Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 92

Thread: NJ court grants gay couples equal marriage rights

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    4,264

    NJ court grants gay couples equal marriage rights

    NJ court grants gay couples equal marriage rightshttp://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061026/...hts_gays1_dc_5

    TRENTON, New Jersey (Reuters) - New Jersey's highest court on Wednesday guaranteed gay couples the same rights as married heterosexuals, but left it up to state lawmakers to decide if such unions can be called marriage.

    "Times and attitudes have changed," the New Jersey Supreme Court said in a nuanced 90-page ruling certain to fuel America's culture wars ahead of November 7 elections, when eight states will vote on same-sex marriage laws.

    Advocates on both sides declared varying degrees of victory and disappointment on the latest twist in a battle that has divided the country over issues of gay culture and morality.

    "I am happy but not ecstatic. This is about 80 percent of what we wanted," said Leslie Farber, who is gay, at a rally in Montclair, New Jersey.

    Comparing the decision to the days when black people were forced to ride in the backs of buses during U.S. segregation, she said, "At least now we are on the bus."

    Same-sex marriage has faced legal and political roadblocks in much of the United States and has been a hot-button issue since 2003, when Massachusetts' highest court ruled it was unconstitutional to ban gay marriage, paving the way for America's first same-sex marriages in May 2004.

    Some gay activists pledged to stop at nothing short of full marriage rights, while opponents took heart that the court chose to give the legislature a role in deciding the issue.

    "We now hold that ... committed same-sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by married, opposite-sex couples," the court said in a 4-3 ruling. Gay advocates must now "appeal to their fellow citizens whose voices are heard through their popularly elected representatives," the court said.

    CONSERVATIVES VOW TO FIGHT

    James C. Dobson, chairman of the conservative advocacy group Focus on the Family, said the decision highlights the need for voters to enact laws to protect traditional families.

    "Nothing less than the future of the American family hangs in the balance if we allow one-man, one-woman marriage to be redefined out of existence," Dobson said in a statement.

    "And, make no mistake, that is precisely the outcome the New Jersey Supreme Court is aiming for with this decision."

    The court gave the New Jersey Legislature six months to amend state marriage statutes to include gay people or write a new law in which same-sex couples "would enjoy the rights of civil marriage."

    At a news conference in Newark, plaintiffs in the lawsuit said anything less than full marriage rights for gays and lesbians would make them second-class citizens.

    "Civil unions leave me cold, empty -- a marriage is a marriage," said Dennis Winslow, who is an Episcopalian minister as is his partner, Mark Lewis. "We want to get married in this state with the blessing of the Legislature."

    Lesbian couple Marcye and Karen Nicholson-McFadden wanted marriage as they raise their 7-year-old son and 3-year-old daughter. "I hope to one day say this is my wife," said Marcye, surrounded by Karen and their children. "We will not be relegated as a separate class."

    RIGHTS ADVOCATES BRACE FOR BACKLASH

    In the 2004 election, many states had ballot initiatives limiting gay marriage -- a factor credited with boosting the vote for President George W. Bush.

    On November 7, voters in eight states will decide on constitutional amendments limiting gay marriage or unions.

    The court stressed its decision "significantly advances the civil rights of gays and lesbians," and Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, braced for a backlash.

    "Sadly, we know that politicians on the right and their allies in the anti-gay industry will do everything in their power to exploit this decision for political gain on November 7. Again they will denounce 'activist judges' and defame gay people and our families to inflame their base," Foreman said.

    Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said the ruling "should give momentum to the eight states with marriage protection amendments on the November ballot."

    Gay activists said they would launch a television advertising campaign, hold town meetings and solicit support from residents across the state.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    We all knew that they could not get this done by putting it on the ballots and letting the voters decide. It will be a "civil union", which I think is fair. Marriage will never get through.

    Eight states have initiatives on this year's ballots that could end up banning same-sex marriages. Fifteen states have amended constitutions to ban same-sex unions after ballot initiatives approved such action.
    State courts including New York, Washington, Nebraska and Georgia have upheld voter-approved bans on gay marriage.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    4,264
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13
    We all knew that they could not get this done by putting it on the ballots and letting the voters decide.
    And we all knew that had they put the issue of slavery on the ballots and letting voters decide that, then we'd still have slavery.







    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13
    It will be a "civil union", which I think is fair. Marriage will never get through.
    Civil union works for me.
    In fact, heterosexuals really should have civil unions, too, since marriage seems to be something that religious folks claim is rooted in religion, and, as we all know, the government has no business making religious ceremonies into legally binding relationships.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by Tock
    And we all knew that had they put the issue of slavery on the ballots and letting voters decide that, then we'd still have slavery.

