2 main reasons I won't vote for Bush

[OneOfTheseDays]

Let's face it, gay rights is becoming a bigger issue each and every year. Gay marriages WILL become legalized in our lifetimes, and if you believe otherwise you are poorly mistaken. Today's youth has a much more accpeting and open view towards gays in general, and once you old fogey's die there won't be much of an opposition left.

 

[Red Dawn]

Hey at least the Dub took a hard stance on Steriods in Baseball, a matter of great National concern

 

[EXman]

WTF people don't care about Treehugging men that want to hug each other in a National election. 1st the Majority of voters would be against that. Fact please don't argue. And second people rather have a Job than keep a tree or two. We are Selfish!! Your reasons are near the bottom of the barrel.

Personally I think Going to mars for 1 Billion while bankrolling the fight against nuclear proliferation is a mistake. Moon? Let China go... we already have our flag there.

Also letting 20 million illegal aliens become citizens is pandering to big business and the growing hispanic population. If we are lacking jobs we do not need to import workers.

Hey at least the Dub took a hard stance on Steriods in Baseball, a matter of great National concern

that was pretty dumb Waste of time.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: EXman
WTF people don't care about Treehugging men that want to hug each other in a National election. 1st the Majority of voters would be against that. Fact please don't argue. And second people rather have a Job than keep a tree or two. We are Selfish!! Your reasons are near the bottom of the barrel.

Personally I think Going to mars for 1 Billion while bankrolling the fight against nuclear proliferation is a mistake. Moon? Let China go we already have our flag there.

Well the Moon Idea was Bushes. He thought by going there we'd be able to feed the starving with Green Cheese!

 

[BugsBunny1078]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Let's face it, gay rights is becoming a bigger issue each and every year. Gay marriages WILL become legalized in our lifetimes, and if you believe otherwise you are poorly mistaken. Today's youth has a much more accpeting and open view towards gays in general, and once you old fogey's die there won't be much of an opposition left.

That is only because of the gay activists teaching homosexuality in public school.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Let's face it, gay rights is becoming a bigger issue each and every year. Gay marriages WILL become legalized in our lifetimes, and if you believe otherwise you are poorly mistaken. Today's youth has a much more accpeting and open view towards gays in general, and once you old fogey's die there won't be much of an opposition left.

That is only because of the gay activists teaching homosexuality in public school.

Are you sure it's not the Catholic Churches fault?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Let's face it, gay rights is becoming a bigger issue each and every year. Gay marriages WILL become legalized in our lifetimes, and if you believe otherwise you are poorly mistaken. Today's youth has a much more accpeting and open view towards gays in general, and once you old fogey's die there won't be much of an opposition left.

That is only because of the gay activists teaching homosexuality in public school.

Hmm...

How To Be Gay 101


I missed that on my daughters' course listing.

 

[EXman]

Conjur You think they have to have a class called Gay 101 to further their liberal agenda? Why do you think more people want to home school their kids these days. Educrats especially in the universities is filled with them

Academic Bill of Rights

In 1940 the American Association of University Professors declared, "Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject." In other words, if a teacher lectures for five minutes or fifty minutes on the Iraq war or the policies of President Bush in a class whose subject matter is not the Iraq War, or International Relations or Presidential Politics, that teacher is abusing their students' academic rights

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Let's face it, gay rights is becoming a bigger issue each and every year. Gay marriages WILL become legalized in our lifetimes, and if you believe otherwise you are poorly mistaken. Today's youth has a much more accpeting and open view towards gays in general, and once you old fogey's die there won't be much of an opposition left.

That is only because of the gay activists teaching homosexuality in public school.

Hmm...

How To Be Gay 101


I missed that on my daughters' course listing.

Of course it's not called "How To Be Gay 101". Perhaps you've heard of a video called "It's Elementary". Any idea what it's about? Well, chances are most elementary school kids know...

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

It's funny how the adults are making all the clamor, while the kids could honestly care less. You know why? Cause it's not an issue to teens these days, and it's not an issue to college kids in general. You O'Reily's out there think it's your agenda to protect America from homosexuality, but your plan is backfiring. Some of the most popular television shows out there are about homosexual couples and feature openly gay cast members(Queer Eye, Will and Grace, etc.). You seem to be the only one's that care, and if young people actually voted (which most do not) then things might be differnet in this country.

 

[SNC]

My $0.02 from another topic.

