New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

CT....Panache....wonderin why yer getting yer royal arses defeated, why your record stands as 0-31?

Click to expand...

Wait a minute... How did my name end up there? Did I somehow wander into the pro-GML camp on accident?

Hatuey said:

Can I come to your wedding in a few years? I promise you that the overwhelming majority of Californians will come to their senses in a few years. CAN I? CAN I? Can I be the flower girl? We can do it like a theme wedding. All males wear dresses and females wear suits and tuxes.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. But I think the decor has already been decided upon by the other groom. I would definitely be honored if you and the missus and baby came out for it though.

We did get married while it was legal, but we had no huge ceremony.

jallman said:

Absolutely. But I think the decor has already been decided upon by the other groom. I would definitely be honored if you and the missus and baby came out for it though.

We did get married while it was legal, but we had no huge ceremony.

Click to expand...

I'm gonna catch the bouquet!!!!

winston53660 said:

I'm gonna catch the bouquet!!!!

Click to expand...

You mean bottle of whiskey? :mrgreen:

They have joked for years that I would show up at the altar at the very last minute, barely able to stand, and probably still holding a bottle of Jack. :lol:

CriticalThought said:

... Christians can choose to interpret their religion anyway they wish, and an increasing number of Christians choose to interpret their religion as favorable to same sex marriage...

Click to expand...

Your statement shows how little you understand we religious. Thankyou for providing an opening in the discussion to add God's word. It is true the Pope, cardinals, and bishops can guide policy but only narrowly within the interpretation of the Bible. All such policy must meet the truth of God's word in the Bible. Concerning homosexuality there is absolutely no controversy on Bible interpretations as it is all too simple and clear. And that is exactly why gays can only attempt in anguish to twist and outright dismiss some of the books. None of that sways we religious in the least though it has affect on those poorly grounded in the Bible of which there are many including those you refer to. I realise your knee jerk reaction will be to ridicule and twist the Bible especially the Old Testament and wholy dismiss Paul merely to play to your own advocate' and liberal follower's ears. However such has zero resonance with we Christians.

Jesus said in Matthew 5.17-18: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (Old Testament instructions from God) until everything is accomplished."

Leviticus 1: The LORD called Moses, and spoke to him from the tent of meeting, saying,
Leviticus 18.22: "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
Leviticus 20.13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.

Deuteronomy 23.17-1: There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

Hebrews 13.4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

The Apostle Paul inspired by Jesus is very specific:
Romans 1.26-27 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Corinthians 6.9-10: Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

I'm not Christian, and so I don't really care what your ancient book has to say on the topic. I was simply stating an easily observable aspect. Yes, you have your interpretation, but it is not the only one. When taken into cultural and historical context, the Bible can be interpreted very differently. People like yourself treat the Bible as if everything in it is as true today as it was back then. They pretend that monogamous homosexual relationships have always existed, and that the views of homosexuality didn't meld with pedophilia and rape back in ancient times. You also pretend the book was practically put together by the hand of God, not a bunch of men who debated on what should and shouldn't be put in the book. Paul's letters or Leviticus could have just as easily been left out as many other books were.

But I find it amusing that you like to pretend that your interpretation is absolute. If that is the psychological crutch you need to get through life, then all the power to you. I personally don't have to believe in an invisible daddy living on a cloud spreading his often contradictory word to the masses in a gathering of books that were put together by politically motivated patriarchs over 1600 years ago. I have this thing called reason and compassion, which do a lot to guide my own sense of morality, and which have actually made me a considerably more moral person than a lot of the gay bashing fundamentalist Christians out there who couldn't give a crap about the poor and sick. I don't need to believe in an illusion crafted from mixing real historical events with cultural myths to feel good about myself and make decisions that benefit society as a whole.

But go ahead and preach. Religion exists for people like yourself.

Oh, and just in case you are curious, I am not an atheist, I'm a pandeist.

70s_guy said:

...the opinion of a gay advocates, a small minority of our population

Fortunately we heterosexuals and Christians have vastly more numbers. Even those easily swayed if given the above arguments would acknowledge its simple common sense wisdom without having to defer to some study by politically correct twistinfo-perts. That is why here in California it was so easy to suddenly change the minds of the easily swayed right before the election while your friends were confidently believing manipulated garbage data from your own media.

Click to expand...

Except we have legitimate, credible, peer reviewed studies. All you've got is your bias, your inability to show evidence, and nothing else. From a debate standpoint, that gives your position the "loser" title.

winston53660 said:

I think he is just a bitter selfish bastard with a capital L on his forehead.

Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:

Knock off the personal attacks.

CaptainCourtesy said:

Except we have legitimate, credible, peer reviewed studies. All you've got is your bias, your inability to show evidence, and nothing else. From a debate standpoint, that gives your position the "loser" title.

Click to expand...