    Oh yes, slavery and homosexual marriage have much in common........


    Civil union works for me.
    In fact, heterosexuals really should have civil unions, too, since marriage seems to be something that religious folks claim is rooted in religion, and, as we all know, the government has no business making religious ceremonies into legally binding relationships.
    Agreed. But you will not elevate homosexual "civil unions" by degrading marriage. Civil union is fair, but when you attempt to screw with tradition, you will have a fight on your hands as this will not help your cause.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    30,963
    I have learned that all religion does is seprate people.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    4,264
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13
    Agreed. But you will not elevate homosexual "civil unions" by degrading marriage.
    Huh . . . as if gay people could degrade marriage more than it already has been.
    50% of marriages end in divorce, and of the ones that survive, half of those are miserable.
    Religious people are more likely to get divorced than non-religious people, and of the religious folk, Southern Babtists are most likely to get divorced.
    You can get an "Elvis" wedding www.elvischapel.com
    or you can get married underwater http://www.pensacoladivecompany.com/weddiing.html
    or you can get married skydiving http://www.skydivingcrazy.com/newsletters/issue2.html

    Your marriage can end up with your wife cutting your tallywhacker off http://www.fathers.ca/alaska_women_k..._off_penis.htm
    or maybe it'll end when one of you committ adultery or just get moody and beat each other crazy, sending the other to a "Safe House" for protection from the other crazy spouse. You may end up with deliquent children, or abandon your children (lots of 'em are) or abuse your children (lots of 'em are) or neglect your family, abandon your family, or any of the sorts of things that give marriage a bad name. Maybe get called into court for a divorce hearing, and get stuck paying child support because you're too irresponsible to take care of your own children.

    Huh . . . that is what's going on in heterosexual marriages right now. And you think that just by allowing gay people to marry, that is going to degrade marriage?

    Matthew Chapter 7, verses 1-5 come to mind:

    "1": Judge not, that ye be not judged.

    "2": For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

    "3": And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

    "4": Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

    "5": Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Chicago/Israel
    Posts
    946
    Quote Originally Posted by Tock
    Huh . . . as if gay people could degrade marriage more than it already has been. "5": Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

    Although my opinion means Doodly squat in the scheme of things, I will say that with half the politicians screwing underage interns, others cheating on there wifes, and the rest with there heads in the sand playing hear no evil, see no evil.......... I say this is an issue better left to the people. Let there be a national referendum and I guarantee you, you will be happily married by the end of the day.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    2,299
    Quote Originally Posted by singern
    Although my opinion means Doodly squat in the scheme of things, I will say that with half the politicians screwing underage interns, others cheating on there wifes, and the rest with there heads in the sand playing hear no evil, see no evil.......... I say this is an issue better left to the people. Let there be a national referendum and I guarantee you, you will be happily married by the end of the day.

    amen!!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,634
    Quote Originally Posted by Tock
    Huh . . . as if gay people could degrade marriage more than it already has been.
    50% of marriages end in divorce, and of the ones that survive, half of those are miserable. Religious people are more likely to get divorced than non-religious people, and of the religious folk, Southern Babtists are most likely to get divorced.
    You can get an "Elvis" wedding www.elvischapel.com
    or you can get married underwater http://www.pensacoladivecompany.com/weddiing.html
    or you can get married skydiving http://www.skydivingcrazy.com/newsletters/issue2.html

    Your marriage can end up with your wife cutting your tallywhacker off http://www.fathers.ca/alaska_women_k..._off_penis.htm
    or maybe it'll end when one of you committ adultery or just get moody and beat each other crazy, sending the other to a "Safe House" for protection from the other crazy spouse. You may end up with deliquent children, or abandon your children (lots of 'em are) or abuse your children (lots of 'em are) or neglect your family, abandon your family, or any of the sorts of things that give marriage a bad name. Maybe get called into court for a divorce hearing, and get stuck paying child support because you're too irresponsible to take care of your own children.

    Huh . . . that is what's going on in heterosexual marriages right now. And you think that just by allowing gay people to marry, that is going to degrade marriage?

    Matthew Chapter 7, verses 1-5 come to mind:

    "1": Judge not, that ye be not judged.

    "2": For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

    "3": And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

    "4": Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

    "5": Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

    only a gay person would say that.


    once evolution reaches a point where men can have babies naturally should a marriage be blessed by god.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Chicago/Israel
    Posts
    946
    Quote Originally Posted by helium3
    only a gay person would say that.


    once evolution reaches a point where men can have babies naturally should a marriage be blessed by god.
    I dont want to start a religious debate, but isnt this a mute argument since neither a religious ceremony, or blessing from God is necessary to be legally married.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    32,801
    Quote Originally Posted by helium3
    only a gay person would say that.


    once evolution reaches a point where men can have babies naturally should a marriage be blessed by god.
    I'm not gay but i could care less if god blesses what i do. Also in actuality I'm sure most of us have sex before marriage. Doesn't god seem to frown on that?

    Good for the gays. It doesn't effect me in anyway.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,634
    iam niether religious or homophobic,i just believe its a crime against nature.
    but im fine with gays as long as they leave me alone.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    west of the rockies
    Posts
    454
    Well isn't this news just peachy. Makes me want to jump and shout Hoorrrayy!! I can't wait for other deviant lifestyles to be recognized under the courts as having equal protection...like say uh...NAMBLA..or lowering the age of consent to oh..say 9...then the adults that like to rape little girls will have equal protection under the law!! Can't leave out those beastiality folks...get your sheep before there all sold out. Makes me want to move to New Jersey right now!!!

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    In the Gym, if i could
    Posts
    15,927
    Legislating from the Bench.. that's what we all need, not the will of the people, but the will of old guys who are being bought $$$ one at a time, and who are trying to get thier names, and legacy in place before they die..
    The answer to your every question

    Rules

    A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted
    to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially
    one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.


    If you get scammed by an UGL listed on this board or by another member here, it's all part of the game and learning experience for you,
    we do not approve nor support any sources that may be listed on this site.
    I will not do source checks for you, the peer review from other members should be enough to help you make a decision on your quest. Buyer beware.
    Don't Let the Police kick your ass

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    In the Gym, if i could
    Posts
    15,927
    here's something i found

    Gen 19:5-8 "and they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.' But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, 'Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly.'" The Greek word in the New Testament for homosexuality is literally "a sodomite". Jock is trying to redefine what the term "sodomite" means. (A term that has unchanged in 5000 years, even today- "sodomy") Apart from the fact the city was clearly destroyed by God because of homosexuality in the narrative of Gen 19, even the New Testament clearly states exactly the same thing in Jude 7 "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire." Any sinner should always remember that the God who commands us to love our neighbour is the same God who will cast any and all unrepentant sinners into the "eternal fire". Here are more Bible quotes, Lev 18:22-23 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." Lev 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death." 1 Cor 6:9 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals" 1 Tim 1:9-10 "realizing the fact that (civil) law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers" Rom 1:26-27 "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."
    The answer to your every question

    Rules

    A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted
    to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially
    one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.


    If you get scammed by an UGL listed on this board or by another member here, it's all part of the game and learning experience for you,
    we do not approve nor support any sources that may be listed on this site.
    I will not do source checks for you, the peer review from other members should be enough to help you make a decision on your quest. Buyer beware.
    Don't Let the Police kick your ass

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    In the Gym, if i could
    Posts
    15,927
    but then again, this thread is about judges in NJ, ordering that the states constitution be rewritten, or laws changed to effect gay marriage..
    The answer to your every question

    Rules

    A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted
    to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially
    one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.


    If you get scammed by an UGL listed on this board or by another member here, it's all part of the game and learning experience for you,
    we do not approve nor support any sources that may be listed on this site.
    I will not do source checks for you, the peer review from other members should be enough to help you make a decision on your quest. Buyer beware.
    Don't Let the Police kick your ass

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    west of the rockies
    Posts
    454
    Right on Spy...legislation from the bench...its time for a revolution, or the US to Balkanize...and form city-states where people can live among those likeminded.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    2,056
    Quote Originally Posted by helium3
    only a gay person would say that.


    once evolution reaches a point where men can have babies naturally should a marriage be blessed by god.
    Not in a country like this, are you nuts?

    The Bachelor, and The Bachelorette, and Who's your Daddy, and who wants to marry a midget, etc.

    Marriage in this country is a joke, I don't see any harm in letting gays get married other than backwater notions of what's "proper".

    But to claim the "sanctity" of marriage as sacred in this country in this day and age is laughable...

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    32,801
    Quote Originally Posted by Teabagger
    Well isn't this news just peachy. Makes me want to jump and shout Hoorrrayy!! I can't wait for other deviant lifestyles to be recognized under the courts as having equal protection...like say uh...NAMBLA..or lowering the age of consent to oh..say 9...then the adults that like to rape little girls will have equal protection under the law!! Can't leave out those beastiality folks...get your sheep before there all sold out. Makes me want to move to New Jersey right now!!!
    I think is a big leap from gays to nambla. Gays are 2 consenting adults. They aren't doing anything illegal. It really doesnt effect me either way and they arent hurting anyone IMO

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    west of the rockies
    Posts
    454
    Quote Originally Posted by gixxerboy1
    I think is a big leap from gays to nambla. Gays are 2 consenting adults. They aren't doing anything illegal. It really doesnt effect me either way and they arent hurting anyone IMO
    Not a reach at all...NAMBLA is a homosexual organization that targets young boys. Not young girls...young boys...and all members are men...thus homosexual pedophiles.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    2,056
    NAMBLA = National Association of Men who Buttf*ck Little Asians...

    They are a sick group indeed....

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by spywizard
    here's something i found

    Gen 19:5-8 [/COLOR] Rom 1:26-27 "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."
    aaaaaahahahah. LOL!
    Tock must have missed that one as well during his search for quotes from the bible.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    [QUOTE=spywizard]here's something i found

    Tim 1:9-10 "realizing the fact that (civil) law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers"

    aaaaaahahahah. LOL!
    Tock must have missed that one as well during his search for quotes from the bible.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    32,801
    Quote Originally Posted by Teabagger
    Not a reach at all...NAMBLA is a homosexual organization that targets young boys. Not young girls...young boys...and all members are men...thus homosexual pedophiles.
    Yes i understand that. But this law doesn't protect them. Pedophilia is illegal. If they were targeting girls they aren't protected because they can marry a girl. Am i missing something

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3,762
    Quote Originally Posted by Teabagger
    Right on Spy...legislation from the bench...its time for a revolution, or the US to Balkanize...and form city-states where people can live among those likeminded.
    hell yes!

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    4,225
    seriously...some of these statements might as well be taken out of the 50's.

    1) calling a group of people "the gays" is pretty retarded.
    2) being the libertarian thatI am...i fail to see how it's any business of the gov't to control what 2 consenting adults do or don't do when it doesn't affect other people.
    3) IMO, marriage should be 2 people who are in love... but how often does that happen? People have warped what marriage is into a fiscal reason to be together, or to get citizenship...it is far from what it was originally intended to be. So if a group of people want to get married because they are in love and want to spend their life with the other person... GREAT.

  27. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by zimmy
    seriously...some of these statements might as well be taken out of the 50's.

    1) calling a group of people "the gays" is pretty retarded.
    2) being the libertarian thatI am...i fail to see how it's any business of the gov't to control what 2 consenting adults do or don't do when it doesn't affect other people.
    3) IMO, marriage should be 2 people who are in love... but how often does that happen? People have warped what marriage is into a fiscal reason to be together, or to get citizenship...it is far from what it was originally intended to be. So if a group of people want to get married because they are in love and want to spend their life with the other person... GREAT.
    good point

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    2,056
    The next issue would be, can gays adopt?

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    30,963
    Quote Originally Posted by Phreak101
    The next issue would be, can gays adopt?
    Would it be better for a child to have two loving parents of the same sex or no parents at all ?

  30. #30
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    4,264
    Quote Originally Posted by helium3
    iam niether religious or homophobic,i just believe its a crime against nature.
    How can it be a "crime against nature?" It's natural for lot of other animals to engage in homosexual behavior -- we just had a thread that showed this:
    http://forums.steroid.com/showthread.php?t=267591

    Lots of other animals do it, humans are animals, some humans do it too. Shouldn't surprise anyone . . .

  31. #31
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    4,264
    Quote Originally Posted by Phreak101
    The next issue would be, can gays adopt?
    In many states, it's ok.

  32. #32
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    4,264
    Quote Originally Posted by spywizard
    Apart from the fact the city was clearly destroyed by God because of homosexuality
    Well, here's proof you can prove anything you want with the Bible, another Bible quote:

    Ezekiel 16:49 -- Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.







    Quote Originally Posted by spywizard
    Lev 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death."
    Either you beleive what the Bible says, or you don't.
    Either you beleive that all gay people should be put to death, or you don't.
    If you don't beleive that all gay people should be put to death, then you don't beleive what the Bible says. And if you don't beleive what the Bible says, then why should I?
    Last edited by Tock; 10-26-2006 at 10:05 PM.

