• 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

Jesus Christ keep up, married for parternal reasons only no sex, just to be able to take advantage of the benefits provided by the gov.

How about you keep up and join the year 2012 where most folks have no problems with Gay Marriage?
 
Your discriminatory attitude can be changed!! Why would you not wish to love and accept all people? You are suppose to be a Christian but seem to lack everything Jesus taught:(

Jesus said love the sinner hate the sin. That is what I believe.
 
90% of the post you have made in this thread have been a judgment on gay people. I bet you don't lie either, huh? :2razz:

I judge no one..God will do that to all of us, you to.
 
Yeah, good thing you right wing folks never call anybody names.
 
Hundreds out of how many who have tried? BTW they didnt change orientation they changed behavior. Two completely different things.

That is not what they say but whatever floats your boat.
I am not going to call them liars
 
That is not what they say but whatever floats your boat.
I am not going to call them liars

Remember awhile back in this thread where I said that if asked about their relationship they say that its different from other heterosexual relationships and that they still felt an attraction to the same sex if they let their minds wander in that direction?
 
Not every one knows that NP. In fact, almost no one who has actually studied it believes that gays started AIDS in the 80's(in fact, it was likely the 60's). Doctors saw that first cases of what would later be determined to be AIDS in the 70's. Here is something we call a source. It shows that what you know is not what you think every one knows, nor is what you know have any bearing in fact. The emergence of HIV/AIDS in the Americas and beyond. NP, you got to stop making **** up.

I am not going to read all that mumbo jumbo........I know that AIDS came from Haiti and Africa........but it became epedemic with the gay community in the U.S.

There were no known cases of AIDS prior to the early eighties.....In the sixties in the USA it was not even heard of. I know I was and adult then.
 
I am not going to read all that mumbo jumbo........I know that AIDS came from Haiti and Africa........but it became epedemic with the gay community in the U.S.

There were no known cases of AIDS prior to the early eighties.....In the sixties in the USA it was not even heard of. I know I was and adult then.

Completely incorrect. The first case documented of AIDS was of a St. Louis man in 1969. Most evidence shows that AIDS entered this country via Haitian immigrants who had previously worked in the Congo. AIDS was not a "gay disease" from the '80s. That is a myth.
 
Completely incorrect. The first case documented of AIDS was of a St. Louis man in 1969. Most evidence shows that AIDS entered this country via Haitian immigrants who had previously worked in the Congo. AIDS was not a "gay disease" from the '80s. That is a myth.

Honestly, I don't know why anyone is even trying to argue with NP about this. People have posted link after link and proved to NP that AIDS is not a gay virus. He insists that it is and brings absolutely zero proof to the table. To NP, it is common sense. It's hard to argue with someone like that because nothing you can show them will convince them otherwise. Quite frankly, NP has already lost this argument several times over.
 
Last edited:
Quite frankly, NP has already lost this argument several times over.

He's lost this argument for years.

But that's besides the point.

Navy isn't a bad guy, he's just set in his ways and he's never going to change.

I don't worry about it that much because people with his hard line beliefs will become less and less in the years to come, that isn't to say I'm some morbid bastard thats hoping everyone who doesn't like gays will die off it's just the evolution of societal acceptance of something that is both harmless and natural.
 
This is so ****ing useless.
 
I am not going to read all that mumbo jumbo........I know that AIDS came from Haiti and Africa........but it became epedemic with the gay community in the U.S.

There were no known cases of AIDS prior to the early eighties.....In the sixties in the USA it was not even heard of. I know I was and adult then.

Well there we go then.
 
sorry my left wing friend to most people seeing 2 men kiss is disgusting....Men and women are the norm.

I'm not a fan of PDA in the first place....but my views on public displays of affection aren't what dictates laws. I was also just interested in your use of "flaunting"
 
Maybe the logic escapes you.

If individuals of a government want to give perks to people that get good grades, nobody complains. Where has it been proven that getting good grades is in the best interest of the state? Do we need proof?

Yet if the same residents try to give perks to the type of stable union that can physically produce kids, we are told that is not allowed.

The hell does this have to do with anything? What "perks" exactly do people with good grades get from the government? What "perks" are being denied to "stable unions that physically produce kids"? And the hell does any of this have to do with not legalizing SSM?
 
Last edited:
The hell does this have to do with anything? What "perks" exactly do people with good grades get from the government? What "perks" are being denied to "stable unions that physically produce kids"? And the hell does any of this have to do with not legalizing SSM?

Absolutely nothing.
 
The hell does this have to do with anything? What "perks" exactly do people with good grades get from the government?

Government provides financial aid to people with good grades. Some people are born in such a way that they can’t really qualify for this perk. My original reply was extremely straight forward, anybody that cared to try to understand what was being said would not have difficulty doing so
 
I'm not a fan of PDA in the first place....but my views on public displays of affection aren't what dictates laws. I was also just interested in your use of "flaunting"

Watching fat, ugly people make out is disgusting. Maybe the government should prevent fat, ugly people from marrying, too? They can start by invalidating Christie's marriage.
 
Government provides financial aid to people with good grades. Some people are born in such a way that they can’t really qualify for this perk. My original reply was extremely straight forward, anybody that cared to try to understand what was being said would not have difficulty doing so

Your original reply was not an argument for why gays should not get married :shrug:
 
Your original reply was not an argument for why gays should not get married :shrug:


If you follow the entire exchange, one dolt on his high horse claimed that nobody could logically explain why we don’t allow SSM.

I pointed out that nobody is requiring a logical explanation for any of the perks we grant.

We give education perks to people with good grades, but I fail to see the logical benefit of giving educational assistance to elderly people.
 
That is so right.........a child could marry his mother a son could marry his dad strictly paternal... do you have any idea the problems that would make?

Please save me the slippery slope fallacies.

There are good reasons besides tradition or religious arguments behind not allowing close blood relatives from marrying, not the least of which being that they already have many of the rights/benefits that come from legal marriage since they already are legally kin to one another. And the only thing legal marriage does for every couple is create legal kinship. It would be stupid to allow people who already have legal kinship to get married.
 
Back
Top Bottom