In this interview, Christie acknowledges that his church teaches that homosexuality is a sin, but apparently, he knows better, and says he doesn't think it is! Also states he supports civil unions.

Christie: the bigger, louder Huntsman?

_________________
THE TIMES are nightfall, look, their light grows less;
The times are winter, watch, a world undone:
They waste, they wither worse; they as they run
Or bring more or more blazon man’s distress.
And I not help. Nor word now of success:
All is from wreck, here, there, to rescue one—
Work which to see scarce so much as begun
Makes welcome death, does dear forgetfulness.
Or what is else? There is your world within.
There rid the dragons, root out there the sin.
Your will is law in that small commonweal…
G.M. Hopkins.

I am totally in sycn with Gov. Chrstie on this issue. I don't think it is for me to decide whether it is a sin but I do believe people are born this way and it is not right for us to judge them. I also feel they should have the same rights as heterosexual couples and support civil unions. I know that is not a popular opinion on this site but I don't think it would hurt Gov. Christie (rather it would help him in the general election).

The point of the verse that I posted is that it is not supposed to be up to us what is sinful and what is not - we have a King Who has already told us that it is.

The science out there does not support the contention that they are born that way. The one study that concluded that they were was done by people with an obvious bias and was never replicated in subsequent studies - an essential requirement for any study to have scientific validity.

There are decades of psychological research showing that homosexuality is an aberrant behavioral development. The cold father stereotype, like so many stereotypes, has an actual basis in reality. We should absolutely have sympathy and compassion, but that does not mean that we should enable and encourage their behavior that is also scientifically proven to be destructive.

The SSM issue was polling around 50-50 nationally, but since the activists have been so terroristic, and with people learning more about the issue & how it has actually undercut the Constitutional rights of others to free speech and the free practice of their religion, the sympathy, as well as their support has been eroding.

As a Republican needing the support of conservatives, Christie would be particularly hurt by his position on this issue.

Like so many people who want to please both sides of this issue, Christie says that he opposes gay "marriage," but he supports civil unions, and wants them to have all the same rights as married couples. Can someone please explain and defend this? What's the difference between two men getting married, vs. two men who can't get married, but can have a "civil union" with the exact same rights as marriage?

_________________
Recovering Huck-a-holic

Well guess what? He doesn't have an ice cubes chance in hell of MAKING it to the general while holding opinions like this. There is still a republican base and it is still conservative.

On the issue, EVEN IF people are born that way, it is still a sin. I am born attracted to women. If I decide to have sex with one before marriage or have sex with someone who isn't my wife (I am married), that is a sin. Being attracted to someone of the same sex isnt a sin; acting on those attractions in sexual activities is. And "its not right to judge them" is another way or saying "i dont think the bible is true"....the Bible clearly tells us to judge a person's ACTIONS, but only God can judge their heart. I would never try and tell someone they are going to hell for their actions, because I do not know their heart. I would certainly be Biblically backed by telling someone they are sinning though.

The GOP "centrists" try to make this a big deal saying that if you are too "far right" on this issue then you won't get elected. Then why is it that even in the most liberal of states have voted to ban gay marriage? It is an WINNING issue.

Even though the number of homosexual couples have gone up 2/3 of them are choosing not to get married. What this proves is that they don't want "rights" to go see their dying loved one in a hospital room or all the "privileges" of a hetero couple. All they want is for the government to give validity of an immoral behavior in God's (and most of society's) eyes.

_________________
"We fought, we dreamed, that dream is still with us."
Ronald Reagan, 1976

TEAM HUCK IOWA
http://www.facebook.com/TeamHuckIowa

I should note that the statistic I mentioned above is for Iowa where gays can get married thanks to our Supreme Court, however, three of the judges no longer have jobs....thanks to the voters.

_________________
"We fought, we dreamed, that dream is still with us."
Ronald Reagan, 1976

TEAM HUCK IOWA
http://www.facebook.com/TeamHuckIowa

There is a lot of noise from gay activists, and they do enjoy a disproportionate presence in the media, arts, and public forums. However, most scientific polls show that the actual number of self-identified, exclusively homosexual people, is only about 1% of the population on earth. Including America, where a Census question also sought to discover this number. Same result. Gays will endlessly repeat the lie that it's 10%, but that number was fabricated in the 60s and spread widely, in order to push for more favorable legislation, especially in California. They even had a name for that agenda, "Project X" (as in, Roman numeral 10).

_________________
Recovering Huck-a-holic

I just read on a comment regarding the number of homosexual/bisexual characters on TV that they make up like 1.3% of the US population. Btw, they make up over 2% of the population of television shows and GLAAD is complaining that it went down like .1% since last year. Boohoo, they're still over represented on TV.

