• 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

CaptainCourtesy said:
And we'd need all those gay couples to adopt all the ones that will be unwanted. Think about it NP.
Click to expand...

There are no unwanted infants CC. In fact there are waiting lists to adopt them....I have friends that waited 2 years and then gave up and adopted a cute little baby from South Korea.
 
CriticalThought said:
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.
Click to expand...

Did you even read my post?
 
Navy Pride said:
There are no unwanted infants CC. In fact there are waiting lists to adopt them....I have friends that waited 2 years and then gave up and adopted a cute little baby from South Korea.
Click to expand...

This is incorrect. Infants with disabilities are often not adopted.
 
Navy Pride said:
Did you even read my post?
Click to expand...

Yes, I did read your post. Let me spell it out for you.

Making abortion illegal would likely make abortion more common.

That is my argument. Countries that don't allow abortion also tend to make it difficult to obtain contraception. The result is that abortions are actually increased.

Making it illegal is a bad idea if you want to decrease the number abortions that occur.
 
Ockham said:
Why should the word "up" be reserved for things that are elevated?
Click to expand...

It isn't exclusively.

The phrase "shut up" comes to mind. What exactly is the "up" being used for in that phrase? It really doesn't mean much if broken down into its component words because the word up is not being used to mean "elevated". It requires knowing the meaning of the entire phrase and how it fits into the context of what is being said.
 
MarineTpartier said:
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?
Click to expand...

Lots of opposite sex couples cannot procreate either because of choices they make in who they decide to be with.

My stepmother knew that my father could not make any more babies when she married him. Any guy my mother might meet and want to marry in the future will know that she could never make/carry any more babies before they get married. Yet it is perfectly fine if either of the couples made from my parents separating want to either marry, adopt children together, or both.

The only thing that should limit their ability to do these things should be an actual lack of ability to perform the necessary legal functions of doing those activities, not the sexes of those involved. If they cannot legally sign contracts, that's a problem. If they are already obligated to someone else in those legal functions, that's a problem (as of now). If they cannot financially support a child, that's a problem. If they are found to be not fit as parents, that's a problem. The relative sexes of those trying to adopt or marry should not be a problem.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Wouldn't someone raised by a gay couple be without a mother or father?
Click to expand...

So what?

Children who lose a parent to death are out a mother/father too? Doesn't mean we take the children away. Hell, many children are out a mother or father for poor choices made by their parents, yet they still get raised by the single parent, usually.

And a mother or father is not absolutely necessary in raising a child. Two parents (of any sex) are better because that means most of the time the children will have a parent available for them. And, it generally increases the income of the family, which is generally better for children (at least to a point).
 
roguenuke said:
10% is not huge considering that is the high estimate for most states. Prop 8 passed by less than 4%. Hell, those against interracial marriage in 1968 were at 70%. This means that if interracial marriage were put to a popular vote then, it would have lost by more than 40% of the vote. At this particular time, all polls (except for those targeting conservatives or older people) have shown that people support same sex marriage at a level over 50%.
Click to expand...

The people who were making those passionate arguments against inter-racial marriage are the political ancestors of those up in arms over gay marriage.
 
MarineTpartier said:
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.
Click to expand...

In your opinion based solely on your religion.

If my religion said that being greedy is wrong and a sin, does that mean that I can legally keep people from entering into contracts that are based on greed?

What if my religion says that marriage without having first slept with the person is wrong? Should marriages then be limited to only those who have tried each other out first? What if I got enough people behind me to enact such a law? Would it be right?
 
Navy Pride said:
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.
Click to expand...

It doesn't specifically mention a lot of things, including schools or water fountains. Hell, it doesn't even mention segregation in it. Yet it has been the basis for the overturning of such laws because it does mention that every law the states enact have to abide by the federal constitution and show no discrimination without a damn good reason to do so.
 
MarineTpartier said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sin? Really?

With all due respect, you have no idea what God intends, or intended, about anything. You're all just putting your own personal slant on what you perceive to be the word of God. It's meaningless.
 
roguenuke said:
It doesn't specifically mention a lot of things, including schools or water fountains. Hell, it doesn't even mention segregation in it. Yet it has been the basis for the overturning of such laws because it does mention that every law the states enact have to abide by the federal constitution and show no discrimination without a damn good reason to do so.
Click to expand...