My question to all of this is: When will it stop?
If you live an alternative lifestyle and demand that everyone else accept that lifestyle, what about mine?
Can I force the government to make you respect, and accept, my lifestyle?
What if I believe that you should be able to marry more than one person.
If we are to redefine ?marriage?, than why not include all aspects of unions?
If inter sex marriages are OK, why not inter family unions?
Are we going to be so narrow minded in all of this as to exclude some lifestyles?
If we are to redefine what makes up a marriage, let?s do it right.
Let?s do it now. Because if we do allow same sex marriages today,
it will not be long before multi partner or inter family marriage advocates
are demanding the same protection under the law.
The right to marry the person(s) we love.
Will the gay, lesbian, homosexual, Tran gendered lost and confused communities
fight for the rights of Polygamists, and those wishing to marry there 1st cousin or sister?

I would like some input on this from a gay person that is in favor of gay marriages.
Will you fight for the "rights" of others in your position. (no pun intended)

And isnt Kerrys stand on pecker puffer unions the same as Bush?
Its really sad that PotUS will be chosen by his stand on a fringe lifestyle.
Please people look at the big picture.

 

[josphII]

He has opened up natrual forrest reserves to be completely destroyed for logging, oil digging, etc.

FrankyJunior,

you lose all credibility with that statement

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: SNC
My $0.02 from another topic.

My question to all of this is: When will it stop?
If you live an alternative lifestyle and demand that everyone else accept that lifestyle, what about mine?
Can I force the government to make you respect, and accept, my lifestyle?
What if I believe that you should be able to marry more than one person.

Polgyamy is illegal as it has been shown that it does damage the family. The father (or the mother in the case of multiple husbands) is not there as the parent for the children of the other spouses. The income sharing also hurts the others involved. That is not the case with same-sex marriages. The slippery slope argument doesn't work here. Also, the American Association of Pediatrics has stated they support same-sex marriages.

If we are to redefine ?marriage?, than why not include all aspects of unions?
If inter sex marriages are OK, why not inter family unions?
Are we going to be so narrow minded in all of this as to exclude some lifestyles?
If we are to redefine what makes up a marriage, let?s do it right.
Let?s do it now. Because if we do allow same sex marriages today,
it will not be long before multi partner or inter family marriage advocates
are demanding the same protection under the law.
The right to marry the person(s) we love.
Will the gay, lesbian, homosexual, Tran gendered lost and confused communities
fight for the rights of Polygamists, and those wishing to marry there 1st cousin or sister?

There are many states that allow marriages of 1st cousins:

http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/Strasse/7286/Where.htm

I would like some input on this from a gay person that is in favor of gay marriages.
Will you fight for the "rights" of others in your position. (no pun intended)

And isnt Kerrys stand on pecker puffer unions the same as Bush?
Its really sad that PotUS will be chosen by his stand on a fringe lifestyle.
Please people look at the big picture.

Well, I think we know you're a complete waste of time now with a childish, homophobic statement like that.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: EXman
Conjur You think they have to have a class called Gay 101 to further their liberal agenda? Why do you think more people want to home school their kids these days. Educrats especially in the universities is filled with them

My guess is parents want to home school for one of two reasons:

1) The parents are ultra-fundamentalists who want to teach their children with the Bible as the basis for their education instead of academic books.
2) Parents who are tired of ultra-fundamentalists pushing the BS creation "science" into school and want their children to receive a REAL education.

 

[SNC]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: SNC
My $0.02 from another topic.

My question to all of this is: When will it stop?
If you live an alternative lifestyle and demand that everyone else accept that lifestyle, what about mine?
Can I force the government to make you respect, and accept, my lifestyle?
What if I believe that you should be able to marry more than one person.

Polgyamy is illegal as it has been shown that it does damage the family. The father (or the mother in the case of multiple husbands) is not there as the parent for the children of the other spouses. The income sharing also hurts the others involved. That is not the case with same-sex marriages. The slippery slope argument doesn't work here. Also, the American Association of Pediatrics has stated they support same-sex marriages.

Same sex marriage is now illegal, and there are as many that say that is as bad for "families".
Using your logic, we should make illegal divorce. Because that causes the same kind of income sharing and lack of involvement by one of the parents.

If we are to redefine ?marriage?, than why not include all aspects of unions?
If inter sex marriages are OK, why not inter family unions?
Are we going to be so narrow minded in all of this as to exclude some lifestyles?
If we are to redefine what makes up a marriage, let?s do it right.
Let?s do it now. Because if we do allow same sex marriages today,
it will not be long before multi partner or inter family marriage advocates
are demanding the same protection under the law.
The right to marry the person(s) we love.
Will the gay, lesbian, homosexual, Tran gendered lost and confused communities
fight for the rights of Polygamists, and those wishing to marry there 1st cousin or sister?