_________________
Judith Martinez
"It is true poverty for a child to die so that we may live as we wish."

agree......note that you can hold these views and still support a federal marriage amendment

Well lets see.

God says homosexuality is sin.
Governor Christie says it is not.

Hmmmm..... who should I go with here?

I agree but it's really important that a candidate be able to explain the social ramifications of gay marriage (or civil unions) in an articulate manner without falling back on "because God said so". You and I agree that God did say so but there are practical reasons to oppose the gay agenda. The over all impact on the stability of families and by extension, society is negatively impacted by the acceptance of homosexual relationships as normal. Add to that the slow erosion of both religious and free speech rights and there are plenty of extra Biblical reasons for opposing their agenda.

_________________
Judith Martinez
"It is true poverty for a child to die so that we may live as we wish."

If God did not say so then who is to say that you and I are right and Gov. Christie is wrong?

If God did not say so then who is to say that there is even a wrong and a right?

If God did not say so then who is to say that it even matters if there is a wrong and a right?

If God did not say so, then there is no point for anyone to say anything, for meaning is dead.

Well, I think we all agree that God "said so," so to speak. But Judith was making a different point.

We can know by reason that homosexual acts are wrong. It's important that we make those reasonable arguments in the public square so that others who don't share our faith can be brought around.

_________________
THE TIMES are nightfall, look, their light grows less;
The times are winter, watch, a world undone:
They waste, they wither worse; they as they run
Or bring more or more blazon man’s distress.
And I not help. Nor word now of success:
All is from wreck, here, there, to rescue one—
Work which to see scarce so much as begun
Makes welcome death, does dear forgetfulness.
Or what is else? There is your world within.
There rid the dragons, root out there the sin.
Your will is law in that small commonweal…
G.M. Hopkins.

Miserere, it is not I who have misunderstood juditupp’s argument, but rather you who have not grasped what I have said.

If one begins by assuming that God has not revealed Himself to us, then one has already abandoned any basis for reason from the start. If God is removed from the discussion then reason does not exist; there can no longer be a right and a wrong. The whole basis from which you hope to argue has evaporated. They can say one thing, and you can say another, but because God has been outlawed from the discussion, there no longer remains such a thing as a lawgiver or a valid law. There is no longer a right and there is no longer a wrong. All that is left is meaningless power. All that is left is evil, but one can not even call it evil for it has been defined away.

But you're talking about philosophy (specifically, some kind of divine command theory, maybe), and we're talking about politics. Politically/practically, in a sense, it is irrelevant to me why someone votes the right way. If an atheist votes pro-life because he recognizes the person in the womb and recognizes that murder is wrong, then that's really good enough politically.

Someone can deny God and yet admit other aspects of reality, including moral reality. Someone can read the law book and somehow think no one wrote it. It might not make sense to you or me but it still works politically.

I mean, it's hard enough to get everyone to agree on a moral position or policy. It's probably impossible to get everyone to to agree on a moral position for the right reason.

_________________
THE TIMES are nightfall, look, their light grows less;
The times are winter, watch, a world undone:
They waste, they wither worse; they as they run
Or bring more or more blazon man’s distress.
And I not help. Nor word now of success:
All is from wreck, here, there, to rescue one—
Work which to see scarce so much as begun
Makes welcome death, does dear forgetfulness.
Or what is else? There is your world within.
There rid the dragons, root out there the sin.
Your will is law in that small commonweal…
G.M. Hopkins.

I agree that there are benefits to pragmatic arguments in the short term, but in the long term abandoning a defense of the logical basis for morality leads to erosion of morality. We may be able to slow the decay but it can't be forestalled indefinitely. Lord have mercy on us.

_________________
Ken

The initial responses were addressing the fact that Gov. Christie said that even though the Church teaches that homosexual behavior is a sin, he does not believe that it is. The responses that follow are appropriate for addressing such a statement from a professing Christian as Christie claims to be.

However, it is counter-productive to try to argue this issue from this perspective with an unbeliever. Then we are cornered by the "imposing your religion" defense - and it is a legitimate defense in a secular govt such as ours. Based on Judeo-Christian principles, yes, but still secular.

That is NOT saying that we should not try to reach unbelievers for God, but that it is much easier to bring someone to God and then address the moral issues, than it is to address the moral issues and then bring someone to God. I say that having been on both sides of that conversion experience.

And given the state of public education today, you will be fortunate to reach someone with simple logic let alone philosophical thought that requires any deep thinking.