Most of these folks don't think it applies to black people and civil rights, either.
 
Navy Pride said:
There are no unwanted infants CC. In fact there are waiting lists to adopt them....I have friends that waited 2 years and then gave up and adopted a cute little baby from South Korea.
Click to expand...

You just don't get it, NP. These children that will not be aborted. One of two things will happen. Either the women will find an illegal way to have an abortion, or they will give birth... to a child that they wanted to get rid of. This is an unwanted child. That's 1.3 unwanted children per year. Approximately 125,000 children are adopted per year. Notice the difference, NP? See, this is what all you pro-life advocates always fail to consider. You never actually think about what will happen to the children when they are born... you guys actually don't seem to care. Well I have a solution. Since there are not enough straight couples to adopt all these unwanted kids, the gay couples can adopt them. If you REALLY cared about stopping abortion, you would be pro-SSM and make the trade-off. Stop abortion and let gays adopt, What do you care more about, whether two gays are married or saving those poor innocent babies?
 
Navy Pride said:
There are no unwanted infants CC. In fact there are waiting lists to adopt them....I have friends that waited 2 years and then gave up and adopted a cute little baby from South Korea.
Click to expand...

What's the baby's name?
 
What a freaking douchebag. Can't imagine who'd support the dumbass.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
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.............
... 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.
Click to expand...

Number 1, please provide a source for all of this mumbo jumbo you posted. If its your interpertation, then I immediately discount it.
Number 2, you ignored other verses that prove your entire post wrong.
"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." (Romans 1:26-27).
1Ti 1:8 But we know that the law [is] good, if a man use it lawfully; 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
 
MarineTpartier said:
Number 1, please provide a source for all of this mumbo jumbo you posted. If its your interpertation, then I immediately discount it.
Number 2, you ignored other verses that prove your entire post wrong.
"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." (Romans 1:26-27).
1Ti 1:8 But we know that the law [is] good, if a man use it lawfully; 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
Click to expand...

Or maybe we don't have to believe the Bible is the word of God, and that it is rather a collection of stories and morals from men who lived 2000 years ago and decided their ways were right.

I see no reason to use the Bible as a basis for right and wrong, and especially not as a basis for our laws. You may not like same sex couples being able to adopt, but unless you have actual evidence that they are doing harm to each other or to the child they are adopting, then you, nor others should have any right to prevent them from adopting.
 
roguenuke said:
Or maybe we don't have to believe the Bible is the word of God, and that it is rather a collection of stories and morals from men who lived 2000 years ago and decided their ways were right.

I see no reason to use the Bible as a basis for right and wrong, and especially not as a basis for our laws. You may not like same sex couples being able to adopt, but unless you have actual evidence that they are doing harm to each other or to the child they are adopting, then you, nor others should have any right to prevent them from adopting.
Click to expand...
We disagree, and that's fine. I believe the Bible is the basis for right and wrong because God says it is. I believe this is one of those arguments you and I could both waste days posting back and forth about or just agree to disagree. I would rather do the latter. You?
 
MarineTpartier said:
We disagree, and that's fine. I believe the Bible is the basis for right and wrong because God says it is. I believe this is one of those arguments you and I could both waste days posting back and forth about or just agree to disagree. I would rather do the latter. You?
Click to expand...
The bible also condones the killing of homosexuals so lets hope you don't derive all your beliefs on this subject from a single piece of literature.
 
MarineTpartier said:
We disagree, and that's fine. I believe the Bible is the basis for right and wrong because God says it is. I believe this is one of those arguments you and I could both waste days posting back and forth about or just agree to disagree. I would rather do the latter. You?
Click to expand...

No, I won't "agree to disagree" if you still want to deny same sex couples the right to adopt. You are trying to deny people the right to adopt children who need parents a home because of your beliefs, that have no basis on facts.
 
roguenuke said:
No, I won't "agree to disagree" if you still want to deny same sex couples the right to adopt. You are trying to deny people the right to adopt children who need parents a home because of your beliefs, that have no basis on facts.
Click to expand...

I do still want to. You still disagree. There's nothing I'm going to say to change your mind because you and I believe in a different set of ideals. So, this is a useless debate. You can say what you want, I'll still believe what I do. I can say what I want, you'll still believe what you do. That's why I said that. I've wasted too much time on this website debating someones ideals. I have better things to do.
 
Hare said:
I'm a fan of Christie's on most issues, dissapointed to see him make this choice. If I had to guess, this move is nothing more than posturing as a "true social conservative" for a 2016 presidential run.
Click to expand...

Or maybe a 2012 run in a brokered convention?

joko104 said:
It is the primary function of government to dictate prohibited usage of words. That was a primary reason for the American revolution and is the heart of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

Yep. That's why the president is sworn in on the American Heritage Dictionary and vows to uphold all current standard definitions. That's why we prosecute people for slang. ;)

Navy Pride said:
I don't agreee James, they can call it anything they want, just not marriage.
Click to expand...

You know, NP, this morning, after a big breakfast, I sat down on the toilet and took a freakin' huge marriage.

hazlnut said:
Too bad for Christie, he had potential to bring the GOP out of the dark ages.
Click to expand...

NO ONE has the potential to bring the GOP out of the dark ages. They don't want out.

Ockham said:
a homosexual union shouldn't be called a "marriage".
Click to expand...

Then don't call it marriage. Case closed. I don't call people who want specific words defined in the constitution "conservative", I call them "retarded". You have the right to use language however you care to.

Ockham said:
Why should the word "up" be reserved for things that are elevated?
Click to expand...

Hey man, what's up?
 
Applause to Governor Christie!!!!

Why? To answer that I have to express my veiw on "what is marriage". Some form Marriage of course goes back to pre-writing (pre-Biblical also) times and has arrisen in almost all societies no matter how remote or seperated. Incest is bad genetically, somehow ancient peoples found this out and most societies up to the present have had some sort of taboo about incest (OK, Pharoahs, Roman Emporers, and European Royalty thought it was ok because they also thought that they had special bloodlines and normal rules shouldn't apply to them). Most, if not all forms of marriage historiclly have been based around what woman was reproducing with what man and whose kids are those. For men, it gave them "ownership" of a dedicated sexual partner(s), for women it gave them a dedicated provider and protecter theoretically giving her a ensured means of support for her and her children. The core of marriage is to identify blood lines and legalise some form of support for women and children. It has, mostly, only been the last 30-40 years that women have started to move away from this support structure.

The modern US version of marriage has mainly been around for less than a century (it actually changes over time). The modern version primarily altered things like providing insurance and benefits to a wife through her husband. Our current manifestation still has those ideas which are largely based upon the fact that women needed that linking because they did not, normally, go out into the job market; instead, they stayed at home, cared for and nurtured their children. (interesting side note: Most of our social/political problems we face increased at a lagtime of about 18 years from a similiar increase of single mothers and women working outside the home. (Topic for another thread there)). Now, many, if not the majority of wifes do work outside the home and sometimes are the provider of the benefits. The whole concept of marriage giving a wife (normally, sometimes husband) benefits derived from being married was based upon the fact that women are the ones who are limited and for a time, unable to actually work. Also, they were historically expected to be the one to nuture and educate the children (hey, their mammary glands produce milk for infants, a man's don't and formula is a rather modern invention).

So now we come to homosexual marriage. Homosexuals feel they are not being treated equally because their "life partner" cannot receive the benefits of a spouse and that partnership is not socially or legally recognised. But, is this really true? I don't think so. Since marriage and benefits linked to marriage are centered around the fact that married couples reproduce and children must be cared for, there is no reason for homosexuals to be married. Homosexual conduct does not lead to reproduction and therefore there is no need for one partner to remain at home and care for children. The only reason for homosexual couples to get marred would be so that the lazy, non-working or under-employed partner can gain benefits by forcing employers to pay for additional benefits. There is absolutely no reason this should be necessary, there are no children, so both partners can and should work outside the home and receive benefits based upon that employment. Some of you may point out that some homosexuals come out late and may have already had children from a normal relationship, not really a problem, since I consider homosexualality to be a mental disorder, children should never remain in the primary custody of the aberrated parent, they should always go to the normal parent.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom