2 main reasons I won't vote for Bush

[0roo0roo]

eh, thats where id disagree with you. every single human being is born with a certain capacity for discerning what is and what isnt moral [or for those who believe the word 'moral' is too religious, use right/wrong] some people just have the capacity to detatch themselves from that sense [thus you have all the immoralities that run rampant today]

which is why we have slavery, blatant sexism and genocide today right? because most people during times of slavery were righteous! when women were chattle without the right to vote, we were righteous! when asians, latinos, blacks weren't allowed to marry a white let alone vote , even as late as the 1950's, we were righteous! and during all those periods i'm sure religion was far stronger then it is now. which is generally the case, the times of powerful religion are times of oppression, sadism, hatred etc...

don't give me that bullsh*t.

 

[DoubleL]

btw, kid? I probably have socks older than you given your childish "come back".
I don't think so, My come back wasn't childish but was uncalled for, You meet all kinds of people on forums, I just need to handle my temper better when I get a comeback like yours, Oh BTW I was in Nam in 1967 so I would get some new socks if I was you and I will pay for them if they are that old, God Bless and have a nice day

 

[SNC]

Why is it that we keep comparing homosexuality with being black, Latino and women 50+ years ago?
Was there a scientific study that proves with out a doubt that some one is born gay?
If I were black I would be offended that people are using what the blacks and women had to go through during that time.

People want to compare slavery with not being able to marry. Sorry I don?t see the similarities. Maybe some one can point it out to me.


I found this:

'In the last three elections, the Voter News Service exit poll registered the gay vote between 4 percent and 5 percent. While concluding that the Census 2000 undercounted the total number of gay or lesbian households, for the purposes of this study, we estimate the gay and lesbian population at 5 percent of the total U.S. population over 18 years of age, (209,128,094). This results in an estimated total gay and lesbian population of 10,456,405. A recent study of gay and lesbian voting habits conducted by Harris Interactive determined that 30 percent of gay and lesbian people are living in a committed relationship in the same residence. Using that figure, we suggest that 3,136,921 gay or lesbian people are living in the United States in committed relationships in the same residence. (1)

If we are to believe those numbers, 3% of our population is going to decide for the rest of the USA just what marriage is.
I believe that there are more that 3% of the population that believes that pot should be decriminalized. Should we do that?

There were more than 2.3 million arrests for crimes tracked by the FBI in 2001. (2) I bet if these people got together they could change the law and be let free.
They are only ~800,000 less than the ?gay and lesbian people are living in a committed relationship in the same residence?

I would like to go on but I have to get back to work. I guess my point is, when you choose to be different, expect different treatment.
If you are going to demand respect for your lifestyle, start by showing that you have some for mine. Understand that not everyone thinks that being gay is a good thing.

(1) http://www.avert.org/hsexu1.htm
(2) Copyright 2003 The Associated Press

 

[0roo0roo]

if top republicans like newt gingrich and dick cheney have gay children, its not exactly a learned behavior is it?

why is it that the homophobes always pretend that its a just a choice?

why is it that someone else having marriage affects your marriage? you think there will be mass divorce and rejection of marriage by heteros if gays get it? oh its ruined?

its about the same as those godless infidels marrying... its destroying your marraige right? if others have sex outside of marriage it'll ruin your godly lovemaking right? no more banging the wife, those swinging singles have ruined sex some people just need to learn to mind their own business.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
if top republicans like newt gingrich and dick cheney have gay children, its not exactly a learned behavior is it?

why is it that the homophobes always pretend that its a just a choice?

why is it that someone else having marriage affects your marriage? you think there will be mass divorce and rejection of marriage by heteros if gays get it? oh its ruined?

its about the same as those godless infidels marrying... its destroying your marraige right? if others have sex outside of marriage it'll ruin your godly lovemaking right? no more banging the wife, those swinging singles have ruined sex some people just need to learn to mind their own business.

why is it youre so desperately trying to excuse homosexuality instead of just having the offenders own up to their decision? what is it your afraid of? personal accountability? god forbid we ever hold anyone accountable for their actions.

and no, its not that us homophobes think it affects our marriage. it affects every single way of life. what heppens when you legalize gay marriages? what are they going to push for next? multiple marital partners? the changing of the age of consent? god only knows, and i really dont want to find out.
need an example of this type of reasoning? how about drugs as an example. there are lobbyists all over trying to get marijuana legalized. they use the arguments that alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous for you, so why not legalize weed. well, lets say that happens. what are the druggies going to push for next? harder more destructive drugs, like cocaine and heroin.

so the point of the whole matter is, when does the madness stop? the answer is you dont ever let the madness begin. you libs really do need to gain some foresight, start thinking about what implications your actions are going to have on the future as well as the impact they are going to make today.

 

[0roo0roo]

perhaps some of us don't have the dangerous blind conviction you do in unproven unscientific assumptions. is it really a choice? can you become gay? are you afriad of gay recruitment? your entire case is dependent on your unsupported assumption that its a choice.


this is the land of liberty, not the land of christianity. you live, you let live. you have no case that they are harming you or others, you should mind your own business and live your life the way you wish, and not legislate your idea of how others should live as the taliban does.

and don't even try to go down the slippery slope. used endlessly against all progress, to defend slavery, to defend descrimination, to defend segregation, anti misegination etc.

and really.. if you cared about personal accountability you wouldn't support a liar and draft dodger as president.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
perhaps some of us don't have the dangerous blind conviction you do in unproven unscientific assumptions. is it really a choice? can you become gay? are you afriad of gay recruitment? your entire case is dependent on your unsupported assumption that its a choice.


this is the land of liberty, not the land of christianity. you live, you let live. you have no case that they are harming you or others, you should mind your own business and live your life the way you wish, and not legislate your idea of how others should live as the taliban does.

and don't even try to go down the slippery slope. used endlessly against all progress, to defend slavery, to defend descrimination, to defend segregation, anti misegination etc.

and really.. if you cared about personal accountability you wouldn't support a liar and draft dodger as president.

please. tell that to the people that renounce their gay ways. again, its all choices.

hmmm, what kind of impression is this going to leave upon todays children? what kind of impression is this going to have on future generations? its not your duty to explain to my kids and future generations about the hows and whys two people of the same sex love each other and all the horrors that go along with homosexuality. and i gladly mind my own business, but as soon as an issue hits the PUBLIC forum, it immediately concerns me, and how its going to impact my life in the present and in the future. what slavery is there still going on? what discrimination? what segregation? there is none. it is all a misperception by you and people that think like you, or it is blown vastly out of proportion to make you case seem more plausible or acceptable to the people that have no concrete opinion on such matters.

if there were a more conservative person that i could vote into the oval office, i would do so, gladly. but i do not see any case that the president has lied [again, its libs blowing matters way out of proportion to make their case seem as though it holds water] and the president has sufficient proof that he performed his duties while in the national guard [which was not draft dodging, unlike you party buddies dean and clinton, who effectively did dodge the draft.]

 

[0roo0roo]

oh great, your refering to the bogus gay conversion programs? the ones that studies have shown to have high failure rates? you religious zealots are just pathetic when so desperate, just like during evolution debates, repeating or should i say desperatly clinging to arguements that have no scientific merit. no study supporting any program for conversion meets scientific standards that would confirm such a claim in the first place. http://www.iglss.org/pubs/angles/angels_4-1_p3.html

what impression should the government give? the impression that religious zealots have the right to ride roughshod over those it disagrees with? to legislate descrimination? thinly veiled sadism under the cover of religion and legitimized through government? that tolerance is what makes a free society work? you don't have to explain any of that to them, you could simply pretend they don't exist, just as you still pretend that gays are gay by choice. your just not free to use the government to oppress others. what someone else does is their own business. you being a religious zealot doesn't affect my life, unless you force the government to oppress me. if i start a religion called 0rooism, it doesn't detract from your religion no matter what you say.

the fact is the president has spewed an endless stream of lies. he campaigned on lies, that the military would report two divisions as not ready for duty, his fuzzy numbers, his claim that we'd have 2 million more jobs this year, a claim he's backing off now, that he's a uniter not a divider.... he claimed his tax cuts would go mostly to the ones that needed it. but only 12% went to the lowest end, and 42% went to the top 1%. his lies about the estate tax taking away family farms, yet not a single case has ever happened. after 9/11 he claimed that no one concieved that such an attack could happen, yet he had been warned by intelligence repeatedly of just such an scenario. he made claims supporting his tax cuts by citing a economic forcast that didn't exist. and on and on...

he even lies about what he says, stealing words from gore. sad..

To explain why he has turned a $236 billion budget surplus into a projected $307 billion deficit in 2004, the president claimed that he had said during the campaign that he would allow the federal budget to go into deficit in times of war, recession or national emergency but never imagined he would have a "trifecta." Actually, Mr. Bush never made such a campaign statement. These three caveats on deficits were promulgated by Al Gore.[/i]http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0602-04.htm

scientists are writing letters to this dishonest president who can't even get science right.

They said the government had manipulated information to fit its policies on everything from climate change to whether Iraq had been trying to make nuclear weapons.

The open letter from the independent Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) said: "When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, the administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions.

"This has been done by placing people who are professionally unqualified or who have clear conflicts of interest in official posts and on scientific advisory committees; by disbanding existing advisory committees; by censoring and suppressing reports by the government's own scientists; and by simply not seeking independent scientific advice."

The letter was signed by 60 senior US scientists, including 20 Nobel prize winners, such as the physicists Steven Weinberg and James Cronin and the biologists Eric Kandel and Harold Varmus.

