New Jersey court ruling opens door for homosexual “marriage”

[goofyjim]

Knowing that homosexuality is the desire for a perverted relationship with someone of the same sex, the Catechism states the ‘psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.’ We know that the problem lies in the thinking and in the heart as Scripture says in Mt 15:10. This leaves the question — Why and how does the heart come to desire homosexuality? This is the ‘psychological genesis’ that is unclear. There could be many explanations for the genesis of this disordered desire of the heart: Personal choice; Dominating Mother; Lack of a Father figure; Abused as a child; Peer pressure; Experimentation; Societal permissiveness; Misplaced trust in an authority figure; etc.

***Whatever the genesis, the person is still responsible for knowing the Moral Law and for correcting disordered ***
thinking.
renewamerica.us/columns/abbott/051010

Noone is required to change the orientation. I don’t feel it is disordered. It is a matter of what I do with it. I have not acted on it but it has given me the benefit of seeing the disadvantaged in a whole new light.

 

[Karin]

Noone is required to change the orientation. I don’t feel it is disordered. It is a matter of what I do with it. I have not acted on it but it has given me the benefit of seeing the disadvantaged in a whole new light.

ok dont change the orientation but you should not act on it

 

[Mac6yver]

Anyone who argues that gay marriage is a step towards bestiality or incest is using a flawed argument. Let’s start with bestiality…

The chief difference between bestiality and same sex unions or gasp same sex marriage is consent. An animal can not give legal consent. No one can ask an animal if they love someone and expect to neither receive an answer, nor can an animal legally enter into a contract, therefore the argument is rendered moot. This is also why pedophiles can not enter into a legal relationship with a child.

Now, on to incest, incest can actually harm someone. The fruits of an incestual relationship can produce a child who will be severely impaired. A same sex union or marriage can not.

 

[MikeinSD]

Anyone who argues that gay marriage is a step towards bestiality or incest is using a flawed argument. Let’s start with bestiality…

The chief difference between bestiality and same sex unions or gasp same sex marriage is consent. An animal can not give legal consent. No one can ask an animal if they love someone and expect to neither receive an answer, nor can an animal legally enter into a contract, therefore the argument is rendered moot. This is also why pedophiles can not enter into a legal relationship with a child.

Now, on to incest, incest can actually harm someone. The fruits of an incestual relationship can produce a child who will be severely impaired. A same sex union or marriage can not.

Folks who compare homosexuality to beastiality do so because they consider us gay guys as beasts.

 

[kim3260]

I don’t know about New Jersey or other states but here in Tennessee you got to be careful…If you don’t want gay marriage you have to vote yes.
It is very confusing especially the elderly, my mama went to early voting and she cast a NO vote thinking she did not want it.
Even if you are aware, discuss it with relatives and friends if I only brought it up perhaps she might not have made that mistake. Never in a million years would my mama vote for gay marriage knowingly yet unfortunately it will count.

 

[Paganus]

That is not exactly what they did

They were asked to look at the constitution to see if there was any impediment to gay marriage. And they said no there wasn’t and if the legislature wanted to get busy defining terms they were welcome to it.

This is good. It should be a legislative matter and not a constitutional one…

According to the OP’s article:

The court said, "the Legislature must either amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples or create a parallel statutory structure, which will provide for, on equal terms, the rights and benefits enjoyed and burdens and obligations borne by married couples."

This would indicate that the court went beyond saying there was no impediment to the legislature establishing a new form of legal recognition for same sex couples - the court here seems to be commanding the legislature to either 1. pretend that two people of the same sex can be married or 2. invent a new system that provides equal-to-marriage recognition for any two people of the same sex who want it.

The OP’s article does not mention where the legislature can laugh at the entire preposterous idea and declare “good one, judge!”:whacky:

 

[Paganus]

Actually, I thought the court was at its wisest when it made this call. It could have decreed for civil unions, but instead told the Leg, OK, it’s in your court.

If in the meantime, the populace wants to ammend their constitution forbidding civil unions, that’s their call as it would then be enshrined in the Const. I don’t see that happening (esp. in 6 months).

Interesting - has it occurred to you that the court could have said, “There are no references to this sort of thing in our state constitution. Sounds like you are trying to invent something
entirely new. Why don’t you try the legislature? Next case.” :clapping:

 

[Paganus]

Given that even Catholics divorce at about the same rate as non-Catholics, are you willing to state that much opposite sex attraction is disordered?

Of course! But without opposite sex attraction in general, there is no next generation.

What mainstream homosexual rights organization has promoted marriage between siblings? Boogeymen arguments don’t hold much weight].

That’s silly - “mainstream” homosexual rights organization… what “mainstream” foot fetish organization has EVER advocated massaging a siblings foot? I’m going to put my foot down on this one!

 

[fix]

Anyone who argues that gay marriage is a step towards bestiality or incest is using a flawed argument. Let’s start with bestiality…

The chief difference between bestiality and same sex unions or gasp same sex marriage is consent. An animal can not give legal consent. No one can ask an animal if they love someone and expect to neither receive an answer, nor can an animal legally enter into a contract, therefore the argument is rendered moot. This is also why pedophiles can not enter into a legal relationship with a child.

So, consent makes an action morally good and good for society?

Now, on to incest, incest can actually harm someone. The fruits of an incestual relationship can produce a child who will be severely impaired. A same sex union or marriage can not.

