Christie vetoes New Jersey gay marriage bill

[LovePatience]

Why its hurtful when people say that childhood sexual abuse and sexual orientation in adulthood have no relationship? Its hurtful because people who are struggling with adult sexual identity issues may never think that these occur as a result of childhood sexual abuse, because people who have a political point to make enforce the lie that they aren’t related. It seems that for the gay people who do not have a history of sexual abuse, it would cause less damage to be questioned on this history, then for the gay people who do have a history to have this issue ignored.

Purpose: This paper reports on the prevalence of a history of childhood sexual abuse from a national community-based sample of 1633 adult lesbians. Design: The descriptive analysis includes a comparison of mental and physical health variables commonly reported in adult survivors of childhood abuse in two subsamples, one who reported a history of childhood sexual abuse and one who did not. Results: The prevalence of a history of childhood abuse in this sample was higher than some other samples of women. Conclusions: The survivor group reported significantly greater emotional and physical distress and symptoms, and was more likely to have a family history of drug or alcohol abuse…This would suggest that this sample had a higher prevalence of childhood sexual abuse than many studies of women in general.
Prevalence of Childhood Sexual Abuse and Related Sequelae in a Lesbian Population** Journal of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association**, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1999

Why would there be any bias by the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association? Here are more studies showing the much higher rate for homosexuals than heterosexuals: conservapedia.com/Sexual_abuse_being_a_contributing_factor_for_homosexuality

 

[meltzerboy]

Its not a myth. Can you provide any evidence that it is? If you can’t, its presumptuous of you to say that it is as well as hurtful.

Never said that most people became gay due to molestation; I said some have, and it is a disservice to them for people to treat their homosexual identity as healthy and natural without questioning if that was the reason. If you question this, then read Dawn Stefanowicz’s book on Out from Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting. She herself experienced sexual confusion due to the way that she grew up.

Could you explain why you would compare same sex orientation to race but discount the comparison with transgender identity? You have some predetermined biases where you feel comfortable making racial comparisons despite the fact that you are told they are racist and offensive but are not comfortable with a comparison of two states that are not exactly the same, but are surely much closer than race and sexual identity.

My comparisons between race and sexual orientation are not those of kind, but rather, based on the the discriminatory practices both groups have endured. I fully admit that Blacks have suffered more at the hands of society, at least in the US. The reason why I do not compare transgender people to same-sex attracted people is based on psychological theory which differentiates between the two groups. Of course, there is a point of comparison since both involve sexuality; however, I am noting that it is scientifically incorrect to equate the two groups. Insofar as my comments’ being racist, I must take into account the knowledge as well as preconceptions of those people who attribute racist intentions to them.

 

[TMC]

I think Christie will come to regret this veto. He is trying to have it both ways by vetoing the bill to appease the right, while suggesting he is not really against gay rights - he just wants to see those rights put to a popular vote. To prove he is not against gay rights, he is also calling for a strengthening of the NJ civil union statute. When he inevitably runs for President in 2016, this straddle will not help him with the far right that controls the GOP primary, and (if he were to get nominated) his willingness to deny his own legislature to pander to his right will not help him with the general electorate.

 

[estesbob]

My comparisons between race and sexual orientation are not those of kind, but rather, based on the the discriminatory practices both groups have endured. I fully admit that Blacks have suffered more at the hands of society, at least in the US. The reason why I do not compare transgender people to same-sex attracted people is based on psychological theory which differentiates between the two groups. Of course, there is a point of comparison since both involve sexuality; however, I am noting that it is scientifically incorrect to equate the two groups. Insofar as my comments’ being racist, I must take into account the knowledge as well as preconceptions of those people who attribute racist intentions to them.

Not all discrimination is unjust. It is one thing to be discriminated against becuase of your race, quite another thing to be discriminated against becuase of your behavior. ALL laws regulate behavior.

 

[mgreen77]

Not all discrimination is unjust. It is one thing to be discriminated against becuase of your race, quite another thing to be discriminated against becuase of your behavior. ALL laws regulate behavior.

Sure, but homosexual “behavior” isn’t illegal (in most states as far as I know).

