13 Comments

1. SC Guy
   Posted June 18, 2011 at 2:18 pm | Permalink

   A good reason why we don't want Christie in the White House. He's a typical northeastern Republican on the issue. Opposes gay marriage but supports civil unions and is broken down on the morality of homosexuality. I much prefer southern and midwestern styled Republicans.

2. Rick DeLano
   Posted June 18, 2011 at 3:08 pm | Permalink

   Wrong man for the job. Civil unions devalue marriage. He's a wobbler.

3. gs
   Posted June 18, 2011 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

   I love Christie, but it's another case of someone not knowing their religion. It's the homosexual acts that are a sin, not the attraction. It's never been proven or disproven that a man or woman is born with a sexual attraction toward the same sex. But really that's not the point. I may have been born with more of a temper than someone else, but I have to keep it under control. Everyone has their cross.

4. twingirl2
   Posted June 18, 2011 at 6:44 pm | Permalink

   Agreed, behavior is the point, not orientation. Research studies have linked genetic predisposition to alchoholism and other problems, but those have not been viewed as positive social behaviors. The question is the social effects, not the predisposition based on heredity. Further, research is inconclusive on a "gay gene". So Christie needs to be informed about the actual research, not the "born gay" myth.

5. Randy E King
   Posted June 18, 2011 at 7:18 pm | Permalink

   The born that way lie will set me off every time; these people are not a species unto themselves.

6. Little man
   Posted June 19, 2011 at 3:31 am | Permalink

   I disagree with the comments, on this post...

   The issue of civil marriage has nothing to do with homosxual behavior (though i a behavior). Otherwise, it would also have to do with the behavior of civil married couples, which is often less than appropriate.

   The issue of civil marriage at the State or Federal levels has to do with motherhood (better within the context of civil marriage, and optimally within the context of religious marriage), and the benefits government grants for the support of motherhood. Without motherhood, none of us would be alive.

   Don't think the government is just looking for people to give extra benefits to (not Rights), or that the government is humanitarian or looking past the next election year - if the government does not support motherhood within marriage sufficiently, many consequences can and will occur. The government ends up having to set up expensive social services to correct the problems that can and will arise.

   Even now, with marriages collapsing (due to less than sufficient support from the governments), the government has to step in per so many divorces, forcing parents (mostly men) to pay child support, finding adoptive parents, etc.

   Don't think the government is out to be nice to society - they want a surplus to raise their own salaries ! Get real.

7. Little man
   Posted June 19, 2011 at 3:31 am | Permalink

   The issue of civil marriage has nothing to do with homosxual behavior (though it is indeed a behavior). Otherwise, it would also have to do with the behavior of civil married couples, which is often less than appropriate.

8. Little man
   Posted June 19, 2011 at 3:35 am | Permalink

   Don't ask people to show you the science of "they are born that way". They repeat the phrase, but don't know beans what they are talking about. They (people of homosxual behavior) are not born that way, because it can never be demonstrated a 1-second old baby shows homosxual behavior(!)

9. Winston
   Posted June 19, 2011 at 10:33 am | Permalink

   see no problem with the religious exemptions as part of the bill for passage. The only gay people that would "force" their ceremony, or go to a Catholic charity to try to adopt children, are the type of people(that exist in every community) that have nothing better to do than get attention. This is a modern-day civil, and fundamental rights issue, that has nothing to do with belief in scripture. Marriage is a conservative, legal contract that every loving, committed couple should be allowed to apply for. It only encourages a healthy lifesyle, that the gay men's community could really benefit from.

10. edgwaterprog
    Posted June 19, 2011 at 10:57 am | Permalink

    Little man - You really need to learn to write a little more coherently. If I understand what you were trying to say, the government should become more involved in families. The bureaucracy you are proposing is breathtaking. What does making biological fathers responsible have to do with marriage equality. It would seem if you wanted to protect marriage you would advocate making divorce more difficult.

11. bman
    Posted June 19, 2011 at 2:05 pm | Permalink

    @Winston: see no problem with the religious exemptions as part of the bill for passage. The only gay people that would "force" their ceremony, or go to a Catholic charity to try to adopt children, are the type of people(that exist in every community) that have nothing better to do than get attention. ..."

    Whatever may be said about the "type" of people who would a use gay a marriage law to manipulate others, there is still something wrong with a law that would make that sort of thing legal.

    Besides, in the Letter from Law Professors to New York Senators on Intrusive Nature of Gay Marriage Bill they stated the proposed religious exemptions were not adequate for many reasons.

    They said, for example, ".......it is critically necessary to protect individuals, not just “big religion”....Governor Cuomo's text
    fails to offer needed protections to ordinary individuals who also desire for religious reasons to step aside from facilitating same-sex marriages.."

    I think "the reality" is that its impossible to add all the protections that would be needed.

    The need for so many protections is an argument to not legalize it at all.

12. SC Guy
    Posted June 19, 2011 at 7:40 pm | Permalink

    bman makes a good point when he says: "The need for so many protections is an argument to not legalize it at all."

    It is just not a good place to go and marriage should remain as a one man, one woman concept. It should not change.

13. Peter
    Posted June 20, 2011 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

    The fact that so many protections are needed gives testimony to the bigoted nature of religion.