U.S. Presidential Race: Official Thread

Obama or McCain/Democrat or Republican..you decide

  • McCain

    Votes: 14 7.5%

  • Obama

    Votes: 173 92.5%
  • Total voters
    187
  • Poll closed .
WeWonItTwoTimes said:
Oh I have, so did the people of California where it got rejected.

We have dramatically different values so it should be no surprise that we'll never agree on this issue, or any issue by looks of it.
Click to expand...

...fyi I belive gay marriage is wrong...

the point I am trying to make is MY beliefs are just that...my beliefs....I dont have a right to to ram it down anyone else's throat....

...and so long as someone does not infringe on another's fundemental rights.....what buisness is it of yours or mine to say what they can and cannot do?

by allowing these people to marry in church....how does that diminish your own rights?

I was married by a priest in a Catholic church....we signed the registration afterwords so that in the eyes of the law we were married....but for me when the priest said we were man and wife...that is when we were married....that does not mean I have a right to call all other marriages 'fake'...it is MY belief...

look that is all I am going to say on this...I cannot be clearer....
 
WeWonItTwoTimes said:
That I'm kind enough to leave open goals for my opponents to take advantage of.
Click to expand...
Touché. And you're right, I did get mixed up with which post was the windup last page. I knew which was which of course, but was referring to the wrong one. So in retrospect I should have been a bit more civil.

I'm disappointed though that no-one has had anything to say about the David Brooks article I posted. But maybe it takes a while to sink in, and it's more of one to digest than to respond to right away. It's a very interesting perspective, I think. WWITT, you said something about not wanting kids to grow up thinking it's okay to marry someone of the same sex. But personally, I don't think that anyone is going to be converted to the other team just because gay marriage is legalized, so I don't see the harm it will do to heterosexual children or adults. But for young people who are realizing that they are attracted to members of the same sex, I think it's good that they should be encouraged to think that their future life will take place in a context similar to that which most straight people imagine - a stable, warm, monogamous long-term relationship. It's better for them, and it's better for the rest of society as well.
 
Chris H said:
Touché. And you're right, I did get mixed up with which post was the windup last page. I knew which was which of course, but was referring to the wrong one. So in retrospect I should have been a bit more civil.

I'm disappointed though that no-one has had anything to say about the David Brooks article I posted. But maybe it takes a while to sink in, and it's more of one to digest than to respond to right away. It's a very interesting perspective, I think. WWITT, you said something about not wanting kids to grow up thinking it's okay to marry someone of the same sex. But personally, I don't think that anyone is going to be converted to the other team just because gay marriage is legalized, so I don't see the harm it will do to heterosexual children or adults. But for young people who are realizing that they are attracted to members of the same sex, I think it's good that they should be encouraged to think that their future life will take place in a context similar to that which most straight people imagine - a stable, warm, monogamous long-term relationship. It's better for them, and it's better for the rest of society as well.
Click to expand...

I did read the Brooks article and it was a well reasoned argument which is probably why I chose to ignore it.

I'll conceed that civil partnerships should entitle gay couples to the same legal rights as married heterosexual couples but I'm not willing to accept the term ''gay marriage'' being used to describe these partnerships.

Why is that you may well ask, well for one I think it confuses matters for younger members of society and from a personal viewpoint it goes against the values and beliefs with which I was brought up on (both very similar really).
 
WeWonItTwoTimes said:
I've said they can have the same legal rights, just that it can't be called ''marriage''.

A reasonable and fair compromise don't you think?
Click to expand...

I wrote that before I read your last post.

As much of a climb down as that was from you I still disagree completely. Your holding out on the predjudice opinion that gay partnerships are in a fundamental way different to hetrosexual partnerships, which I disagree with.
 
WeWonItTwoTimes said:
What's wrong with calling it a civil partnership?
Click to expand...

it separates homosexual couples from heterosexuals and clearly labels them as different from the rest in both a legal and everyday sense. as I see it, that's discrimination sanctioned by the government.
 
p_ps_sock said:
I wrote that before I read your last post.