 

[unafraid]

This isn’t a situation regarding civil rights, liberty, or freedom. What we have here is a contrived (and bold) movemment, representative of the radicalism of moral relativism which seeks to marginalize virtue in favor of vice, and redefine what is traditionally held as being valuable into something reactionary, archaic, and non-progressive. It is revolutionary, and it is slanderous…and it is morally wrong!

Slander truth, beauty, and goodness often enough, and without restraint, and very soon thereafter, people will begin to tolerate, then accept, the unholy polyglot that is secular humanism, atheism, nihilism, and moral relativism. Soon after that, love becomes the enemy of progress, and then pragmatism (devoid of feeling), becomes the new ideal. After that…darkness covers the land. It is the way of the progression of evil.

Gay marriage represents so much more than a mere assault on an institution which has been held sacred since time immemorial; it is a lynchpin issue in a cause that seeks to break the very core values of our cultural, moral and societal ethos which represent an impediment to this new (and demonic) ideology of nothingness. If they force this upon the people, beware what will be coming next.

These proponents of this revolution are expert at using propaganda to vilify the opposing point of view. Do not bend to this tactic. Stay yourself in the strength of your convictions that what is pure cannot be stained by foul and degrading language; and, that what is sacred cannot be sullied by cruel invectives. Trust in the Truth.

To these people, there is no such thing as holiness; it simply doesn’t exist for them. Please do not let them mis-characterize pious belief, and faithfulness, and distort them into forms of a pathological intransigence. Opposition to gay marriage is the righteous position to take. Be proud, and feel justified, in holding on to such views. Keep it simple: This fight is about good vs. evil. There can be no modification of that truth.

 

[estesbob]

Sure, but homosexual “behavior” isn’t illegal (in most states as far as I know).

Neither is living with two women but that does not justify legalizing polygamy

 

[meltzerboy]

This isn’t a situation regarding civil rights, liberty, or freedom. What we have here is a contrived (and bold) movemment, representative of the radicalism of moral relativism which seeks to marginalize virtue in favor of vice, and redefine what is traditionally held as being valuable into something reactionary, archaic, and non-progressive. It is revolutionary, and it is slanderous…and it is morally wrong!

Slander truth, beauty, and goodness often enough, and without restraint, and very soon thereafter, people will begin to tolerate, then accept, the unholy polyglot that is secular humanism, atheism, nihilism, and moral relativism. Soon after that, love becomes the enemy of progress, and then pragmatism (devoid of feeling), becomes the new ideal. After that…darkness covers the land. It is the way of the progression of evil.

Gay marriage represents so much more than a mere assault on an institution which has been held sacred since time immemorial; it is a lynchpin issue in a cause that seeks to break the very core values of our cultural, moral and societal ethos which represent an impediment to this new (and demonic) ideology of nothingness. If they force this upon the people, beware what will be coming next.

These proponents of this revolution are expert at using propaganda to vilify the opposing point of view. Do not bend to this tactic. Stay yourself in the strength of your convictions that what is pure cannot be stained by foul and degrading language; and, that what is sacred cannot be sullied by cruel invectives. Trust in the Truth.

To these people, there is no such thing as holiness; it simply doesn’t exist for them. Please do not let them mis-characterize pious belief, and faithfulness, and distort them into forms of a pathological intransigence. Opposition to gay marriage is the righteous position to take. Be proud, and feel justified, in holding on to such views. Keep it simple: This fight is about good vs. evil. There can be no modification of that truth.

Although I disagree with much of what you are saying, particularly the agenda conspiracy idea so often suggested on this Forum, your commentary clearly covers the essential points of the argument from a presumably universal moral perspective with all the appropriate catchwords (except for cultural elite), and you’ve certainly lived up to your screen name.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Not all discrimination is unjust. It is one thing to be discriminated against becuase of your race, quite another thing to be discriminated against becuase of your behavior. ALL laws regulate behavior.

There is a grand distinction between regulating what someone does versus regulating what someone is.

 

[LovePatience]

My comparisons between race and sexual orientation are not those of kind, but rather, based on the the discriminatory practices both groups have endured. I fully admit that Blacks have suffered more at the hands of society, at least in the US. The reason why I do not compare transgender people to same-sex attracted people is based on psychological theory which differentiates between the two groups. Of course, there is a point of comparison since both involve sexuality; however, I am noting that it is scientifically incorrect to equate the two groups. Insofar as my comments’ being racist, I must take into account the knowledge as well as preconceptions of those people who attribute racist intentions to them.

If your comparisons between race and sexual orientation are not those of kind, then why would you advocate for gay marriage because blacks were once excluded from interracial marriages? Surely, no one thinks that a group is deserving of marriage with the sole criterion being that some people once thought that they were not deserving as there are many restrictions on marriage that most people still uphold that it is valid to make restrictions regarding age, genetic relationship, number of partners, species, impotence. By the logic of being deserving of marriage because you were once excluded, those restrictions would have to fall. So it doesn’t seem that this is the only reason why you think the two are comparable as you are not advocating that these marriage restrictions be done away with due to previous discrimination. What is wrong is not discrimination, but “unjust” discrimination. Justice is: giving each their due.

Now same-sex relationships have some problems that make them unequal to heterosexual marriage: lack of sexual complementarity, lack of ability to have children (marriage joins two people into one entity and this has a biological fruit of a child that is composed of two and only two people), unhealthy norms especially in the case of gay men, and higher relationship to childhood sexual abuse. Those who support gay marriage and still recognize children as a fundamental component of marriage are supporting gay marriage out of pity for those who are same-sex attracted but not on grounds of equality. Those who support gay marriage and seek to redefine marriage to exclude a relationship to children are doing a disservice to children in our society that are better raised in a family than a foster care or as orphans. To compare interracial marriage to same-sex marriage, one would have to say that every interracial marriage also intrinsically has significant problems that make them unequal to heterosexual marriage, and that is demeaning.

As for whether blacks or gays suffer more at the hands of society, it doesn’t seem that a contest of victimhood is appropriate as marriage is not justified due to one’s status as a victim. Blacks have suffered more targeted systematic oppression, i.e. kidnappings being declared 3/5ths human, yes. However, interracial marriage isn’t less deserved by Latinos because they aren’t as far on the victimization scale. It is strange that people are so unconcerned about the fact that in the Netherlands, the partnered gay men suicide rate is 8 times that of hetersexual men in their push for gay marriage and STDs are similar. Life expectancy of gay men is 20 years less than that of heterosexuals in the U.S. Only two causes of this: nature or nurture. If it is nurture, then society has failed gays by pushing gay marriage as the cure as evidence in Netherlands shows it is no solution.

Psychological and scientific theory also differentiates between blacks and gays but you still make the comparison. Transgenders have also experienced discrimination so they would seem a better comparison. It seems that if you are going to assume that sexual identity/orientation is irrelevant in grounds for a comparison, it seems transgender and race are more comparable honestly. Gender and race are obvious; sexual orientation is not. A sex reassignment surgery is physically damaging even if some find it psychologically affirming, so are the sorts of chemical peels or eye reshaping surgeries that some dark-skinned or asians do to pass as another race. Gay people may hurt themselves physically inadvertently, through contracting STDs, but they don’t deliberately contract an STD as a way of appearing more heterosexual. Rather, many seek to act in ways atypical for our society and reject gender norms. The struggles of “passing” for blacks and “coming out” for gays seem to be the opposite.

 

[mgreen77]

It is strange that people are so unconcerned about the fact that in the Netherlands, the partnered gay men suicide rate is 8 times that of hetersexual men in their push for gay marriage and STDs are similar. Life expectancy of gay men is 20 years less than that of heterosexuals in the U.S.

Legally, I don’t think any of those things are relevant though. There’s no “healthy lifestyle” test for marriage licenses. Alcoholics, domestic abusers, pedophiles, rapists, swingers, drug addicts… can all marry. Many opposite-sex couples are psychologicaly unhealthy (codependent, etc.) for one another and their children, yet they’re not disqualified either. Infertile couples can marry, best (platonic) friends can marry…

All things which I realize the Church frowns upon, but legally I’m having trouble coming up with a reason to ban same-sex marriages. If you start using the “unhealthy lifestyle” or “unfit to raise children” tests, than those tests have to apply to opposite-sex couples too.

