• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

You call it gay marriage.... if you REALLY thought it was "marriage" you wouldn't need to say "gay" before it... clearly you have issues with it as well.

Only as a debate topic in which gay people getting married is the subject of the discussion, much as in the reported study on the trend of people from different races getting married. I certainly don't refer to Mark and Jeff as "that nice gay married couple," or Lisa and Bob (assume they're different races) as "that nice interracially married couple." Are you saying you talk like that?
 
Why is it your business when a gay couple tries to adopt?

Because a gay couple cannot produce their own child due to a choice they made. I think its the governments job to protect those that can't protect themselves ie a fetus or orphans. We, as a society, make the point all the time that a fatherless or motherless child usually ends up worse than a child with both. Well, which one does a gay couple provide?
 
Because a gay couple cannot produce their own child due to a choice they made. I think its the governments job to protect those that can't protect themselves ie a fetus or orphans. We, as a society, make the point all the time that a fatherless or motherless child usually ends up worse than a child with both. Well, which one does a gay couple provide?

The ability to procreate is irrelevant when it comes to the ability to raise a child. All research demonstrates this. A child who grows up in a two parent household, REGARDLESS of the sexual orientation of the parents or whether the two parents are the opposite or the same sex, do better than children who grow up in single parent households. Whether the parents are both gay or both straight has no bearing on how the child does.
 
The ability to procreate is irrelevant when it comes to the ability to raise a child. All research demonstrates this. A child who grows up in a two parent household, REGARDLESS of the sexual orientation of the parents or whether the two parents are the opposite or the same sex, do better than children who grow up in single parent households. Whether the parents are both gay or both straight has no bearing on how the child does.

I believe it does, so, we disagree.
 
I'm a Christian, so, the Bible.

Where in the Bible does it say that children are not raised as well by gay couples? I'm pretty religious and read the Bible every day, and I don't recall any passage like that.
 
Because a gay couple cannot produce their own child due to a choice they made. I think its the governments job to protect those that can't protect themselves ie a fetus or orphans. We, as a society, make the point all the time that a fatherless or motherless child usually ends up worse than a child with both. Well, which one does a gay couple provide?

A gay couple raise children just as well as a straight couple. The reason that children of single parent families come out worse isnt because they are motherless or fatherless. Its because the parent doesnt have as much time or resources to devote to raising the child.
 
A gay couple raise children just as well as a straight couple. The reason that children of single parent families come out worse isnt because they are motherless or fatherless. Its because the parent doesnt have as much time or resources to devote to raising the child.

Wouldn't someone raised by a gay couple be without a mother or father?
 
Where in the Bible does it say that children are not raised as well by gay couples? I'm pretty religious and read the Bible every day, and I don't recall any passage like that.

Seriously? If the Bible says being gay is wrong, wouldn't it be assumed that that same gay couple that is wrong shouldn't raise a kid? The equivalent would be the Bible saying its wrong to steal but its okay to use the item you stole. Its inter-related.
 
Wouldn't someone raised by a gay couple be without a mother or father?

I think you missed part of my post.

The reason that children of single parent families come out worse isnt because they are motherless or fatherless. Its because the parent doesnt have as much time or resources to devote to raising the child.


Comparing single parent families with a family where the parents are both the same sex is like comparing apples and oranges.
 
Seriously? If the Bible says being gay is wrong, wouldn't it be assumed that that same gay couple that is wrong shouldn't raise a kid? The equivalent would be the Bible saying its wrong to steal but its okay to use the item you stole. Its inter-related.

Well, there are several problems with this argument. Firstly, whether or not the Bible says that being gay is wrong is open for interpretation. I have posted, several times, evidence that shows that the Bible does NOT say that being gay is wrong. At the very least, it comments on behavior, not orientation. Next, it IS a leap to say that if it is not OK to be gay, it is not OK for one who is gay to raise children. Using your example, since the bible says it is not OK to steal, then it stands to reason that anyone who steals should not raise children. I can go on and on with this... ultimately, NO ONE would be able to raise children. Also, if you are going to be a Biblical literalist, I would ask you whether you believe in slavery, genocide, and plenty of other pretty awful things in the Bible. Can't pick and choose. Lastly, if you are against gay marriage on moral/religious reasons, that's fine, I respect that. However, scientifically, those positions hold no water.
 
Well, there are several problems with this argument. Firstly, whether or not the Bible says that being gay is wrong is open for interpretation. I have posted, several times, evidence that shows that the Bible does NOT say that being gay is wrong. At the very least, it comments on behavior, not orientation. Next, it IS a leap to say that if it is not OK to be gay, it is not OK for one who is gay to raise children. Using your example, since the bible says it is not OK to steal, then it stands to reason that anyone who steals should not raise children. I can go on and on with this... ultimately, NO ONE would be able to raise children. Also, if you are going to be a Biblical literalist, I would ask you whether you believe in slavery, genocide, and plenty of other pretty awful things in the Bible. Can't pick and choose. Lastly, if you are against gay marriage on moral/religious reasons, that's fine, I respect that. However, scientifically, those positions hold no water.

Especially if he's eaten any shell fish lately...

Or worked on Sunday lately, Now I'm wondering CC, since the bible clearly states he should be put to death for working on sunday, am I obligated to kill him myself or should I call the police?
 
I think you need to, pay close attention to the 14th amendment.


You need to read it yourself and tell me where it authorizes any kind of marriage..........If the originators seen what you lefties are trying to do with that amendment they would roll over in their grave.
 
Does anyone but me find it odd that our left wing friends have all the compassion for gays and none for the innocent, defenseless baby in the womb who just want to live like anyone else.
 
Does anyone but me find it odd that our left wing friends have all the compassion for gays and none for the innocent, defenseless baby in the womb who just want to live like anyone else.

When that "baby" in the womb stands up and says "I want to live" similar to how gays stand up and say "I want to be married/adopt children", I'll consider these two issues equal.
 
Does anyone but me find it odd that our left wing friends have all the compassion for gays and none for the innocent, defenseless baby in the womb who just want to live like anyone else.

Thats because people have different ideas on when life starts.
 
Does anyone but me find it odd that our left wing friends have all the compassion for gays and none for the innocent, defenseless baby in the womb who just want to live like anyone else.

A non-sequitur just walked by, read your post and said, "dude, you need to dial that down a notch."
 
Well, there are several problems with this argument. Firstly, whether or not the Bible says that being gay is wrong is open for interpretation. I have posted, several times, evidence that shows that the Bible does NOT say that being gay is wrong. At the very least, it comments on behavior, not orientation. Next, it IS a leap to say that if it is not OK to be gay, it is not OK for one who is gay to raise children. Using your example, since the bible says it is not OK to steal, then it stands to reason that anyone who steals should not raise children. I can go on and on with this... ultimately, NO ONE would be able to raise children. Also, if you are going to be a Biblical literalist, I would ask you whether you believe in slavery, genocide, and plenty of other pretty awful things in the Bible. Can't pick and choose. Lastly, if you are against gay marriage on moral/religious reasons, that's fine, I respect that. However, scientifically, those positions hold no water.

Good point. However, I would have a problem with a couple teaching their child to steal, wouldn't you? That's my point. A homosexual couple teaches their child sin, and in fact, the entire relationship their "parents" are in is based upon sin. A traditional marriage is not based on sin. It is as God intended it. Also, I don't understand your behavior vs orientation belief. Sin is sin no matter if it happens outwardly or inwardly.
Matthew 5:28 ESV But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Finally, the Bible does the dual duty of showing us good examples to follow as well as bad examples to avoid. Your example of genocide, slavery, etc, are those bad examples to avoid.
 
Especially if he's eaten any shell fish lately...

Or worked on Sunday lately, Now I'm wondering CC, since the bible clearly states he should be put to death for working on sunday, am I obligated to kill him myself or should I call the police?

Clearly states it in the Old Testament law, which we do not live under anymore. We now live under New Testament law.
 
More to the point that in both cases these were instances where people duly elected by the people passed state laws regarding this issue. In one case, the people of the state elected both a legislature and a governor who would go along with it. In another case they elected a legislature that would go along but a governor who would veto it. In both cases these were instances of states acting upon states rights, and elected officials passing laws rather than it being determined by the court system.



I admit, I don't know much about Washington politics...neither do you know much about New Jersey Politics. But in a general sense, its an example of states functioning in the manner they should under our constitution.

Well even though he is a Republican Christie has turned that state around financially and he has to deal with a democrat controlled legislature.........I know that much.. I can tell you I live in Western Wa. where the enemy control everything.
 
Clearly states it in the Old Testament law, which we do not live under anymore. We now live under New Testament law.

Does NOT clearly state it in the OT. Here is what the OT passages really mean when translated from the ancient Hebrew in which they were written:

First, here is my treatment on the two Leviticus passages:

Leviticus 18:22: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."


There are so many errors in the interpretation of these passages. One has to understand the section of the Torah that they were taken, what the context was, and the translations of the actual words. These passages cannot stand by themselves and mean what they were supposed to mean.

The section of the Torah where these passages were taken refers to codes of holiness and purity. It describes ways that God wants the Hebrews to be different from the Pagans. The passages that surround these two include passages about bestiality and incest, other unclean/unholy acts that were performed by Pagans. Now, we must first look at the word "abomination". This is taken from the Hebrew word "to'ebah". The actual translation of this is NOT abomination, but ritually unclean, something that fits perfectly with the codes of that section of the Bible. So, we now have it not an abomination, but just something that is ritually unclean.

Next, since this passage is included in the codes of holiness section, it refers to acts that Pagans do, that God wants the Hebrews to separate from. One of these acts is engaging in anal sex with male prostitutes. Now, even if we look at the issue, globally, Hebrew translations refer to anal sex acts; no mention of homosexual orientation or homosexual relationships are mentioned. At all.

Now, moving on to the actual words. Since Hebrews believed that the Torah was spoken directly to Moses from God, one must wonder why the passage reads like this:
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." If God was saying something against homosexuality in men, He would have just said this: ""Thou shalt not lie with mankind: it is abomination." Why the "as womankind" part? Think about it. A man should not lie with another man as if HE were a woman. Sexuality in the Torah is always presented as male dominant/female subservient. Hebrew scholars see this as meaning that if men have sexual relations, NEITHER shall be passive ("as womankind"). Also, since this was a norm of the time, this does not apply to today, anyway.

So, what can we conclude from the actual Hebrew interpretations and the context of what was being discussed? Firstly, the entire section refers to holiness codes, separating the Hebrews from the Pagans. Secondly, the word "abomination" is not accurate; ritually unclean IS accurate. This eliminates any punishment. Thirdly, only anal sex, probably in the context of male prostitutes is prohibited; homosexual orientation has no mention and has no such prohibitions. Fourthly, IF homosexual behavior does occur, neither man can be the passive (woman) in the relationship. Fifthly, this only applies to ancient Hebrews. Sixthly, lesbian relationships are not mentioned at all and, therefore have no prohibitions.

Now, there is MORE evidence that the prostitution theory holds water. Leviticus 18:3 says this: "After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances." God is saying that the Hebrews are NOT to behave like the Pagans (Canaanites and Egyptians). In both cultures, ritual gay sex with male prostitutes was common.

Now, my discussion of Sodom and Gommorah:

So everyone knows, Sodom and Gommorah was not about homosexuality at all. It was hospitality and protection. God punished those two cities because they were inhospitable, including towards his two angels that he sent. The "sodomy" that he was referring was NOT homosexuality, but was RAPE. The homosexuality misinterpretation comes from the fact that the angry mob wanted to rape (male homosexuality) the angels that visited Lot. This was a very common method of humiliation that was used at the time, especially amongst Pagans towards their enemies. During this time period, we had a patriarchal society, so, with the men in charge, humiliating and intimidating them was more effective. God's warning is that sodomy... RAPE, especially homosexual RAPE, is sinful... hence his destruction of those two cities where that practice occurred. The story says nothing about consentual homosexual behavior.
 
When that "baby" in the womb stands up and says "I want to live" similar to how gays stand up and say "I want to be married/adopt children", I'll consider these two issues equal.

They are a living breathing entity...They feel pain and 42 million of them have been killed since Roe V Wade was passed...I believe abortions should be illegal with the exception of the health of the mother or possibly in the case of rape and incest.............Can you imagine if we had only aborted in those cases how many babies would be alive. I have read conservative estimates at 38,000,000. Think about it CC.
 
They are a living breathing entity...They feel pain and 42 million of them have been killed since Roe V Wade was passed...I believe abortions should be illegal with the exception of the health of the mother or possibly in the case of rape and incest.............Can you imagine if we had only aborted in those cases how many babies would be alive. I have read conservative estimates at 38,000,000. Think about it CC.

And we'd need all those gay couples to adopt all the ones that will be unwanted. Think about it NP.
 
They are a living breathing entity...They feel pain and 42 million of them have been killed since Roe V Wade was passed...I believe abortions should be illegal with the exception of the health of the mother or possibly in the case of rape and incest.............Can you imagine if we had only aborted in those cases how many babies would be alive. I have read conservative estimates at 38,000,000. Think about it CC.

Given what the data says about countries that make abortion illegal, the only thing that making it illegal would have accomplished is that instead of 42 million dying, it would have been 50 million dying and tens of thousands of women harmed in the process. It is pretty clear that policies criminalizing abortion and limiting contraception lead to increased rates of abortion, so why would somebody who is pro life support making it illegal? If the proposed solution actually worsens the problem, then doesn't that mean the solution is bad? Would it not be wiser to consider alternative ways to reduce abortion rates? Perhaps we should be studying counties that have very low abortion rates and finding the factors that genuinely lead to lower abortion rates instead of doing the whole, "let's make it illegal and punish people" thing that doesn't work.
 
Back
Top Bottom