As much of a climb down as that was from you I still disagree completely. Your holding out on the predjudice opinion that gay partnerships are in a fundamental way different to hetrosexual partnerships, which I disagree with.
Click to expand...

Sorry but that's as far as I'm going to reach across the aisle on this issue, not that I make a habit of it as I'm sure you're aware.

If you want to get the legislation through, then you're going to have to take out the ''marriage'' bit. Maybe in 30 years time once you've brainwashed the next generation you'll get it all through but not in my time, not in my land!
 
WeWonItTwoTimes said:
They are some rather fundamental differences between the two though, so I'm told anyway.
Click to expand...

shall we force them to wear pink triangles on their sleeves as well?

if the rights are to be the same the same terms must apply.

what fundamental differences would you suggest exist?
 
Dr. Dwayne said:
shall we force them to wear pink triangles on their sleeves as well?

if the rights are to be the same the same terms must apply.

what fundamental differences would you suggest exist?
Click to expand...

Well one is between two people of the same gender and the other is between a man and a woman. That's a fairly fundamental difference I think.

We religious nutters also find ''marriage'' a sacred term that shouldn't be devalued or misconstrued by others.

Why are they so desperate to call it marriage anyway? They could come up with another term like ''civil partnership'' for instance.
 
Alex said:
It changing the fundamental definition of the word marriage, civil unions are fine and they should be allowed to do that, but no marriage because it is a church issue imo. Since Prop 8 passed they have been the ones who are biggots they beat up some 15 year old girl for being a Mormon, it was voted for and they lost they should get over it. I mean this is a democracy and the democratic process went through here.

The animal comparison was a bit much, but if things keep going this way who knows. Also whats wrong with polygamy or polyandry then, it's not as if those people are hurting anybody why not just let them live.(aside from some sick people who are marrying underage woman)
Click to expand...

I happen to think that there's nothing wrong with polygamy and polyandry, just as long as all parties are consenting. Of course, that's the nub of the problem...
 
WeWonItTwoTimes said:
Well one is between two people of the same gender and the other is between a man and a woman. That's a fairly fundamental difference I think.

We religious nutters also find ''marriage'' a sacred term that shouldn't be devalued or misconstrued by others.

Why are they so desperate to call it marriage anyway? They could come up with another term like ''civil partnership'' for instance.
Click to expand...

Does a civil partnership confer all rights that a marriage does? If it did then there's no issue.
 
WeWonItTwoTimes said:
Well one is between two people of the same gender and the other is between a man and a woman. That's a fairly fundamental difference I think.
Click to expand...

it is if you desire that inequality exists between humans. I would consider marriage to be the legal union of two people for whatever reason.

WeWonItTwoTimes said:
We religious nutters also find ''marriage'' a sacred term that shouldn't be devalued or misconstrued by others.
Click to expand...

Indeed it is very sacred. modern divorce rates haven't harmed the sanctity of marriage in the slightest.

WeWonItTwoTimes said:
Why are they so desperate to call it marriage anyway? They could come up with another term like ''civil partnership'' for instance.
Click to expand...

They are looking for equality. One doesn't achieve equality without all things being equal. Marriage does not equal civil partnership.
 
WeWonItTwoTimes said:
Sorry but that's as far as I'm going to reach across the aisle on this issue, not that I make a habit of it as I'm sure you're aware.

If you want to get the legislation through, then you're going to have to take out the ''marriage'' bit. Maybe in 30 years time once you've brainwashed the next generation you'll get it all through but not in my time, not in my land!
Click to expand...

The reason Prop 8 passed was because of people 65 and older. They voted heavily for it, while all other ages voted against. They will now begin dying.

Try 10 years. Thankfully, like the people who made these same arguments against interracial marriage, you will be on the losing side of this conflict as well.
 