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    2,056
    Quote Originally Posted by DSM4Life
    Would it be better for a child to have two loving parents of the same sex or no parents at all ?
    I don't know

  34. #34
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    4,264
    Quote Originally Posted by spywizard
    here's something i found
    Rom 1:26-27 "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."
    And who exactly are these people referred to as "them?"

    Here's the complete passage these two verses were pull out of context from:

    Romans Chapter 1 verses 16 - 32

    16: For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
    17: For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
    18: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
    19: Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
    20: For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
    21: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
    22: Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
    23: And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
    24: Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
    25: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
    26: For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
    27: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
    28: And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
    29: Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
    30: Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
    31: Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
    32: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.


    From reading this text, it looks like the author (the Apostle Paul) was talking in the past tense about some folks he was acquainted with. Verse 28 says, "God gave them over to a reprobate mind . . ." So, if this was already done to some group of people, then this passage is more of a rant about folks he knew than about every gay and lesbian person who ever lived or ever will live in the future.

    Disagree? Well then, first tell me who these "they" are that the Apostle Paul is talking about in verses 19 and 21 . . .

  35. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    30,963
    Quote Originally Posted by Phreak101
    I don't know
    Common sense tells me two parents are better then non.

  36. #36
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    4,264
    Quote Originally Posted by spywizard
    Legislating from the Bench.. that's what we all need, not the will of the people, but the will of old guys who are being bought $$$ one at a time, and who are trying to get thier names, and legacy in place before they die..
    Legislating from the bench, eh?

    Would you call the US Supreme Court decision "Loving vs. Virginia" (summary below) a case of legislating from the bench, or an instance of the Supreme Court striking down an unjust law?


    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    Loving v. Virginia
    388 U.S. 1 (1967)
    Docket Number: 395
    Abstract


    Argued:
    April 10, 1967

    Decided:
    June 12, 1967


    Subjects: Civil Rights: Desegregation

    Facts of the Case
    In 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia. The Lovings returned to Virginia shortly thereafter. The couple was then charged with violating the state's antimiscegenation statute, which banned inter-racial marriages. The Lovings were found guilty and sentenced to a year in jail (the trial judge agreed to suspend the sentence if the Lovings would leave Virginia and not return for 25 years).


    Question Presented
    Did Virginia's antimiscegenation law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?


    Conclusion
    Yes. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that distinctions drawn according to race were generally "odious to a free people" and were subject to "the most rigid scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause. The Virginia law, the Court found, had no legitimate purpose "independent of invidious racial discrimination." The Court rejected the state's argument that the statute was legitimate because it applied equally to both blacks and whites and found that racial classifications were not subject to a "rational purpose" test under the Fourteenth Amendment.

    -----------------------------------------------------------
    also, see
    http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...aw/loving.html
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...ol=388&invol=1


    In your opinion, did the Supreme Court legislate from the bench when it struck down the Virginia law banning inter-racial marriage? Should the USA amend the US Constitution to allow states to pass laws that ban inter-racial marriage?

    Just curious for your opinon . . . seems to me there isn't a dime's worth of difference between laws that ban inter-racial marriage and laws that ban same-sex marriage. It was as appropriate for the New Jersey Supreme Court to take its position as it was for the US Supreme Court to void Virginia's law banning mixed marriages.

    -Tock
    Last edited by Tock; 10-26-2006 at 11:00 PM.

  37. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,506
    Quote Originally Posted by DSM4Life
    Would it be better for a child to have two loving parents of the same sex or no parents at all ?
    Or two fighting/separated/divorced parents constantly at war and using the kids as pawns in their battles...

    I've seen it so often...

    Red

  38. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by Tock
    How can it be a "crime against nature?" It's natural for lot of other animals to engage in homosexual behavior -- we just had a thread that showed this:
    http://forums.steroid.com/showthread.php?t=267591

    Lots of other animals do it, humans are animals, some humans do it too. Shouldn't surprise anyone . . .
    As I said before, all animals are prone to mental illness..........

  39. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by Tock
    How can it be a "crime against nature?" It's natural for lot of other animals to engage in homosexual behavior -- we just had a thread that showed this:
    http://forums.steroid.com/showthread.php?t=267591

    Lots of other animals do it, humans are animals, some humans do it too. Shouldn't surprise anyone . . .
    Many species of monkeys throw their feces, would you use this fact to support your right to throw your feces at people as well?

  40. #40
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    4,264
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13
    Many species of monkeys throw their feces, would you use this fact to support your right to throw your feces at people as well?
    Maybe you'd like to take a shot at answering some of the more substantial arguments I've made in this post, eh?
    Or are juvenile scatological references the best you can do?

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •