NY State Governor's Race.

[jcrawford]

Thomas Suozzi is now running against Eliot Spitzer for NY State Governor in the Democratic Primary. He opposes gay marriage and partial-birth abortions, whereas Eliot Spitizer is campaigning on the usual abortion rights platform for women, and has said he would introduce a bill to legalize same-sex marriage.

http://www.swingstateproject.com/200...pitzer_s_1.php

My question for discussion and debate is whether or not it is moral for a Jewish politician in America to either advocate or be in a position to legislate same-sex marriage rights for men, but not advocate legislation guaranteeing all married men’s equal procreative, reproductive and adoptive rights at the same time, especially in cases of Christian, Islamic and other non-Jewish religious marriages.

In this discussion and debate I shall take and advocate the moral and political position that Eliot Spitzer’s political position is immoral, should be construed as illegitimate, and certainly not supportable nor to be voted for, by the majority of Christian and Muslim men in NY State.

[Wyvern]

Do we really need yet another anti abortion thread from you. Other than putting a specific on a persons religion does this "new" thread actually cover any ground that hasn't thoroughly been covered by any of your other threads on the subject? By the way the link goes nowhere.

[jcrawford]

Do we really need yet another anti abortion thread from you. Other than putting a specific on a persons religion does this "new" thread actually cover any ground that hasn't thoroughly been covered by any of your other threads on the subject? By the way the link goes nowhere.

Sorry about the link. This should work.

http://www.swingstateproject.com/2006/0 ... er_s_1.php

This thread is more about politicians of one religion advocating abortions and gay marriage for people of another religion, and should to be an issue in the upcoming NY Governor's race.

[McCulloch]

My question for discussion and debate is whether or not it is moral for a Jewish politician in America to either advocate or be in a position to legislate same-sex marriage rights for men, but not advocate legislation guaranteeing all married men’s equal procreative, reproductive and adoptive rights at the same time, especially in cases of Christian, Islamic and other non-Jewish religious marriages.

Complex Question
Definition:
Two otherwise unrelated points are conjoined and treated as a single proposition. The reader is expected to accept or reject both together, when in reality one is acceptable while the other is not. A complex question is an illegitimate use of the "and" operator.
Examples:

1. You should support home education and the God-given right of parents to raise their children according to their own beliefs.
2. Do you support freedom and the right to bear arms?
3. Have you stopped using illegal sales practises? (This asks two questions: did you use illegal practises, and did you stop?)

I believe that you are, in fact, asking two unrelated questions:

• Is it moral for a Jewish politician in America to either advocate or be in a position to legislate same-sex marriage rights for men?
• Is it moral for a Jewish politician in America to not advocate legislation guaranteeing all married men’s equal procreative, reproductive and adoptive rights at the same time, especially in cases of Christian, Islamic and other non-Jewish religious marriages?

[jcrawford]

I believe that you are, in fact, asking two unrelated questions:

• Is it moral for a Jewish politician in America to either advocate or be in a position to legislate same-sex marriage rights for men?
• Is it moral for a Jewish politician in America to not advocate legislation guaranteeing all married men’s equal procreative, reproductive and adoptive rights at the same time, especially in cases of Christian, Islamic and other non-Jewish religious marriages?

Breaking a complex argument down into it's various components and issues is a worthwhile analytical endeavor, especially when all elements of the complex argument are singularly related to Jewish, Christian and Islamic families and marriages.

[McCulloch]

Breaking a complex argument down into it's various components and issues is a worthwhile analytical endeavor, especially when all elements of the complex argument are singularly related to Jewish, Christian and Islamic families and marriages.

I fail to see how the two questions are in any way related so I will address them separately.

1. Is it moral for a Jewish politician in America to either advocate or be in a position to legislate same-sex marriage rights for men?
   The North American democracies have secular governments. The religious faith of our politicians should not be an issue. They when elected have to represent persons of all faiths and no faith and enact laws which will equally apply to persons of all of no faith. So, I am at a loss as to the point of the question.
   Is it that the poster believes that the advocacy or the enactment of same-sex marriage rights is against the Jewish moral code and therefore, he believes that it is immoral for a Jewish politician to hold such a position. If that is the case, then is it not a private issue between the Jewish politician and his God, with the help of his rabbi perhaps?
   Or is it that he believes that it is immoral in a general sense, to advocate or legislate same-sex rights, therefore, it is immoral for all politicians in general and Jewish politicians specifically, to hold such a position. If this is the case, why specify in the question for debate that the politician is Jewish? Does he believe that it is more or less moral for a Sikh or Atheist politician to hold such a view? When same-sex laws are passed, they are passed without respect to religion. They simply recognize the civil right for same-sex couples to be in a legally married state.
   Or is it that he believes that there is something fundamentally wrong with secular government. Does he believe that persons of specific religions should only have to abide by the laws passed by legislators belonging to his own religion? Zoroastrians in this country would have virtual anarchy, since we have not elected any Zoroastrians to Parliament.
2. Is it moral for a Jewish politician in America to not advocate legislation guaranteeing all married men's equal procreative, reproductive and adoptive rights at the same time, especially in cases of Christian, Islamic and other non-Jewish religious marriages?
   The North American democracies have secular governments. Our laws should be equally applied to persons of all faiths or no faith. This question falls into the logical fallacy of begging the question. In North America, all married men currently have equal procreative, reproductive and adoptive rights, regardless of religion. Again there is some confusion as to what is being asked. Does the poster believe that men of certain religions have different procreative, reproductive and adoptive rights than men of certain other religions or men of no religion? Or does the poster believe that the inequality of procreative, reproductive and adoptive rights between men and women should somehow be remedied with legislation?

[jcrawford]

Breaking a complex argument down into it's various components and issues is a worthwhile analytical endeavor, especially when all elements of the complex argument are singularly related to Jewish, Christian and Islamic families and marriages.

I fail to see how the two questions are in any way related so I will address them separately.

Both questions relate to the terms and conditions of marriage within the US.

1. Is it moral for a Jewish politician in America to either advocate or be in a position to legislate same-sex marriage rights for men?
   The religious faith of our politicians should not be an issue.

Why not? It is the public's right to make a politician's religious faith, or lack thereof, an issue.

They when elected have to represent persons of all faiths and no faith and enact laws which will equally apply to persons of all of no faith.

It is a secular myth that secularists can represent persons of all faiths or of any faith other than secularism.

So, I am at a loss as to the point of the question.

Something about morality. You know, whether it is moral or not to ....

Is it that the poster believes that the advocacy or the enactment of same-sex marriage rights is against the Jewish moral code and therefore, he believes that it is immoral for a Jewish politician to hold such a position. If that is the case, then is it not a private issue between the Jewish politician and his God, with the help of his rabbi perhaps?

No, because the public is entitled to know what "the Jewish moral code" is concerning advocating abortion rights for non-Jewish women and legislating homosexual marriage rights for non-Jewish men.

Or is it that he believes that it is immoral in a general sense, to advocate or legislate same-sex rights, therefore, it is immoral for all politicians in general and Jewish politicians specifically, to hold such a position. If this is the case, why specify in the question for debate that the politician is Jewish? Does he believe that it is more or less moral for a Sikh or Atheist politician to hold such a view?

In this case, it is assumed that the politician in question is neither a Sikh nor an atheist but a Jew whose people have been given the Moral Law of God to follow and apply to their lives.

When same-sex laws are passed, they are passed without respect to religion.

That's the trouble. Same-sex laws being passed without respect to or for religion are like religious laws being passed without respect for gender or sex.

They simply recognize the civil right for same-sex couples to be in a legally married state.

A legally married state in this country is one where the wife and an abortionist are legally free to consent and choose to abort a married man's child without his knowledge or consent.

Or is it that he believes that there is something fundamentally wrong with secular government.

There is something wrong with secular government when it denies married men's reproductive and procreative rights in their own family, and allows non-Christian abortionists to invade the privacy of their family and marriage.

Does he believe that persons of specific religions should only have to abide by the laws passed by legislators belonging to his own religion?

No, but legislators have to recognize and respect the religious and civil rights of Christians, Muslims and Jews, by granting religious and civil accomodations and exemptions from opressive secular laws upon demand.

[jcrawford]

[*]Is it moral for a Jewish politician in America to not advocate legislation guaranteeing all married men's equal procreative, reproductive and adoptive rights at the same time, especially in cases of Christian, Islamic and other non-Jewish religious marriages?

Or does the poster believe that the inequality of procreative, reproductive and adoptive rights between men and women should somehow be remedied with legislation? [/list]

All inequalities and injustices should be remedied by law, and failing to advocate equal reproductive and procreative marriage rights for all Christian, Jewish and Muslim men and women is a moral and ethical failure on the part of any Jewish, Christian or Muslim man who runs for higher office in the great State of New York - especially if he is a lawyer.

[jcrawford]

I am calling on New York State Attorney General, Eliot Spitzer, to conduct an investigation into New York City abortion clinics to determine whether there is any Medicaid fraud in their billing systems, and to determine whether equal employment opportunities are being offered to the African American, Hispanic and Jewish communities in said clinics.

In addition to other suggested possibilities for Eliot's investigation, the final report should identify and break down the employment capacities each person on the payroll was hired to perform, as well as ethnically identifying the current owners and operators of each facility in their respective neighborhoods and boroughs.

Anyone care to join me in calling for a little action on the part of NYS Attorney General Spitzer, before he runs off and becomes governor?

[Chimp]

good luck with that Jcrawford...