There are many states that allow marriages of 1st cousins:

http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/Strasse/7286/Where.htm

And brothers and sisters?

I would like some input on this from a gay person that is in favor of gay marriages.
Will you fight for the "rights" of others in your position. (no pun intended)

And isnt Kerrys stand on pecker puffer unions the same as Bush?
Its really sad that PotUS will be chosen by his stand on a fringe lifestyle.
Please people look at the big picture.

Well, I think we know you're a complete waste of time now with a childish, homophobic statement like that.

I agree. That comment was uncalled for. And I do apologize for it.
Heat of the moment and all.

But really what is Kerrys stand?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: SNC


I agree. That comment was uncalled for. And I do apologize for it.
Heat of the moment and all.

But really what is Kerrys stand?

Nice of you to apologize. :beer:

As for Kerry's stance, I believe he's for the states to determine the definition of marriage.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: conjur

1) Does a heterosexual choose to be heterosexual? No.
2) Does a homosexual choose to be homosexual? No.
3) Can a heteroxsexual get married? Yes.
4) Can a homosexual get married? No.

1) hmmm, im hetero all the way and ill be damned if it isnt my choice. do i choose to be a woman chaser? hell yes. my choice is greatly influenced by the fact that i find same sex relationships repulsive, and then influenced by the fact that i cannot look at another man in a sexual manner. all i see is another guy. period.
2) splain lucy. how are you certain that they arent choosing to be gay? havent you ever heard of some people, after no luck with the opposite sex, look to the same sex for comfort and love? anyway, how do seek to explain this? are you claiming that homosexuality is genetic or something?
3) true.
4) false, go to San Francisco, homo couples have been getting married there for a few days now [although we dont know how long that will last, nor do we know if the 'marriages' will be annulled or declared void.]

anyway, after a lot of thought and consideration [mostly from having the silly gay rights debate over and over] ive come to the conclusion that gays should be allowed to marry, its just that we need to choose a different term for it. give them every right and protection under the law that hetero marriage allows, but choose a different term for them. civil unions seem to be the going term, so thats just as good as any.

the reason i feel this way? marriage has a set definition. it is between a man and a woman. period. you cant just go around redefining terms to suit your purposes, that can [and will] lead to more problems down the road. not only that, but marriage is a religious institution. i thought liberals loved to argue seperation of church and state. if we can all agree that marriage is a religious institution, then this is an affair in which the government should not be meddling in.

 

[conjur]

Ah, but marriage is NOT a religious institution. This country is not a theocracy. The government must issue a marriage license before a marriage and the government must dissolve a marriage via divorce. Also, one can become legally married in a courthouse with a judge presiding. Nothing religious whatsoever about it. How, then, is it a religious institution in the eyes of the law?

And what's with your hanging up on the word marriage? It's just a word!

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: conjur
Ah, but marriage is NOT a religious institution. This country is not a theocracy. The government must issue a marriage license before a marriage and the government must dissolve a marriage via divorce. Also, one can become legally married in a courthouse with a judge presiding. Nothing religious whatsoever about it. How, then, is it a religious institution in the eyes of the law?

And what's with your hanging up on the word marriage? It's just a word!

kind of like homosexual, heterosexual, polygamy, infidelity, murder, and rape are all just words? why dont we just change the definition of the words that some of us have problems with?

and yes, how is marrigae referred to? hint: holy matrimony. where are marriages commonly performed [past and present]? In a church. for whatever reason, government meddled with marriage and made it a requirment to get a marriage liscence [it wouldnt be so the government could generate more revenue could it?]

so please, dont think that because government has diluted marriage it has lost its religious connotations.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

I'm SO depressed about this election year. Our choice is either big-government Bush or big-Government (democratic fill-in-the-blank.) Not a single good candidate this year.

Sigh...

Jason

 

[dpm]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: conjur 1) Does a heterosexual choose to be heterosexual? No. 2) Does a homosexual choose to be homosexual? No. 3) Can a heteroxsexual get married? Yes. 4) Can a homosexual get married? No.

