Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

jcScout wrote:
I don't know where you've been for the last year, but these behaviors aren't limited to homosexuals... If you wanted to argue that there is a pervasive problem with toxic masculinity across men that drives these behaviors... Yeah... I could see your point. What do you think the #metoo movement is? The implications are pansexual - Corey Feldman is #metoo.

Why the focus on homosexuality... Why are you so obsessed? You love to use this bais that is berating to members of your/our community. I don't know how to get through your thick skull that bad behavior in this world is independent of labels.

For example - I think you're an awful person - the worst actually. I also happen to know you're a senior citizen, woman, straight married, and Catholic. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of others that fall into all the same categories, but I don't use my free will to think they are all awful people.

Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
I do not buy your argument, because the sexual predators who raped boys also raped teenagers and adult seminarians. It is convenient to say one group pedophilia, stays in that group. It might to easier to intimidate a child over an adult but these predators abused minors and adults. I don't buy the argument. This is not just a church problem as I mentioned before, it is also happening in Hollywood according to former child actor Corey Feldman.

The majority of the victims are teen males, in the 80% range. The seminarians who are raped are all males. So this is a homosexual problem. It is not nuns raping these teens and adult men.

Yvonne wrote:
I do not buy your argument, because the sexual predators who raped boys also raped teenagers and adult seminarians. It is convenient to say one group pedophilia, stays in that group. It might to easier to intimidate a child over an adult but these predators abused minors and adults. I don't buy the argument. This is not just a church problem as I mentioned before, it is also happening in Hollywood according to former child actor Corey Feldman.

Yvonne wrote:
Saying homosexual men should not be priests due to the sex scandals has nothing to due with me. These statements are now coming from people inside the Catholic Church such as bishops and priests and people involved in seminary training. If I was asked this question 20 or 30 years ago, I would say it does not matter but now I realize it does matter.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

third_street_hats wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
As I stated before, I cannot go to a Kosher or Muslim restaurant and asked for ham on rye. This is the same thing, forcing someone to violate a core belief of their faith.

Except it is not the same at all.

You are arguing that you should be able to force the Kosher or Muslim business owner to carry an item that goes against tenets of their own faith.

That is not the same as saying that a bakery, which already sells cakes, can choose not to sell their cake to a potential customer because of their faith, sexual orientation, ethnicity.

Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Americans visit Arabs countries and sometimes there is an emergency, I have never read someone who was deny health service because the person does not wear a headscarf.

You realize that you are arguing against your own point here, right?

No I am not. I have said in previous posts, I do not have the right and I have notice how people here did not bring up the subject that gay friendly bakeries would not bake a cake with Levitcus 18:22.

I believe in the First Amendment which states there should be no state religion and government should not interfere. Government has been interfering when it dictates their law based on 5 members of the Supreme Court is greater than the First Amendment on religion.

I am not a baker, if I was I think I would have a sign in my bakery that states this: Any profits from same sex cakes would go to the law firms that fight for religious freedom for individuals who are being sued over same sex marriage.

Really the goal is to put people of faith out of business by same sex activists. Now I wonder how much business I would get?

neverleft wrote:
.
West New York 28-year-old admits getting 14-year-old pregnant: authorities

By Michaelangelo Conte | The Jersey Journal
on November 29, 2016 at 8:54 AM, updated November 29, 2016 at 1:45 PM

JERSEY CITY -- A 28-year-old West New York man has been charged with having sex with a 14-year-old girl and getting her pregnant.

Edvin Jorge was arrested on Nov. Friday and charged with sexual assault and endangering the welfare of a child, the criminal complaint says.

Authorities say the girl told investigators she had sex with Jorge and became pregnant. The 28-year-old also gave a statement in which he admitted having sex with the girl about 10 times, the complaint says.

Jorge's bail was set yesterday in Superior Court at $125,000 and he was ordered to have no contact with the girl.

He told the court he is from Guatamala and he is in the United States illegally when he made his first court appearance on the charges yesterday in Central Judicial Processing court in Jersey City via video link from Hudson County jail in Kearny.

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... r.html#incart_river_index

I_heart_JC wrote:
Hard Grove's past location: hella loud.
Brightside & PJs at their current locations: not loud.

I remember people getting worked up before PJs opened. that furor died down as soon as they proved themselves to be decent neighbors.

and to further deflate your accusations of racism: nobody complained about Rolon's Bar (the Keyhole) until the frat boys discovered it, and sh*t got loud.

dr_nick_riviera wrote:
Quote:

mfadam wrote:
It's a nightclub pretending to be a restaurant. No sane person wants this in a historic district/residential area given all the associated problems.

You think they're gonna do a good job soundproofing it? You think they're gonna stick to their max occupancy of 49 (staff included) daily? Do the owners have a good track record with neighborly relations?

What proof or documents do you have that this is intended as a "night club"? And what sort of nightclub is such with a capacity of only ~45 people (if you exclude employees)?