 

[LovePatience]

Legally, I don’t think any of those things are relevant though. There’s no “healthy lifestyle” test for marriage licenses. Alcoholics, domestic abusers, pedophiles, rapists, swingers, drug addicts… can all marry. Many opposite-sex couples are psychologicaly unhealthy (codependent, etc.) for one another and their children, yet they’re not disqualified either. Infertile couples can marry, best (platonic) friends can marry…

All things which I realize the Church frowns upon, but legally I’m having trouble coming up with a reason to ban same-sex marriages. If you start using the “unhealthy lifestyle” or “unfit to raise children” tests, than those tests have to apply to opposite-sex couples too.

There are two reasons. (1) lack of sexual complementarity (2) unchanging and intrinsic inability to have children. The two purposes of marriage are the unitive and procreative, which should be linked. In the couples you mentioned before, the purposes of marriage are still fulfilled. There’s also a question of phrasing: banning same-sex marriage versus removing gender as a requirement for marriage. Since gender and marriage are inseparably linked, it changes the meaning of marriage in a negative way to remove gender as a requirement.

What is the purpose really of giving tax benefits to married couples if marriage has no meaning? Generally, we do that because children are better raised in married households than unmarried ones, and heterosexual couples will have children so it is better to do so in a marriage environment. The opposite is the same for heterosexual couples; same-sex marriage brings no benefits to society that it is deserving of tax benefits or laws regulating same-sex marriage. Rather, it is counterproductive to encouraging heterosexual couples with children to get and stay married by redefining the meaning of marriage and causing confusion about the ideal family relationship. There are some laws regulating heterosexual marriage such as no-fault divorce versus fault divorce.

As for infertility, many people who have thought they were infertile have had children. In the majority of states, impotency is grounds for divorce which would seem to be a fundamental characteristic of gay marriage.

The * desire* to marry someone of the same sex though is disordered, and it is confusing that so many people are concerned about discrimination against gay people but are not concerned about suicide rates or STD rates. It makes the concern about discrimination seem insincere.

 

[meltzerboy]

If your comparisons between race and sexual orientation are not those of kind, then why would you advocate for gay marriage because blacks were once excluded from interracial marriages? Surely, no one thinks that a group is deserving of marriage with the sole criterion being that some people once thought that they were not deserving as there are many restrictions on marriage that most people still uphold that it is valid to make restrictions regarding age, genetic relationship, number of partners, species, impotence. By the logic of being deserving of marriage because you were once excluded, those restrictions would have to fall. So it doesn’t seem that this is the only reason why you think the two are comparable as you are not advocating that these marriage restrictions be done away with due to previous discrimination. What is wrong is not discrimination, but “unjust” discrimination. Justice is: giving each their due.

Now same-sex relationships have some problems that make them unequal to heterosexual marriage: lack of sexual complementarity, lack of ability to have children (marriage joins two people into one entity and this has a biological fruit of a child that is composed of two and only two people), unhealthy norms especially in the case of gay men, and higher relationship to childhood sexual abuse. Those who support gay marriage and still recognize children as a fundamental component of marriage are supporting gay marriage out of pity for those who are same-sex attracted but not on grounds of equality. Those who support gay marriage and seek to redefine marriage to exclude a relationship to children are doing a disservice to children in our society that are better raised in a family than a foster care or as orphans. To compare interracial marriage to same-sex marriage, one would have to say that every interracial marriage also intrinsically has significant problems that make them unequal to heterosexual marriage, and that is demeaning.

As for whether blacks or gays suffer more at the hands of society, it doesn’t seem that a contest of victimhood is appropriate as marriage is not justified due to one’s status as a victim. Blacks have suffered more targeted systematic oppression, i.e. kidnappings being declared 3/5ths human, yes. However, interracial marriage isn’t less deserved by Latinos because they aren’t as far on the victimization scale. It is strange that people are so unconcerned about the fact that in the Netherlands, the partnered gay men suicide rate is 8 times that of hetersexual men in their push for gay marriage and STDs are similar. Life expectancy of gay men is 20 years less than that of heterosexuals in the U.S. Only two causes of this: nature or nurture. If it is nurture, then society has failed gays by pushing gay marriage as the cure as evidence in Netherlands shows it is no solution.

Psychological and scientific theory also differentiates between blacks and gays but you still make the comparison. Transgenders have also experienced discrimination so they would seem a better comparison. It seems that if you are going to assume that sexual identity/orientation is irrelevant in grounds for a comparison, it seems transgender and race are more comparable honestly. Gender and race are obvious; sexual orientation is not. A sex reassignment surgery is physically damaging even if some find it psychologically affirming, so are the sorts of chemical peels or eye reshaping surgeries that some dark-skinned or asians do to pass as another race. Gay people may hurt themselves physically inadvertently, through contracting STDs, but they don’t deliberately contract an STD as a way of appearing more heterosexual. Rather, many seek to act in ways atypical for our society and reject gender norms. The struggles of “passing” for blacks and “coming out” for gays seem to be the opposite.

You raise so many issues here that they would derail the thread if I answered all of them. Here I will just point to the Netherlands study you have mentioned a few times. That study, which I have read, is methodologically flawed because the operational definition of gay that is used includes people who have had only one gay interaction within a twelve-month period, regardless of whether they have any kind of gay relationship. Using this definition as a criterion, apart from its questionable validity, results in a significantly larger number of people who fit into the gay category even though they may not be what one would ordinarily consider gay, and thus, on the basis of sheer numbers, artificially inflates the percentage of so-called gay people who have committed suicide. The other point I wish to make is that I have not advocated gay marriage BECAUSE Blacks were once excluded from interracial marriage. My advocacy (really too strong a word because I am not an active advocate) is based on no LEGAL justification for excluding gays from marrying, apart from specific moral values held by some, but not all, of the general population. My main focus of comparison between the Black and gay groups, however, was in the areas of workplace and housing discrimination based on (the perception of) physical appearance, both of which are unjust. What I said about transgendered people compared to gay people is that the principal point of comparison is sexuality, in response to your apparent usage of the term gender identity disorder to encompass both groups. Most gay people do NOT have gender identity disorder; they have a different sexual orientation, and there is a DIFFERENCE between the two, just as there is a difference between most cross-dressers (transvestites), who are heterosexual, transgenders, and gays. If you wish to discuss these differences further, please PM me or start another thread.

 

[LovePatience]

My main focus of comparison between the Black and gay groups, however, was in the areas of workplace and housing discrimination based on (the perception of) physical appearance, both of which are unjust.

Could you explain how this is relevant to a discussion on gay marriage? Or your second post in this thread where you brought up how many white americans didn’t support interracial marriage and they saw a moral equivalence?

What I said about transgendered people compared to gay people is that the principal point of comparison is sexuality, in response to your apparent usage of the term gender identity disorder to encompass both groups. Most gay people do NOT have gender identity disorder; they have a different sexual orientation, and there is a DIFFERENCE between the two, just as there is a difference between most cross-dressers (transvestites), who are heterosexual, transgenders, and gays. If you wish to discuss these differences further, please PM me or start another thread.

This is a total strawman. Could you show where someone asserted that these are all EXACTLY the same that you need to refute the assertion? Since you reference “my apparent usage of the term gender identity disorder to encompass both groups”, I would also appreciate being pointed to where I do so.

I have brought up transgender to point out a dramatic example of a person who has suffered deeply due to having their gender identity issues treated as healthy and normal instead of looking into deeper psychological reasons. Similar things would happen to a gay person whose sexual orientation stemmed from negative environmental factors when enforced political correctness that is in contradiction with science tells them that this difference is good and healthy.

 

[meltzerboy]

Could you explain how this is relevant to a discussion on gay marriage?

This is a total strawman. Could you show where someone asserted that these are all EXACTLY the same that you need to refute the assertion? Since you reference “my apparent usage of the term gender identity disorder to encompass both groups”, I would appreciate pointing me to where I do so.

I have brought up transgender to point out a dramatic example of a person who has suffered deeply due to having their gender identity issues treated as healthy and normal instead of looking into deeper psychological reasons. The same thing would happen to a gay person whose sexual orientation stemmed from negative environmental factors when enforced political correctness that is in contradiction with science tells them that this difference is good and healthy.

Your use of the term “gender identity issues” is what caught my eye in your discussion of Chaz Bono. Most gay people don’t have these issues, which transgendered people have, the latter intensely suffering because they literally feel their external gender does not match their internal one. This is, for the most part, not due to “negative environmental factors,” as you suggest. No legitimate research confirms such a belief.

My bringing up housing and workplace discrimination, as well as interracial marriage, was in response to other posters who stated there is NO connection between Blacks and gays. There is a connection, and that connection is discriminatory practices.

 

[LovePatience]

Your use of the term “gender identity issues” is what caught my eye in your discussion of Chaz Bono. Most gay people don’t have these issues, which transgendered people have, the latter intensely suffering because they literally feel their external gender does not match their internal one. This is, for the most part, not due to “negative environmental factors,” as you suggest. No legitimate research confirms such a belief.

It seems I never wrote “gender identity disorder” to encompass both groups did I? So why did you write that I did and subtly change my phrasing to a medical term and then refute the subtly changed phrasing? You seem to want to debate whether or not being a transsexual and being gay are the exact same thing. This is a strawman because no one said that they are.

Your use of the term “gender identity issues” is what caught my eye in your discussion of Chaz Bono. Most gay people don’t have these issues, which transgendered people have, the latter intensely suffering because they literally feel their external gender does not match their internal one. This is, for the most part, not due to “negative environmental factors,” as you suggest. No legitimate research confirms such a belief.

My bringing up housing and workplace discrimination, as well as interracial marriage, was in response to other posters who stated there is NO connection between Blacks and gays. There is a connection, and that connection is discriminatory practices.

Again, this is the problem. It is racist, offensive, and irrelevant to compare interracial marriage and same-sex marriage for the reasons that many have pointed out to you. The discrimination against blacks and gays aren’t comparable in considerations of marriage.

 

[LovePatience]

Your use of the term “gender identity issues” is what caught my eye in your discussion of Chaz Bono. Most gay people don’t have these issues, which transgendered people have, the latter intensely suffering because they literally feel their external gender does not match their internal one. This is, for the most part, not due to “negative environmental factors,” as you suggest. No legitimate research confirms such a belief.

My bringing up housing and workplace discrimination, as well as interracial marriage, was in response to other posters who stated there is NO connection between Blacks and gays. There is a connection, and that connection is discriminatory practices.

Again, this is the problem. It is racist, offensive, and irrelevant to compare interracial marriage and same-sex marriage for the reasons that many have pointed out to you.

 

[LovePatience]

Your use of the term “gender identity issues” is what caught my eye in your discussion of Chaz Bono. Most gay people don’t have these issues, which transgendered people have, the latter intensely suffering because they literally feel their external gender does not match their internal one. This is, for the most part, not due to “negative environmental factors,” as you suggest. No legitimate research confirms such a belief.

My bringing up housing and workplace discrimination, as well as interracial marriage, was in response to other posters who stated there is NO connection between Blacks and gays. There is a connection, and that connection is discriminatory practices.

Again, this is the problem. It is racist, offensive, and irrelevant to compare interracial marriage and same-sex marriage for the reasons that many have pointed out to you. The discrimination against blacks and gays aren’t comparable.

 

[meltzerboy]

It seems I never wrote “gender identity disorder” to encompass both groups did I? So why did you write that I did and subtly change my phrasing to a medical term and then refute the subtly changed phrasing? You seem to want to debate whether or not being a transsexual and being gay are the exact same thing. This is a strawman because no one said that they are.

I don’t want to debate this: at least not on this thread, and I’ve stated so. I apologize since you did not say gender identity DISORDER. However, I got the impression you were conflating transgender and gay (not that you were saying they are exactly alike) by using the term “gender identity.”

 

[meltzerboy]

From my perspective, discrimination is discrimination, whether it be against Blacks, gays, Jews, Catholics, women, the disabled, or any other group.