1) hmmm, im hetero all the way and ill be damned if it isnt my choice. do i choose to be a woman chaser? hell yes. my choice is greatly influenced by the fact that i find same sex relationships repulsive, and then influenced by the fact that i cannot look at another man in a sexual manner. all i see is another guy. period. 2) splain lucy. how are you certain that they arent choosing to be gay? havent you ever heard of some people, after no luck with the opposite sex, look to the same sex for comfort and love? anyway, how do seek to explain this? are you claiming that homosexuality is genetic or something? 3) true. 4) false, go to San Francisco, homo couples have been getting married there for a few days now [although we dont know how long that will last, nor do we know if the 'marriages' will be annulled or declared void.] anyway, after a lot of thought and consideration [mostly from having the silly gay rights debate over and over] ive come to the conclusion that gays should be allowed to marry, its just that we need to choose a different term for it. give them every right and protection under the law that hetero marriage allows, but choose a different term for them. civil unions seem to be the going term, so thats just as good as any. the reason i feel this way? marriage has a set definition. it is between a man and a woman. period. you cant just go around redefining terms to suit your purposes, that can [and will] lead to more problems down the road. not only that, but marriage is a religious institution. i thought liberals loved to argue seperation of church and state. if we can all agree that marriage is a religious institution, then this is an affair in which the government should not be meddling in.

In response to Genesys' points;

1) you find same-sex relationships repulsive, and you cannot look at another man in a sexual manner, yet you choose to be straight?
2) I've met straight people, I've met gay people, I've met a couple of bi's, but I've never met anyone who decided to change their sexual preference because they had no luck with it. I'm not catagorically denying that this exists - its a big world out there
3) yup
4) so we should restrict straight marriages to just SF too?

I understand your thinking about allowing gay marriages, but with a different terms, and I can see the sense in it, but I think that it would be best if government recognition of all unions should be on the same basis, and marriages should be something for the church only. Then gay rights activists can start appealing to the church for equality. After all, if Protestants will allow women priests, and catholics would drop the latin mass, then maybe anythings possible...

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: conjur
Ah, but marriage is NOT a religious institution. This country is not a theocracy. The government must issue a marriage license before a marriage and the government must dissolve a marriage via divorce. Also, one can become legally married in a courthouse with a judge presiding. Nothing religious whatsoever about it. How, then, is it a religious institution in the eyes of the law?

And what's with your hanging up on the word marriage? It's just a word!

kind of like homosexual, heterosexual, polygamy, infidelity, murder, and rape are all just words? why dont we just change the definition of the words that some of us have problems with?

and yes, how is marrigae referred to? hint: holy matrimony. where are marriages commonly performed [past and present]? In a church. for whatever reason, government meddled with marriage and made it a requirment to get a marriage liscence [it wouldnt be so the government could generate more revenue could it?]

so please, dont think that because government has diluted marriage it has lost its religious connotations.

The Christian church didn't force itself into the marriage ceremony until 1563.

The first marriage laws were created by the ancient Egyptians and were based upon religion.

Merriam-Webster even doesn't include anything about religion in its definition of marriage:

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>


Your narrow mind has distorted your view of the truth.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Let's face it, gay rights is becoming a bigger issue each and every year. Gay marriages WILL become legalized in our lifetimes, and if you believe otherwise you are poorly mistaken. Today's youth has a much more accpeting and open view towards gays in general, and once you old fogey's die there won't be much of an opposition left.

That is only because of the gay activists teaching homosexuality in public school.

Hmm...

How To Be Gay 101


I missed that on my daughters' course listing.

Of course it's not called "How To Be Gay 101". Perhaps you've heard of a video called "It's Elementary". Any idea what it's about? Well, chances are most elementary school kids know...

You caught them Danny. It is all a plot to make you gay. They want your hot booty.

Where are the right wingers yakking about tin foil hats and conspiracy theories? You jump all over the left.

 

[arsbanned]

On the environmental policy aspect of the discussion:
For the guy who said rotten wood won't burn?
A Forest fire will burn everything in its path, including mud, as evidenced by the Florida fires a couple of years ago. Roots burn. ANYthing burns if it gets hot enough.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Let's face it, gay rights is becoming a bigger issue each and every year. Gay marriages WILL become legalized in our lifetimes, and if you believe otherwise you are poorly mistaken. Today's youth has a much more accpeting and open view towards gays in general, and once you old fogey's die there won't be much of an opposition left.

That is only because of the gay activists teaching homosexuality in public school.

Hmm...

How To Be Gay 101


I missed that on my daughters' course listing.

Of course it's not called "How To Be Gay 101". Perhaps you've heard of a video called "It's Elementary". Any idea what it's about? Well, chances are most elementary school kids know...

You caught them Danny. It is all a plot to make you gay. They want your hot booty.

Where are the right wingers yakking about tin foil hats and conspiracy theories? You jump all over the left.

Once again, way to miss the entire point of a post. Conspiracy Theory? Hardly.

The point is that there will never be a class called "How To Be Gay 101". It will always be called something else... the pro-gay crowd isn't stupid...