AlwaysRedwood said:
The reason Prop 8 passed was because of people 65 and older. They voted heavily for it, while all other ages voted against. They will now begin dying.

Try 10 years. Thankfully, like the people who made these same arguments against interracial marriage, you will be on the losing side of this conflict as well.
Click to expand...

If I ''read'' more I'd know all of that. :(
 
AlwaysRedwood said:
The reason Prop 8 passed was because of people 65 and older. They voted heavily for it, while all other ages voted against. They will now begin dying.

Try 10 years. Thankfully, like the people who made these same arguments against interracial marriage, you will be on the losing side of this conflict as well.
Click to expand...

Yeah 54% of CA is people over the age of 65
 
in-god-we-trust.jpg


Clearly the United States is a secular nation
 
WeWonItTwoTimes said:
I answered that in an earlier post on this page.
Click to expand...

WeWonItTwoTimes said:
Why is that you may well ask, well for one I think it confuses matters for younger members of society and from a personal viewpoint it goes against the values and beliefs with which I was brought up on (both very similar really).
Click to expand...

so you're saying that gay people being legally allowed to say they're married would lead to confusion among the young, how would they get confused? Confused between the genders and find themselves in hotel rooms undoing trousers and finding something they weren't expecting?

What values and beliefs are you talking about?
 
Alex said:
in-god-we-trust.jpg


Clearly the United States is a secular nation
Click to expand...

fyi there is a clear separation of church and state in the US. as much as your presidents court votes with religious rhetoric it's pretty obvious that it is a secular and not a religious state.
 
you don't have to like homosexuals but to deny them those rights enjoyed by heterosexual citizens is discriminatory.
 
WeWonItTwoTimes said:
We religious nutters also find ''marriage'' a sacred term that shouldn't be devalued or misconstrued by others.
Click to expand...

Corinthians7:8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
7:9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
 
AlwaysRedwood said:
Thankfully the gentlemen who wrote the constitution didn't.
Click to expand...
The same gentlemen who defined marriage as taking place between a white man and a white woman. As far as demographics go, it's actually not quite as clear cut as you think, AlwaysR. The youngest voters were clearly opposed to the ban, but it wasn't only senior citizens who were for it. According to CNN exit polls:

Age 18-24 (11% of all who voted): 36% yes, 64% no
Age 25-29 (9% of all who voted): 41% yes, 59% no

Age 30-39 (17% of all who voted): 52% yes, 48% no
Age 40-49 (22% of all who voted): 59% yes, 41% no
Age 50-64 (26% of all who voted): 51% yes, 49% no
Age 65+ (15% of all who voted): 61% yes, 39% no

Whites and Asians both voted the measure down (51-49 each), but Latinos (53-47) and blacks (70-30) saw it through.
 
What a fecking load of shit those stats are, two of them overlap, and also 15 year olds can't fecking vote
 
Chris H said:
The same gentlemen who defined marriage as taking place between a white man and a white woman. As far as demographics go, it's actually not quite as clear cut as you think, AlwaysR. The youngest voters were clearly opposed to the ban, but it wasn't only senior citizens who were for it. According to CNN exit polls:

Age 18-24 (11% of all who voted): 36% yes, 64% no
Age 15-29 (9% of all who voted): 41% yes, 59% no

Age 30-39 (17% of all who voted): 52% yes, 48% no
Age 40-49 (22% of all who voted): 59% yes, 41% no
Age 50-64 (26% of all who voted): 51% yes, 49% no
Age 65+ (15% of all who voted): 61% yes, 39% no

Whites and Asians both voted the measure down (51-49 each), but Latinos (53-47) and blacks (70-30) saw it through.
Click to expand...

Alex said:
What a fecking load of shit those stats are, two of them overlap, and also 15 year olds can't fecking vote
Click to expand...

:lol::lol::lol:...Alex..too funny.
 
How did less people from 15-29 vote, as opposed to 18-25 age group how does that make sense
 
You must log in or register to reply here.