You aren't a fan of Kinsey by chance are you? I'd be disappointed if you count him as a credible source.

jallman said:

See, this is where you prove yourself to have no critical thinking skills and to lack anything resembling comprehension.

Click to expand...

Emotional rants personally insults...both irrelevant here, can we please stick to the issue on the thread, I'm not going to speak to comprehension or thinking skills on your part, I trust this will be the last time we hear from you on thiese matter. Leave your emotions at the door.

Every contract has characteristics that are alike.

Click to expand...

Backpedaling as fast as Lance Armstrong forwardpedals I see. Cause..."every contract has characteristics that are alike" is certainly a far cry from "marriage is like any other contract"....your retreat noted and appreceiated.

The purpose of various contracts are unique to those contracts

Click to expand...

So today it's, characterictics are the alike, purposes are unique?:roll:

And rather than smug, I merely use your argument. That is:

Given the natural tendancy of the human being to choose life-long mates and that being directly tied to the pursuit of one's happiness, the state makes concessions for us to choose one person to be irreplacable to us.

Now...that is quite unique in character, quite unique in purpose, quite unique everywhere but in your unfounded denials. There is NO other contracts based on natural tendencies of the human being to choose life long mates as you put it. Marriage quite unique in that it is tied to one's own happiness...according to you. What other contract........rather than insults and wish wash excuses..merely blow my argument from the water and provide me the contract....any other than marriage....where the State is making concessions based on 'us choosing one person irreplaceable'.

You cannot. We both know it. Rather than admit your mistake here and admit marriage is quite a unique contract with quite unique constituent interest with compelling reasons for society placing rules on it. Now...we may disagree with the rules...let's not disagree with society's right to define it...or that it is quite unique and needing unique definition.

You made the colossal error of defining it yourself, J, I used your exact words above. YOUR definition is quite unique and therefore, I use it to destroy your argument that marriage is like any other contract.

Cause according to you, it's not.

Panache said:

Wait a minute... How did my name end up there? Did I somehow wander into the pro-GML camp on accident?

Click to expand...

Sincere apologies, I made a mistake here. Wrong P.

phildozer9121 said:

You're either missing the point, or just deflecting.

Click to expand...

Uhhh....yer makin analogies between ssm and Catholic Communion.....and I'm the one missing the point or deflecting? Yeah...whatever, Phil.:roll:

People have rights.

Click to expand...

And the right to define their own institutions part of those rights, correct?

I'm a catholic, it's my right to believe what I want, to follow my practice, no matter how strange or weird some people may think it is, so long as it doesn't violate US laws.

Click to expand...

I am too. The fact that you'd compare the wine used for Communion to same sex marriage is odd. Sorry.

There is no where in the constitution, nor will there ever be any place in the constitution that states that one man cannot love another man in more than a platonic way.

Click to expand...

I hope not. I love several men. Many I'd take a bullet for, many I've Godfathered children for. I know their wives and children, I know their brothers and sisters and parents. I love a few of them as dearly as I love my immediate family. So what.

You don't have to believe that homosexuality is right, like jews dont have to believe that your eating the body and blood of jesus is right, but it still must be allowed, because to do otherwise is to discriminate. Plain and simple.

Click to expand...

Horse droppings. There is no law that says it must be allowed, in fact, current law states that it must not be allowed. Read your rule of law.

Charles Martel said:

Emotional rants personally insults...both irrelevant here, can we please stick to the issue on the thread, I'm not going to speak to comprehension or thinking skills on your part, I trust this will be the last time we hear from you on thiese matter. Leave your emotions at the door.



Backpedaling as fast as Lance Armstrong forwardpedals I see. Cause..."every contract has characteristics that are alike" is certainly a far cry from "marriage is like any other contract"....your retreat noted and appreceiated.



So today it's, characterictics are the alike, purposes are unique?:roll:

And rather than smug, I merely use your argument. That is:

Given the natural tendancy of the human being to choose life-long mates and that being directly tied to the pursuit of one's happiness, the state makes concessions for us to choose one person to be irreplacable to us.

Now...that is quite unique in character, quite unique in purpose, quite unique everywhere but in your unfounded denials. There is NO other contracts based on natural tendencies of the human being to choose life long mates as you put it. Marriage quite unique in that it is tied to one's own happiness...according to you. What other contract........rather than insults and wish wash excuses..merely blow my argument from the water and provide me the contract....any other than marriage....where the State is making concessions based on 'us choosing one person irreplaceable'.

You cannot. We both know it. Rather than admit your mistake here and admit marriage is quite a unique contract with quite unique constituent interest with compelling reasons for society placing rules on it. Now...we may disagree with the rules...let's not disagree with society's right to define it...or that it is quite unique and needing unique definition.

You made the colossal error of defining it yourself, J, I used your exact words above. YOUR definition is quite unique and therefore, I use it to destroy your argument that marriage is like any other contract.

Cause according to you, it's not.

Click to expand...

I've just never seen anyone act so smug as you about failing to understand the simplest of concepts. :shrug:

jallman said:

I've just never seen anyone act so smug as you about failing to understand the simplest of concepts.

Click to expand...

I've never seen anyone destroy their own argument before, I must hand it to you, your contradiction here one of the most obvious I've ever seen.:shrug:

Charles Martel said:

I've never seen anyone destroy their own argument before, I must hand it to you, your contradiction here one of the most obvious I've ever seen.:shrug:

Click to expand...

You created this whole side issue and then fluffed yourself over having created it. There was no destruction of my argument...just you failing to comprehend simple similarity and difference illustrations.

I don't see how you remain so smug about being so dense. :lol:

jallman said:

You created this whole side issue and then fluffed yourself over having created it.

Click to expand...

You defined marriage in a most unique manner after having just blurted out marriage was like any other contract. Your contradiction blatant, your position hypocritical and now exposed as quite political.

We're done here.

Charles Martel said:

You defined marriage in a most unique manner after having just blurted out marriage was like any other contract. Your contradiction blatant, your position hypocritical and now exposed as quite political.

We're done here.

Click to expand...

Yeah you've been done for a while, champ. You haven't made a valid point in pages because you keep obsessing over your inability to understand simple comparison and contrast and then you preen and strut with all the pride of a bantum rooster at your failure to comprehend.

But you have been amusing if nothing else. And uh...genius, it's a political debate site. Of course our positions are political.

Nothing gets by you, huh? :lol:

jallman said:

But you have been amusing if nothing else.

Click to expand...

Amusing I'll take as a compliment.......however....come in here blathering off about the definition of marriage and how unique it is and then contradicting your own argument will be taken to task. Now, I'm sorry if that upsets you. Throw such a blatant contradiction out.....it's gonna get pancaked. Like it or not.

Charles Martel said:

Amusing I'll take as a compliment.......however....come in here blathering off about the definition of marriage and how unique it is and then contradicting your own argument will be taken to task. Now, I'm sorry if that upsets you. Throw such a blatant contradiction out.....it's gonna get pancaked. Like it or not.

Click to expand...

Pancaked. Now that's a good one. I don't see what's so ****ing hard to understand about "these are all alike in this way" and "this is unique in this way". But obviously, you do and you find that lack of comprehension to be something to be proud of so who am I to burst your little bubble if it brings you so much comfort?

I'm gonna go ahead and take the points for stating the obvious: you, sir, are a ****ing idiot and if brains were gunpowder, you wouldn't have enough to blow your goddamned nose.

Like it or not.

jallman said:

Nothing gets by you, huh?

Click to expand...

Some things do get by me. Blatant contradictions such as yours....don't.:lol:

Charles Martel said:

Some things do get by me. Blatant contradictions such as yours....don't.:lol:

Click to expand...

Translation:

Meeeh...I'm Charlses Martel, I think being moronic and dense is a trait to be proud of. If I can't argue against your points, I'll create one for you and argue against that one instead.

Click to expand...

jallman said:

I'm gonna go ahead and take the points for stating the obvious: you, sir, are a ****ing idiot and if brains were gunpowder, you wouldn't have enough to blow your goddamned nose.

Click to expand...

The actual idiocy and blatant contradiction for all to see:

The definition of marriage is.....Given the natural tendancy of the human being to choose life-long mates and that being directly tied to the pursuit of one's happiness, the state makes concessions for us to choose one person to be irreplacable to us.........but marriage is like any other contract.:roll:

You're really wrong here and have destroyed your own argument. Sorry.

"the state makes concessions for us to choose one person to be irreplacable to us........."

...is perhaps my favorite and.....like every other contract characteristic.

:2razz:

Charles Martel said:

The actual idiocy and blatant contradiction for all to see:

The definition of marriage is.....Given the natural tendancy of the human being to choose life-long mates and that being directly tied to the pursuit of one's happiness, the state makes concessions for us to choose one person to be irreplacable to us.........but marriage is like any other contract.:roll:

You're really wrong here and have destroyed your own argument. Sorry.

Click to expand...

That's all a very mealy mouthed and convenient way to paraphrase two completely separate parts of the conversation and merge them into the argument you would like to build, but everyone who followed this thread and the other that you merged into that argument knows that you are not only dumber than a box of rocks but you are also a liar, to boot.

It's like I said, if you can't win the argument by actually discussing the issues, by all means, create some other argument to have with yourself. :lol:

You're really only proving everything I said to be true the further you take this.:lol:

Charles Martel said:

"the state makes concessions for us to choose one person to be irreplacable to us........."

...is perhaps my favorite and.....like every other contract characteristic.

:2razz:

Click to expand...

My favorite is when a retarded chimp tries to play off that he's making an intelligent argument. Keep dancing for us, monkey boy.:lol::lol: