If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Opposing Views)   Gov. Christie is pretty sure people aren't born gay, but he's through torturing kids over it   (opposingviews.com) divider line 81
    More: Dumbass, Chris Christie, New Jersey, relative risk, torture, therapy  
•       •       •

1537 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Aug 2013 at 2:52 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



81 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-19 11:36:03 AM
FTFA: "Christie said he has reservations about "government limiting parental choice," but in this case health risks outweigh parental concerns."

/I'm having trouble being outraged over his logic
 
2013-08-19 12:40:41 PM
"The American Psychological Association has found that efforts to change sexual orientations can pose critical health risks including, but not limited to, depression, substance abuse, social withdrawal, decreased self-esteem and suicidal thoughts," Christie said. "I believe that exposing children to these health risks without clear evidence of benefits that outweigh these serious risks is not appropriate."

I'm okay with this statement.
 
2013-08-19 01:37:01 PM
This guy really, really doesn't want the 2016 GOP nomination.
 
2013-08-19 02:12:45 PM
There is some reporting error going on; I've seen two sites claiming that Christie supports the "gay = hard wired" position and two that claim the opposite, per subby's headline.  The AP is saying "he believes that people are born gay."

Regardless, gay conversion therapy is a sham and does only harm.  I can understand parents, faced with a gay child that they believe will be damned to exile from the church and eternal hell fire wanting to help, but this "therapy" doesn't do that.  Not that I feel that way about homosexuals, but religious convictions have roots that run deep.  But to prescribe something that does tangible harm, with no proven benefit, on the off chance that it might save your child from "damnation?"  That's abuse.
 
2013-08-19 02:22:20 PM
You can't cure fabulous!
 
2013-08-19 02:55:21 PM

FloydA: This guy really, really doesn't want the 2016 GOP nomination.


Really just killed off the state govt paying for the BS Marcus Bachmann therapy.
 
2013-08-19 02:56:23 PM
Christie's note reportedly explains that while he does not believe that homosexuality is a sin, he also does not believe people are born gay, according to Raw Story.

That's not what Raw Story says.
 
2013-08-19 02:57:38 PM

Voiceofreason01: FTFA: "Christie said he has reservations about "government limiting parental choice," but in this case health risks outweigh parental concerns."

/I'm having trouble being outraged over his logic


Relatively Obscure: "The American Psychological Association has found that efforts to change sexual orientations can pose critical health risks including, but not limited to, depression, substance abuse, social withdrawal, decreased self-esteem and suicidal thoughts," Christie said. "I believe that exposing children to these health risks without clear evidence of benefits that outweigh these serious risks is not appropriate."

I'm okay with this statement.


Yup. I still don't like Christie, but good on him for signing this.
 
2013-08-19 02:58:02 PM
i.qkme.me
 
2013-08-19 02:58:40 PM
Ok, so I can't say I dislike Christie.  I probably still wouldn't vote for him for president on account of neoliberal nonsense, but at least he's not one of those "hate first" republicans.
 
2013-08-19 02:59:18 PM
 
2013-08-19 03:00:45 PM

thurstonxhowell: Christie's note reportedly explains that while he does not believe that homosexuality is a sin, he also does not believe people are born gay, according to Raw Story.

That's not what Raw Story says.


Yea, that's weird.

Christie also said in the note that he does not believe homosexuality to be a sin and believes people are born gay. His administration filed a brief in July 2013 to the state Supreme Court supporting a law granting same-sex couples the right to enter into civil unions, but not marriages, arguing that keeping matrimony between heterosexual couples preserves the definition of the term.

Although, I must wonder why marriage needs to be confined to straight couples. If people are born gay, and it's not a sin, why can't they enjoy the same rights as everyone else?
 
2013-08-19 03:00:46 PM

thurstonxhowell: Christie's note reportedly explains that while he does not believe that homosexuality is a sin, he also does not believe people are born gay, according to Raw Story.

That's not what Raw Story says.


And that, my friends, is why we don't get news from blogs.  Recipe ideas?  Hell yes.  Political news?  Please, no.
 
2013-08-19 03:02:38 PM

ikanreed: Ok, so I can't say I dislike Christie.  I probably still wouldn't vote for him for president on account of neoliberal nonsense, but at least he's not one of those "hate first" republicans.


What a sad commentary on the GOP - "at least one of their popular (in moderate circles, anyway...) candidates doesn't reflexively hate other Americans for who they are."

// not surprising, but still objectively sad
 
2013-08-19 03:05:28 PM
He still vetoed gay marriage in the state. He's still a bigot.
 
2013-08-19 03:05:51 PM
I listen to conservative radio for the LOL's, the eternal butthurt, and to angry up the blood. I may disagree with Christie on some points, but he seems to be an often fair, thoughtful, and compassionate Gov. The Tea Baggers hate any Republican works with anyone on the left or even the middle these days. I'm a dirty lib, but I hope Christie is the future of the GOP. It'd be nice to know that maybe in the future we could actually get things done.
 
2013-08-19 03:06:04 PM
60 is the new 40

Opposing Views is the new Wampler.
 
2013-08-19 03:07:56 PM

Dr Dreidel: ikanreed: Ok, so I can't say I dislike Christie.  I probably still wouldn't vote for him for president on account of neoliberal nonsense, but at least he's not one of those "hate first" republicans.

What a sad commentary on the GOP - "at least one of their popular (in moderate circles, anyway...) candidates doesn't reflexively hate other Americans for who they are."

// not surprising, but still objectively sad




Even worse: in all likelihood, many of them don't care about gays, or even know and like some personally, but are still willing to use them as political punching bags to appeal to their supporters.
 
2013-08-19 03:08:12 PM

organizmx: He still vetoed gay marriage in the state. He's still a bigot.


but... but... but... he just wants the people to decide it!

/If he really supported marriage equality and wanted the people to decide it, he would have signed that bill and then asked for a referendum.
 
2013-08-19 03:08:50 PM

Diogenes: You can't cure fabulous!


I had it beaten out of me when I was a boy, but I'm still a homo.
 
2013-08-19 03:09:18 PM
He signed it, but he didn't really want to sign it.
That's like having your cake....
 24.media.tumblr.com

...and then having some more cake.
25.media.tumblr.com

d1uxo3lrkrg9rh.cloudfront.net
Taste the Rainbow.
 
2013-08-19 03:10:19 PM
Who's the Dumbass tag for, exactly?
 
2013-08-19 03:10:30 PM
Republicans/Religious peoples hate the idea that someones genes could ever have anything to do with how they act or live.  It encroaches upon the idea of a soul being responsible for those facets of a person.  The idea that God would fundamentally build a "flaw" in a person is hard for them to explain so it's easier to blame it on the person, on their "soul", on the fact that they just make bad decisions.
 
2013-08-19 03:12:03 PM

Dr Dreidel: ikanreed: Ok, so I can't say I dislike Christie.  I probably still wouldn't vote for him for president on account of neoliberal nonsense, but at least he's not one of those "hate first" republicans.

What a sad commentary on the GOP - "at least one of their popular (in moderate circles, anyway...) candidates doesn't reflexively hate other Americans for who they are."

// not surprising, but still objectively sad


Even sadder when it's looking likely that he'll be purged from the party.
 
2013-08-19 03:12:31 PM
He doesn't think people should be subject to abuse that often leads to suicide.

Great, want a cookie?
 
2013-08-19 03:17:17 PM
He's not dumb. He is making a moderate play - having assessed that Romney had the right "halfway moderate" issues tack but was not enough of a human being to be elected president.

Romney outlasted the primary challengers even though nobody really believed he was a hard right conservative. Remember all the chuckling over the "severely conservative" statement?

I think Christie is trying to play up the "he's on the right team, but he lives in reality" and from my anecdotal sample set he is doing great. Suburban upper middle class whites can live with him, and they don't have to vote democrat. I think it can work.
 
2013-08-19 03:18:13 PM

FloydA: This guy really, really doesn't want the 2016 GOP nomination.


He's counting on the 2014 mid-terms to completely demolish the Tea Derper brigade.  That way he'll have standing as the 'sane one up on NJ' who doesn't like to molest chickens in 2016.
 
2013-08-19 03:19:16 PM
[Dumbass] tag?  Fatass tag, maybe, but dumbass?
 
2013-08-19 03:20:27 PM

Eddie Barzoom: He's not dumb. He is making a moderate play - having assessed that Romney had the right "halfway moderate" issues tack but was not enough of a human being to be elected president.

Romney outlasted the primary challengers even though nobody really believed he was a hard right conservative. Remember all the chuckling over the "severely conservative" statement?

I think Christie is trying to play up the "he's on the right team, but he lives in reality" and from my anecdotal sample set he is doing great. Suburban upper middle class whites can live with him, and they don't have to vote democrat. I think it can work.


It's a solid strat, especially if the Tea Derpers get heavily wounded in 2014.  If that's the case, 'can' he get the nomination?  It's Santorum's turn, you know.
 
2013-08-19 03:20:34 PM

FloydA: This guy really, really doesn't want the 2016 GOP nomination.


Ah, well, when you put it THAT way...  [Dumbass] tag it is!

/if he's vying for the GOP nom, anyway
 
2013-08-19 03:21:26 PM

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: Dr Dreidel: ikanreed: Ok, so I can't say I dislike Christie.  I probably still wouldn't vote for him for president on account of neoliberal nonsense, but at least he's not one of those "hate first" republicans.