There are other bars in the neighborhood such as PJ Ryan's and Brightside Tavern that present no problems, and I'm sure the usual VVNA braying occurred when those establishments were coming in.

This is nothing more than NIMBY bs.

Yvonne wrote:
People do not plan wedding showers, birthday parties, or other events at Burger King. The city is hurting traditional restaurants without the parking.

Yvonne wrote:
People plan events in restaurants which take more than 2 hours. I am not talking about Burger King, I am referring to traditional restaurants.

135jc wrote:
"Hoboken Fuckboy". Interesting choice of name you came up with

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

OneSkirt wrote:
How is this thread still a thing???

Yvonne is a crazy bigot...?

Yvonne wrote:
This transgender law by Obama for the public schools happened because emails by DNA and LGBT group. They want to weaken religious freedom.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new ... us-freedom-project-19756/

Yvonne wrote:
I can only say you are not a woman on the subway train. Your perspective is totally male, radryan03. Another story by a pervert. People go for exposing, touching then finally rape: http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... n.html#incart_river_index

Yvonne wrote:
I suggest people here stop judging me since I do not follow the culture. Yes, I have views and even science backs me up. Men and women are different. No man here has breast fed a baby, had a menstrual cycle or gave birth. Yes, woman do want privacy and I am not the only one that way. The woman in Macys with her daughter panic. What about her rights? We are giving transgender people super rights that precludes ordinary rights. I have seen enough men on the subway in NYC platform who touch themselves. Those are the creeps that will go into a woman's private space and rape them. Everyone here want to ignore that problem. I don't.

jcneighbor wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:

You're free to have your religion, you just can't enforce it on others. This is simple stuff.

In theory, that's true. But the U.S. government makes this more complicated. Thomas Jefferson tried to explain it in a letter he penned on January 1, 1802 which said:

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

More recent examples of how this isn't going according to plan:

Pledge of Allegiance includes "One nation under God"

And in a court of justice you're asked to put your hand on a bible and swear to tell the truth "so help me God".

Man, are we ever off-topic on this thread! The fun part is that Yvonne will keep this on the top-20 list just so she can try to get the last word in...

PRA71 wrote:
As in Stephen? That would be great!

Yvonne wrote:
Here is another opinion from a civil right activist, radryan03.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opin ... p-ed/article78706432.html

JCMan8 wrote:
Radryan03, for someone purporting to speak about facts, you simply made a post filled with ad hominem attacks against Johns Hopkins' head of psychiatry.

I realize that feels over reals is the predominant ideology among "progressives," where you avoid discussing truths that make you uncomfortable, and pretend they don't exist, but please try refuting the facts Mr. McHugh has provided:

The transgendered suffer a disorder of "assumption" like those in other disorders familiar to psychiatrists. With the transgendered, the disordered assumption is that the individual differs from what seems given in nature?namely one's maleness or femaleness. Other kinds of disordered assumptions are held by those who suffer from anorexia and bulimia nervosa, where the assumption that departs from physical reality is the belief by the dangerously thin that they are overweight.

With body dysmorphic disorder, an often socially crippling condition, the individual is consumed by the assumption "I'm ugly." These disorders occur in subjects who have come to believe that some of their psycho-social conflicts or problems will be resolved if they can change the way that they appear to others. Such ideas work like ruling passions in their subjects' minds and tend to be accompanied by a solipsistic argument.

For the transgendered, this argument holds that one's feeling of "gender" is a conscious, subjective sense that, being in one's mind, cannot be questioned by others. The individual often seeks not just society's tolerance of this "personal truth" but affirmation of it. Here rests the support for "transgender equality," the demands for government payment for medical and surgical treatments, and for access to all sex-based public roles and privileges.

With this argument, advocates for the transgendered have persuaded several states?including California, New Jersey and Massachusetts?to pass laws barring psychiatrists, even with parental permission, from striving to restore natural gender feelings to a transgender minor. That government can intrude into parents' rights to seek help in guiding their children indicates how powerful these advocates have become.

How to respond? Psychiatrists obviously must challenge the solipsistic concept that what is in the mind cannot be questioned. Disorders of consciousness, after all, represent psychiatry's domain; declaring them off-limits would eliminate the field. Many will recall how, in the 1990s, an accusation of parental sex abuse of children was deemed unquestionable by the solipsists of the "recovered memory" craze.

You won't hear it from those championing transgender equality, but controlled and follow-up studies reveal fundamental problems with this movement. When children who reported transgender feelings were tracked without medical or surgical treatment at both Vanderbilt University and London's Portman Clinic, 70%-80% of them spontaneously lost those feelings. Some 25% did have persisting feelings; what differentiates those individuals remains to be discerned.

We at Johns Hopkins University?which in the 1960s was the first American medical center to venture into "sex-reassignment surgery"?launched a study in the 1970s comparing the outcomes of transgendered people who had the surgery with the outcomes of those who did not. Most of the surgically treated patients described themselves as "satisfied" by the results, but their subsequent psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didn't have the surgery. And so at Hopkins we stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, since producing a "satisfied" but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs.