Same sex unions harm children. Is physical harm the only criterion we need to evaluate when passing civil laws?

 

[a_cermak]

Interesting - has it occurred to you that the court could have said, “There are no references to this sort of thing in our state constitution. Sounds like you are trying to invent something
entirely new. Why don’t you try the legislature? Next case.” :clapping:

I believe the problem is that without the possibility of gay unions of some sort, according to the way NJ statutes and constitution are written, you run into equal rights issues. So because there’s nothing in the Statutes to negate gay unions and there is an equal rights issue, you wind up with something having to be done.

I wonder, could New Jersey simply change its statutes so as not to provide any benefits of marriage therefore negating the equal rights issue?

 

[a_cermak]

Now, on to incest, incest can actually harm someone. The fruits of an incestual relationship can produce a child who will be severely impaired. A same sex union or marriage can not.

I believe it’s actually an urban myth that children borne of incest are dreadful mutants or something. What actually happens is that the recessive genetic traits of the parents (which could include such things as Sickle Cell, various Cystic ailments, albinism, risk of developing Alzheimers or various cancers…) tends to be amplified because of the likeliness of getting the recessive genes due to lack of genetic diversity. In other words, a child borne of incest may be as normal as one with parents who are not related, they just face higher odds of having issues.

Fix: I don’t see how children are harmed by gay marriage. There isn’t really a lot of good data out there on either side. I do know that heterosexual people have reared some truly screwed up people through history, so I’m not even sure what the bar should be.

 

[fix]

I
Fix: I don’t see how children are harmed by gay marriage. There isn’t really a lot of good data out there on either side.

We do not need any scientific data to know certain actions are always wrong. If some study showed murder actually improved the crime rate should society allow it?

I do know that heterosexual people have reared some truly screwed up people through history, so I’m not even sure what the bar should be.

Heterosexual marriage is the norm. That some pathology arises does not make heterosexuality wrong.

 

[Richardols]

Heterosexual marriage is the norm.

That’s fine, and it should remain the norm.

That some pathology arises does not make heterosexuality wrong.

I don’t think that a_cermak was saying that heterosexuality is wrong, but that some heterosexual couples have reared and will always rear some pretty bad kids. I sense that the same will be true among homosexuals - children raised properly, or just so-so, with the usual sprinkling of hellions.

 

[fix]

That’s fine, and it should remain the norm.

I don’t think that a_cermak was saying that heterosexuality is wrong, but that some heterosexual couples have reared and will always rear some pretty bad kids. I sense that the same will be true among homosexuals - children raised properly, or just so-so, with the usual sprinkling of hellions.

Oh, I got her point. My point is that some subset of the norm may be pathological does not mean another deviant subset would be acceptable to be parents.

She is equating homosexual conduct with things like eye color or hair color. Simply some neutral variation from the norm with like minded results.

The premise is wrong.

 

[Richardols]

She is equating homosexual conduct with things like eye color or hair color. Simply some neutral variation from the norm with like minded results.

The premise is wrong.

I know one homosexual man who is raising two of his own children and has done so for the last ten years since his wife ran out on him and the kids.

His kids know about his sexual situation, and the kids (now 15 and 17) have not developed into promiscuous drug addicts or sociopaths. But, okay, maybe they might have. But, they didn’t. Just like the kids of a heterosexual father whose wife might have abandoned them.

I can’t see that we can prejudge.

 

[fix]

I know one homosexual man who is raising two of his own children and has done so for the last ten years since his wife ran out on him and the kids.

His kids know about his sexual situation, and the kids (now 15 and 17) have not developed into promiscuous drug addicts or sociopaths. But, okay, maybe they might have. But, they didn’t. Just like the kids of a heterosexual father whose wife might have abandoned them.

I can’t see that we can prejudge.

I cannot see why we should not judge it as it is.

The premise that homosexual conduct is the basis for marriage, or anything else, is absurd and a grave error.

A serious evil cannot be the source for any so called right.

 

[Karin]

I know one homosexual man who is raising two of his own children and has done so for the last ten years since his wife ran out on him and the kids.

I would of run out on him too…God knows what diseases he might of brought home and given to his wife…but I would of taken the kids with me!

 

[Richardols]

I would of run out on him too…God knows what diseases he might of brought home and given to his wife…but I would of taken the kids with me!

The woman was quite promiscuous. The fellow was a fool for having wed her, and was quite in-the-closet even for years after she left. I had no idea that he was a homosexual until comparatively recently.

BTW, a court gave him full custody of the children. The mother was classically unfit.

 

[Paganus]

I believe the problem is that without the possibility of gay unions of some sort, according to the way NJ statutes and constitution are written, you run into equal rights issues. So because there’s nothing in the Statutes to negate gay unions and there is an equal rights issue, you wind up with something having to be done.

I wonder, could New Jersey simply change its statutes so as not to provide any benefits of marriage therefore negating the equal rights issue?

What is the equal rights issue?

 

[Mac6yver]

So, consent makes an action morally good and good for society?

It may not be morally good, but I do not see the issues we are discussing as morally bad either.

Same sex unions harm children. Is physical harm the only criterion we need to evaluate when passing civil laws?

In your opinion they harm children. The are studies that show both sides of the argument, so at the moment the question is left to the opinion of every individual in this country.

I will say this, I think a loving homosexual couple can raise and provide for a child in a much more beneficial way then a single parent or foster home environment. Of course there are exceptions to that statement.