What a sad commentary on the GOP - "at least one of their popular (in moderate circles, anyway...) candidates doesn't reflexively hate other Americans for who they are."

// not surprising, but still objectively sad

Even sadder when it's looking likely that he'll be purged from the party.


Not in a "There was never a lardassed Republican governor of NJ, and certainly not one elected in 2010" way, but I can definitely see a "See? The Massive Moderate from Middlesex* couldn't win a primary! Therefore, Rick Santorum is now the party's left edge" way.

Not as much a purge as yet another rightward lurch that leaves people like Christie out. The compounding factor is that it'll take another 20 years for the rank-and-file to admit it (meaning Christie'd realize sometime in his 70s that the GOP left him like a cancer-stricken wife, and about as quickly).

*I grew up in Middlesex County, NJ. Alliteration, biatches!
 
2013-08-19 03:22:13 PM
I have to say, when I look at his reasoning in the article, it seems like he did the right thing, for the right reason, with the right mindset.  I don't have any serious issues with his actions or his comments.  I wonder if the GOP is going to start pushing him out or if they actually want the presidency so badly  they'll let him hang around and see how poorly he does in the primary.
 
2013-08-19 03:22:14 PM

organizmx: He still vetoed gay marriage in the state. He's still a bigot.

opportunist

FTFY
 
2013-08-19 03:22:33 PM
It's going to be kind of sad to watch the rest of the GOP field just tear this man limb from limb in 2015-16.
 
2013-08-19 03:23:02 PM

Eddie Barzoom: He's not dumb. He is making a moderate play - having assessed that Romney had the right "halfway moderate" issues tack but was not enough of a human being to be elected president.

Romney outlasted the primary challengers even though nobody really believed he was a hard right conservative. Remember all the chuckling over the "severely conservative" statement?

I think Christie is trying to play up the "he's on the right team, but he lives in reality" and from my anecdotal sample set he is doing great. Suburban upper middle class whites can live with him, and they don't have to vote democrat. I think it can work.


i agree with this assessment.  Especially the contrast with Romney's approach ("I'm conservative because I say so").
 
2013-08-19 03:23:17 PM

Eddie Barzoom: He's not dumb. He is making a moderate play


Agreed.

Eddie Barzoom: I think Christie is trying to play up the "he's on the right team, but he lives in reality" and from my anecdotal sample set he is doing great. Suburban upper middle class whites can live with him, and they don't have to vote democrat. I think it can work.


Work to keep the white voter voting Republican? I suppose.
 
2013-08-19 03:23:18 PM
So what's the difference between not allowing parents to send their gay kids to get de-gayed and allowing parents to send those same kids to religious schools that brainwash them into thinking gays are bad?  Why are we banning one and not the other.  Don't get me wrong, I'm appalled at the thought of trying to convert gay kids, but I guess I don't understand why gay conversion therapy is out but sending them to an anti-gay religious school is OK?
 
2013-08-19 03:26:01 PM
Regardless of where he thinks "the gay" comes from, this proves he's capable of the right legislation.  He fell flat on gay marriage, but small steps as they say.
 
2013-08-19 03:26:10 PM

Uncle Pim: He doesn't think people should be subject to abuse that often leads to suicide.

Great, want a cookie?


reluctantly.

he reluctantly doesn't think minors should be subjected to abuse that often leads to suicide.
 
2013-08-19 03:27:28 PM

Pincy: So what's the difference between not allowing parents to send their gay kids to get de-gayed and allowing parents to send those same kids to religious schools that brainwash them into thinking gays are bad?  Why are we banning one and not the other.  Don't get me wrong, I'm appalled at the thought of trying to convert gay kids, but I guess I don't understand why gay conversion therapy is out but sending them to an anti-gay religious school is OK?


I see where you're going with that, but the difference, in my mind is that on one hand a relgious anti-gay school is a toxic environment for a gay kid, but parents have a constitutional right to abuse their kids in that manner.  Whereas de-gaying a child is theoretically a medical service.  The government has the ability to ban medical procedures that have no positive clinical outcome while having excessively bad negative outcomes.

It's the difference between religion being religion and religion pretending to be science.
 
2013-08-19 03:27:52 PM
Let's imagine for a minute that people aren't born gay and somehow choose to be gay...

So what?

There is no legitimate argument against being gay.  All that exists is a heap of useless religious nonsense that Americans aren't obligated to give a single simple crap about unless they PERSONALLY choose to.  We're not a theocracy, and you can't force people to believe in god or value anything the Bible (or any other religious text) says.
 
2013-08-19 03:27:57 PM

Pincy: So what's the difference between not allowing parents to send their gay kids to get de-gayed and allowing parents to send those same kids to religious schools that brainwash them into thinking gays are bad?  Why are we banning one and not the other.  Don't get me wrong, I'm appalled at the thought of trying to convert gay kids, but I guess I don't understand why gay conversion therapy is out but sending them to an anti-gay religious school is OK?


Banning gay therapy doesn't run afoul of the separation clause.
 
2013-08-19 03:28:37 PM

Jackson Herring: Uncle Pim: He doesn't think people should be subject to abuse that often leads to suicide.

Great, want a cookie?

reluctantly.

he reluctantly doesn't think minors should be subjected to abuse that often leads to suicide.


His reluctance apparently comes from his unwillingness to give government the okay to intervene in this case, but the health of the children outweighs his concerns over government intervention.

In short, Conservative dogma gives way to real-life concern over kids.  It's tailor-made for the independents in the middle.
 
2013-08-19 03:29:11 PM

Diogenes: Regardless of where he thinks "the gay" comes from, this proves he's capable of the right legislation.  He roundly fell flat on gay marriage, but small steps as they say.


FTFY ... or something.
 
2013-08-19 03:29:59 PM

Mercutio74: Pincy: So what's the difference between not allowing parents to send their gay kids to get de-gayed and allowing parents to send those same kids to religious schools that brainwash them into thinking gays are bad?  Why are we banning one and not the other.  Don't get me wrong, I'm appalled at the thought of trying to convert gay kids, but I guess I don't understand why gay conversion therapy is out but sending them to an anti-gay religious school is OK?

I see where you're going with that, but the difference, in my mind is that on one hand a relgious anti-gay school is a toxic environment for a gay kid, but parents have a constitutional right to abuse their kids in that manner.  Whereas de-gaying a child is theoretically a medical service.  The government has the ability to ban medical procedures that have no positive clinical outcome while having excessively bad negative outcomes.

It's the difference between religion being religion and religion pretending to be science.


I guess I can sort of see that distinction.  Personally, I don't think of conversion therapy as science, so I guess I never considered that reasoning.
 
2013-08-19 03:30:17 PM

Jackson Herring: Uncle Pim: He doesn't think people should be subject to abuse that often leads to suicide.

Great, want a cookie?

reluctantly.

he reluctantly doesn't think minors should be subjected to abuse that often leads to suicide.


It seems his reluctance comes from not wanting to overly legislate what parents can do with their children.  In this case, it seems that the public good overcomes this philosophy of his.  That's what I took from him comments anyhow.
 
2013-08-19 03:30:55 PM

Infernalist: His reluctance apparently comes from his unwillingness to give government the okay to intervene in this case, but the health of the children outweighs his concerns over government intervention.


yes, that is what I said. his reluctance to give the government the power to stop literal child abuse.
 
2013-08-19 03:33:19 PM

Jackson Herring: Infernalist: His reluctance apparently comes from his unwillingness to give government the okay to intervene in this case, but the health of the children outweighs his concerns over government intervention.

yes, that is what I said. his reluctance to give the government the power to stop literal child abuse.


Except a goodly number of those voters out there are more concerned with government intervention than what's happening to someone else's kids.

Those same people will forgive him for government intervention 'in the name of the children' where they wouldn't forgive in any other case.  It let's him appear concerned for children while still moving to use the government in productive ways.

He's not courting the GOP voters, he's courting independents and borderline Democrats.
 
2013-08-19 03:37:08 PM
factoryconnection:
But to prescribe something that does tangible harm, with no proven benefit, on the off chance that it might save your child from "damnation?" That's abuse.

No matter how awful an earthly existence survivors of conversion therapy have to endure, no matter how many times they struggle to change the way they were born and mentally eviscerate themselves over their innate nature, it is nothing compared to the eternal and infinitely agonizing torture of hell, which is where God sends you when you disobey him.  Your child may be wretched and desperately unhappy and confused in this world, but it's for their own eternal good.

That's religious logic.  Of course it's "abuse", but so is raiding the next village, slaughtering the men and taking the women away as sex slaves.  And God specifically told the Hebrews they were allowed to do that.
 
2013-08-19 03:42:36 PM

Infernalist: Eddie Barzoom: He's not dumb. He is making a moderate play - having assessed that Romney had the right "halfway moderate" issues tack but was not enough of a human being to be elected president.

Romney outlasted the primary challengers even though nobody really believed he was a hard right conservative. Remember all the chuckling over the "severely conservative" statement?

I think Christie is trying to play up the "he's on the right team, but he lives in reality" and from my anecdotal sample set he is doing great. Suburban upper middle class whites can live with him, and they don't have to vote democrat. I think it can work.

It's a solid strat, especially if the Tea Derpers get heavily wounded in 2014.  If that's the case, 'can' he get the nomination?  It's Santorum's turn, you know.


www.hobby-hour.comWhat a solid Strat might look like.
 
Displayed 50 of 81 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report