppose Obama's politics by calling them racist. Epic fail on the intellectual honesty meter though.



Are you as angry at Obama as you may be towards Christie? Obama 'evolved' in time for the election, but has he directed Eric Holder and the Justice Department to file suit to make gay marriage a civil right, like the gay 'marriage' supporters try to imagine it? (Actually, Obama has not supported gay marriage as a civil right, so I'm not surprised-except for the silence of criticism from the gay 'marriage' advocates towards him). Carry on.

Posted on: 2013/9/18 16:28
 Top 


Re: Gay marriage advocates lobby to override Christie's veto
#85
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/10/29 12:17
Last Login :
2018/9/5 2:01
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 449
Offline
Logical fallacy... again.

My assertion on the basis of the definition is pretty much on - the epic fail is in the quality of your response.

Quote:

Monroe wrote:

Ah, the old throw the bigot label on someone whose views differs from yours-it's always a nice distraction from the facts. It's exactly the tactic people use to label people who oppose Obama's politics by calling them racist. Epic fail on the intellectual honesty meter though.


Posted on: 2013/9/18 16:22
 Top 


Re: Gay marriage advocates lobby to override Christie's veto
#84
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/5/15 14:11
Last Login :
2020/10/5 21:44
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4652
Offline
Quote:

radryan03 wrote:
You're just being offensive and nasty - gay marriage has no similarity to marrying your pet and frankly using Russia and Civil Rights to defend you position just makes you an ass.

Practicing a religion and leveraging religion to uphold bigoted prejudice are two very different things. Your basis for argument could be used to justify any decision - this makes it a logical fallacy - this makes you a logical fallacy.

The fact here is that you carry some sort of prejudice against gays. It's not your religion, the bible's teachings, or the pope... because there are plenty of people that all aspire to the above and don't agree with your views. Let me repeat - this is 100% your bigoted prejudice.

If you choose to exclude any tax paying citizen (or a paying customer) from services that are offered to every other person you absolutely deserve to be sued. There are thousand of religions with various constructs... how can you believe that yours is so important that it deserves legal protection? Frankly - I hope you get royally sued for using prejudice in the denial of services... like destitute on the side of the road in a cardboard box.

Btw - the Salvation Army example contributes nothing to your argument. Municipal funding is discretionary at best and SF continues to fund many other religious organizations.

Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
I do not care if a gay couple marries I do care about the right of being sued for following my religion. It is the point I have been making since this I responded to this thread. You can marry your pet, but I do not want to be sued for saying no like the people below. What about my rights? People on this forum refuses to recognized the first amendment that says you have the right to exercise your religion! Reading comprehension is not a strong point here.

a Methodist organization was sued in Ocean Grove, NJ when they denied a lesbian couple the use of their pavilion for a same-sex civil union. The Methodist organization lost and the state of New Jersey revoked the tax exemption for the pavilion, which will cost them around $20,000 a year;
Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by law. Catholic Charities was accused of discrimination and pulled out of the adoption business in 2006;
San Francisco dropped its $3.5 million in social services contracts with the Salvation Army because it refused to recognize same-sex partnership;
A Christian gynecologist in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship. The doctor said it violated his religious beliefs and referred his patient to his partner, but the women sued. One justice suggested the doctor take up a different business.


Ah, the old throw the bigot label on someone whose views differs from yours-it's always a nice distraction from the facts. It's exactly the tactic people use to label people who oppose Obama's politics by calling them racist. Epic fail on the intellectual honesty meter though.

Posted on: 2013/9/18 16:12
 Top 


Re: Gay marriage advocates lobby to override Christie's veto
#83
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/10/29 12:17
Last Login :
2018/9/5 2:01
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 449
Offline
You're just being offensive and nasty - gay marriage has no similarity to marrying your pet and frankly using Russia and Civil Rights to defend you position just makes you an ass.

Practicing a religion and leveraging religion to uphold bigoted prejudice are two very different things. Your basis for argument could be used to justify any decision - this makes it a logical fallacy - this makes you a logical fallacy.

The fact here is that you carry some sort of prejudice against gays. It's not your religion, the bible's teachings, or the pope... because there are plenty of people that all aspire to the above and don't agree with your views. Let me repeat - this is 100% your bigoted prejudice.

If you choose to exclude any tax paying citizen (or a paying customer) from services that are offered to every other person you absolutely deserve to be sued. There are thousand of religions with various constructs... how can you believe that yours is so important that it deserves legal protection? Frankly - I hope you get royally sued for using prejudice in the denial of services... like destitute on the side of the road in a cardboard box.

Btw - the Salvation Army example contributes nothing to your argument. Municipal funding is discretionary at best and SF continues to fund many other religious organizations.

Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
I do not care if a gay couple marries I do care about the right of being sued for following my religion. It is the point I have been making since this I responded to this thread. You can marry your pet, but I do not want to be sued for saying no like the people below. What about my rights? People on this forum refuses to recognized the first amendment that says you have the right to exercise your religion! Reading comprehension is not a strong point here.

a Methodist organization was sued in Ocean Grove, NJ when they denied a lesbian couple the use of their pavilion for a same-sex civil union. The Methodist organization lost and the state of New Jersey revoked the tax exemption for the pavilion, which will cost them around $20,000 a year;
Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by law. Catholic Charities was accused of discrimination and pulled out of the adoption business in 2006;
San Francisco dropped its $3.5 million in social services contracts with the Salvation Army because it refused to recognize same-sex partnership;
A Christian gynecologist in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship. The doctor said it violated his religious beliefs and referred his patient to his partner, but the women sued. One justice suggested the doctor take up a different business.

Posted on: 2013/9/18 16:04
 Top 


Re: Gay marriage advocates lobby to override Christie's veto
#82
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/9/10 17:55
Last Login :
2016/10/21 19:48
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1294
Offline
Regarding the Ocean Grove pavillion -- The judge determined that the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association breached its agreement to make the pavilion available to the public on an equal basis. The association was also required to make the pavilion public in exchange for a state tax exemption it received that requires equal access on a non-discriminatory basis. Metzger also noted that while the association is free to practice its mission without government oversight, it had never attached any religious ministry to the wedding venue until it received Paster and Bernstein?s application.

?(The association) was not, however, free to promise equal access to rent wedding space to heterosexual couples irrespective of their tradition and then except (Bernstein and Paster),? Judge Metzger stated.

So until these two women tried to get married in the pavillion, the church never attached any religious function to that space. It was just a spot they rented out -- and had never refused anyone use except if it was already booked.

Sometimes the facts help the discussion.


Posted on: 2013/9/18 15:47
 Top 


Re: Gay marriage advocates lobby to override Christie's veto
#81
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/7/13 15:03
Last Login :
2023/6/11 23:48
From Western Slope
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4638
Offline
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
What about the religious rights of the taliban ? Why is ok for the American Jewish community to send their sons and daughters to do active service in Israel, yet a muslim is not permitted to fight for their cause in the middle east ? Interesting how every religion and country turned a blind eye to slavery !
What's more important, Country or religion - I'd suggest that many people would put religion well ahead of Country!

As for Christie, he's a self righteous idiot when it comes to gay marriage - I guess the next election will require people to ask more questions about certain topics when voting someone in - Christie doesn't represent my views, but the ass was elected and what HE wants goes!

Perhaps the American Jewish community has duel citizenship and the muslims do not. As far as our governor is concerned he was elected by a majority of the voters and majority wins. No one ever asks the real questions when these elected officials were "just candidates".

Posted on: 2013/9/18 14:18
Get on your bikes and ride !
 Top 


Re: Gay marriage advocates lobby to override Christie's veto
#80
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/8/17 1:45
Last Login :
2020/8/26 13:40
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3141
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
I do not care if a gay couple marries I do care about the right of being sued for following my religion. It is the point I have been making since this I responded to this thread. You can marry your pet, but I do not want to be sued for saying no like the people below. What about my rights? People on this forum refuses to recognized the first amendment that says you have the right to exercise your religion! Reading comprehension is not a strong point here.

a Methodist organization was sued in Ocean Grove, NJ when they denied a lesbian couple the use of their pavilion for a same-sex civil union. The Methodist organization lost and the state of New Jersey revoked the tax exemption for the pavilion, which will cost them around $20,000 a year;
Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by law. Catholic Charities was accused of discrimination and pulled out of the adoption business in 2006;
San Francisco dropped its $3.5 million in social services contracts with the Salvation Army because it refused to recognize same-sex partnership;
A Christian gynecologist in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship. The doctor said it violated his religious beliefs and referred his patient to his partner, but the women sued. One justice suggested the doctor take up a different business.


You want the right to practice your bigotry and discrimination. What's the difference between refusing to serve someone at McDonalds, and refusing any other service? Does everyone have to declare their sins before getting their Big Mac? Good thing you're not a cafeteria catholic, non-catholics would starve in your cafeteria.

Posted on: 2013/9/18 14:14
 Top 


Re: Gay marriage advocates lobby to override Christie's veto
#79
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/1/19 4:04
Last Login :
2017/4/20 19:08
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1080
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
I do not care if a gay couple marries I do care about the right of being sued for following my religion. It is the point I have been making since this I responded to this thread. You can marry your pet, but I do not want to be sued for saying no like the people below. What about my rights? People on this forum refuses to recognized the first amendment that says you have the right to exercise your religion! Reading comprehension is not a strong point here.

a Methodist organization was sued in Ocean Grove, NJ when they denied a lesbian couple the use of their pavilion for a same-sex civil union. The Methodist organization lost and the state of New Jersey revoked the tax exemption for the pavilion, which will cost them around $20,000 a year;
Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by law. Catholic Charities was accused of discrimination and pulled out of the adoption business in 2006;
San Francisco dropped its $3.5 million in social services contracts with the Salvation Army because it refused to recognize same-sex partnership;
A Christian gynecologist in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship. The doctor said it violated his religious beliefs and referred his patient to his partner, but the women sued. One justice suggested the doctor take up a different business.


So a Catholic primary care physician can decide not to distribute contraceptives (like condoms) even if the patient asks for contraceptives?

Can the Catholic baker bake a cake for a gay couple on any other day if the gay couple decide not to use it for their wedding?

Or does your discrimination..err I mean religious freedom only apply to services and goods rendered during a civil union/gay marriage?

Posted on: 2013/9/18 14:13
 Top 


Re: Gay marriage advocates lobby to override Christie's veto
#78
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/6/10 16:06
Last Login :
2020/10/28 15:39
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 290
Offline
where's Fletcher/John1952? As a big Newt Gingrich guy he must have a strong opinion on this.

Posted on: 2013/9/18 14:11
 Top 


Re: Gay marriage advocates lobby to override Christie's veto
#77
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/6/10 16:06
Last Login :
2020/10/28 15:39
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 290
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
To others:
I am not a cafeteria Catholic, I do not pick and choose what the Church says, I believe it is guided by the Holy Spirit. For those who believe differently, that is between you and God. I am talking about my right under the First Amendment, which everyone on this forum ignores, to practice my religion without being sued. That is all I care about. I will not throw mud or attack people who believe in gay marriage. That is not my agenda. I feel sorry for those who resort to those things. And when I present my ideas I do not hide behind phony names, I have the courage to use my real name. That is a gift from my faith, to be honest in the things I believe. And I will never, never, attack someone family's member.


"I will not throw mud or attack people who believe in gay marriage... I will just judge you and think you are wrong for not subscribing to the rituals and gods I was raised to believe, and I will lobby the government to conform to my particular rituals and gods as well, because in my opinion I am right and you are wrong for not believing in my gods and my rituals"

Posted on: 2013/9/18 14:10
 Top 


Re: Gay marriage advocates lobby to override Christie's veto
#76
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/17 2:16
Last Login :
3/21 23:34
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5375
Offline
I do not care if a gay couple marries I do care about the right of being sued for following my religion. It is the point I have been making since this I responded to this thread. You can marry your pet, but I do not want to be sued for saying no like the people below. What about my rights? People on this forum refuses to recognized the first amendment that says you have the right to exercise your religion! Reading comprehension is not a strong point here.

a Methodist organization was sued in Ocean Grove, NJ when they denied a lesbian couple the use of their pavilion for a same-sex civil union. The Methodist organization lost and the state of New Jersey revoked the tax exemption for the pavilion, which will cost them around $20,000 a year;
Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by law. Catholic Charities was accused of discrimination and pulled out of the adoption business in 2006;
San Francisco dropped its $3.5 million in social services contracts with the Salvation Army because it refused to recognize same-sex partnership;
A Christian gynecologist in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship. The doctor said it violated his religious beliefs and referred his patient to his partner, but the women sued. One justice suggested the doctor take up a different business.

Posted on: 2013/9/18 12:57
 Top 


Re: Gay marriage advocates lobby to override Christie's veto
#75
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/5/15 14:11
Last Login :
2020/10/5 21:44
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4652
Offline
Quote:

Beachguy wrote:
Yvonne wrote:
When voting rights were given to African-Americans in the 1960's it did not diminished the rights of the white majority, they still have the right to vote.

In your example, the correct analogy, Yvonne, would be if gay Americans were given the right to marry, it would not diminish your right to marry. Without realizing it, you have just presented a great argument against yourself.


If plural marriages were legal, it would not diminish your right to marry either, of course. Why is that such an inconvenient truth for supporters of gay 'marriage'?

Posted on: 2013/9/18 12:22
 Top 


Re: Gay marriage advocates lobby to override Christie's veto
#74
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/7/17 13:37
Last Login :
2016/1/31 23:18
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 465
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
To others:
I am not a cafeteria Catholic, I do not pick and choose what the Church says, I believe it is guided by the Holy Spirit. For those who believe differently, that is between you and God. I am talking about my right under the First Amendment, which everyone on this forum ignores, to practice my religion without being sued. That is all I care about. I will not throw mud or attack people who believe in gay marriage. That is not my agenda. I feel sorry for those who resort to those things. And when I present my ideas I do not hide behind phony names, I have the courage to use my real name. That is a gift from my faith, to be honest in the things I believe. And I will never, never, attack someone family's member.


This, my friends, is an example of being on the wrong side of history. Ignorance gives me more fear than malice.

Posted on: 2013/9/18 1:19
 Top 


Re: Gay marriage advocates lobby to override Christie's veto
#73
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/7/7 17:29
Last Login :
2023/11/10 14:36
From Downtown Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 220
Offline
Yvonne wrote:
When voting rights were given to African-Americans in the 1960's it did not diminished the rights of the white majority, they still have the right to vote.

In your example, the correct analogy, Yvonne, would be if gay Americans were given the right to marry, it would not diminish your right to marry. Without realizing it, you have just presented a great argument against yourself.

Posted on: 2013/9/18 0:51
 Top 




« 1 2 3 4 (5) 6 7 8 »




[Advanced Search]





Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!



LicenseInformation | AboutUs | PrivacyPolicy | Faq | Contact


JERSEY CITY LIST - News & Reviews - Jersey City, NJ - Copyright 2004 - 2017