It now appears that our long-ago decision was a wise one. A 2011 study at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden produced the most illuminating results yet regarding the transgendered, evidence that should give advocates pause. The long-term study?up to 30 years?followed 324 people who had sex-reassignment surgery. The study revealed that beginning about 10 years after having the surgery, the transgendered began to experience increasing mental difficulties. Most shockingly, their suicide mortality rose almost 20-fold above the comparable nontransgender population. This disturbing result has as yet no explanation but probably reflects the growing sense of isolation reported by the aging transgendered after surgery. The high suicide rate certainly challenges the surgery prescription.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/paul-mchu ... t-the-solution-1402615120

Quote:

radryan03 wrote:
Ok - lets get our facts right:

Medical science is not ignoring these people... there are still plenty of very reputable hospitals that provide the knowledge (psychological services) and care that a transgendered individual needs. I know you keep siting Hopkins... but that view comes from their head of psychiatry (Paul McHugh) and not medical staff or doctors. Paul's findings are biased by his personal beliefs - he seeks to justify bias with medicine (messed up in my book).

Things you should know about Paul:
-Paul McHugh is a practicing Catholic.[2] According to a 2002 New York Times article, he is a Democrat "who describes himself as religiously orthodox, politically liberal and culturally conservative -- a believer in marriage and the Marines, a supporter of institutions and family values.
- Throughout the decade of the 1990s, McHugh was active in debunking the idea of recovered memory?that is, the idea that people could suddenly and spontaneously remember childhood sexual abuse
- In 2002, McHugh was appointed to a lay panel assembled by the Roman Catholic Church to look into sexual abuse by priests.

I know this doesnt change your view - but at least others can be informed about this strange fact you keep throwing around like its the bible.

Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

Nori wrote:
The truth you speak of is so far off the topic of conversation.

The fact that people like you exist makes me uncomfortable.

You choose to ignore the fact that any man now has the ability to walk into a woman's restroom including sexual predators. This is a win for them. Just because a person feels he/she belongs to the opposite sex does not justify changing laws. There are a small group of people who are uncomfortable with their body limbs and have asked doctors to ambulate the limbs. Luckily, medical science is ignoring these people for now.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

CatDog wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

K-Lo wrote:
Regardless of the reason, even people with body dysmorphia have to pee. Just close the damn stall door and mind your own business. Women and children .. and men... are assualted every day. No one has to dress up to get access to victims.

Yes, everyone has to pee but this does open the door to sexual predators, something many here do not acknowledge. I just read something recently from an adult woman who was sexually assaulted in the women's locker room as a child by her male coach during swim practice.

what does that have to do with transgenders or bathroom laws? Absolutely nothing.

It has nothing to do with transgenders in restroom but hopefully, it might prevent someone here destroying their bodies and regretting it later.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

Nori wrote:
The truth you speak of is so far off the topic of conversation.

The fact that people like you exist makes me uncomfortable.

You choose to ignore the fact that any man now has the ability to walk into a woman's restroom including sexual predators. This is a win for them. Just because a person feels he/she belongs to the opposite sex does not justify changing laws. There are a small group of people who are uncomfortable with their body limbs and have asked doctors to ambulate the limbs. Luckily, medical science is ignoring these people for now.

Yvonne wrote:
Hey, JSleeze, it is interesting how Target stock is still down after the boycott while Chick Fil A stores are multiplying after their comment about gay marriage. The lines in NYC, is still around the corner, granted, that is not the case in Newport Mall but who is going to pay for parking?
I did spend between $800 to $1,000 a year a Target, since the downtown site appeared, that money is going elsewhere.

Yvonne wrote:
allowing men in women's spaces.

hero69 wrote:
Quote:

jerseymom wrote:
Remember the time mom marched through Target with her bible screaming at the top of her lungs about the devil? Good times, good times...

https://youtu.be/TCIYsXhR1D0

wow. This is really sad to see this madwoman parading around. Also, how does trans people using the bathroom of their choice support the "homosexual" agenda. I would think the last place a homosexual man would want to be is in the women's room.

jerseymom wrote:
Quote:

radryan03 wrote:
http://ny.curbed.com/2016/5/16/116388 ... -home-tour-renovated-loft

Yes, Regina & Billy were real pioneers... forging their way into a doorman building... such a ghost town too. I guess they don't frequent the ShopRite at 11PM. lol

Should read "couple buys nice apartment and makes it nicer"

From the comment section:

horizontalblinds

Does anyone else find it terrrribly cheesy that this apartment is currently for sale? Been on the market for 33 days and just had a $101,000 price chop (and still asking big, big money for the building). Why does Curbed not know this? Or worse, why do they not care and are effectively making this an advertisement for the owners? Just be upfront about it.

http://streeteasy.com/new_jersey/building/waldo-lofts/706