The Bush administration is guilty of misrepresenting scientific knowledge and misleading the public, a group of America's most senior scientists claimed yesterday.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1151187,00.html

the fact that your so desperate to give him the benifit of the doubt over his service is sad. he keeps releasing papers with the same holes in time. thats all he could give. he has no band of brothers, he abused his priviliged class to jump ahead of others for his spot and after couldn't even gratefully finish his duties. he stayed home through abuse of power so someone else would have to be drafted in his place for a war he supported.

 

[SNC]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
perhaps some of us don't have the dangerous blind conviction you do in unproven unscientific assumptions. is it really a choice? can you become gay? are you afriad of gay recruitment? your entire case is dependent on your unsupported assumption that its a choice.


this is the land of liberty, not the land of christianity. you live, you let live. you have no case that they are harming you or others, you should mind your own business and live your life the way you wish, and not legislate your idea of how others should live as the taliban does.

and don't even try to go down the slippery slope. used endlessly against all progress, to defend slavery, to defend descrimination, to defend segregation, anti misegination etc.

and really.. if you cared about personal accountability you wouldn't support a liar and draft dodger as president.

Can you point me to scientific proof that some one is born gay?
With out that proof you are the one that is making assumptions.

And your slippery slope issues are irreverent. Not one slave chose to be black.
If you can PROVE that someone is born gay and truly has no choice in the matter.
Then and only then will you see a swing in the way people feel about gay marriage.
Hell even I would support it. And if you have read my other posts on the subject you would see that I am firmly against it.
All one can wish in this life is for everyone to leave them alone to be the best person that they can be.
So I agree, people should mind there own business.
So please lead by example and stay away from what I, and the majority of the people, believe marriage is.

Your comment about starting your own church and not hurting my, is true.
Unless you called it the same thing as mine and preached the opposite of what I did.
Or you created a drink and called it Pepsi. It?s still a drink just like Pepsi, but is it not Pepsi.
One could go on and on.
If you attack people by accusing them to be Taliban-ish, you do your self and your cause a dis-service.

 

[0roo0roo]

the scientific evidence we do have points towards it not being a choice. i'm no expert but the evidence thats out there does point to this. if you'd bother to look u'd know this too. the other side has no evidence, which kind of pushes me towards view that its inate. if i'm not quite sure, i would er on the side of caution. not to condemn other human beings to suffering based on hubris. there is very reasonable doubt that homosexuality is a choice.

there is also personal experience. i have memories of crushes on girls even before i knew what was really going on. i was not taught this. i cannot imagine choosing any different, it was no conscious choice on my part. it is fundamental. you might as well ask if i choose to feel hungry or cold, to me its not a choice. if you ever made a choice in sexuality as a child, you must be special.

Your comment about starting your own church and not hurting my, is true.
Unless you called it the same thing as mine and preached the opposite of what I did.
Or you created a drink and called it Pepsi. It?s still a drink just like Pepsi, but is it not Pepsi.
One could go on and on.

no, thats wrong. all religions believe the other religions to be wrong, and thus are by default opposed. many call something by the same name, be it god or whatever, but mean different things. it is fundamental to religions. you may pepper around the issue with pc bullsh*t but thats what it boils down to. so your exception is irrelevant. your example is irrelevant.

All one can wish in this life is for everyone to leave them alone to be the best person that they can be.
So I agree, people should mind there own business. So please lead by example and stay away from what I, and the majority of the people, believe marriage is.

no ones altering a specific religions marriage. just governments. government doesn't legislate on what churches believe, and in turn churches have no place in government. no ones forcing your church to marry homos, so your two statements don't make sense. official government marriage is not christian marriage. get this through your head. this country isn't built on mob rule.


christians don't have a copyright on the word marriage anyhow.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

All one can wish in this life is for everyone to leave them alone to be the best person that they can be.
So I agree, people should mind there own business. So please lead by example and stay away from what I, and the majority of the people, believe marriage is.

no ones altering a specific religions marriage. just governments. government doesn't legislate on what churches believe, and in turn churches have no place in government. no ones forcing your church to marry homos, so your two statements don't make sense. official government marriage is not christian marriage. get this through your head. this country isn't built on mob rule.


christians don't have a copyright on the word marriage anyhow.

Bingo!

That's the crux of the whole debate right there!

 

[SNC]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
the scientific evidence we do have points towards it not being a choice. i'm no expert but the evidence thats out there does point to this. if you'd bother to look u'd know this too. the other side has no evidence, which kind of pushes me towards view that its inate. if i'm not quite sure, i would er on the side of caution. not to condemn other human beings to suffering based on hubris. there is very reasonable doubt that homosexuality is a choice.

there is also personal experience. i have memories of crushes on girls even before i knew what was really going on. i was not taught this. i cannot imagine choosing any different, it was no conscious choice on my part. it is fundamental. you might as well ask if i choose to feel hungry or cold, to me its not a choice. if you ever made a choice in sexuality as a child, you must be special.

Your comment about starting your own church and not hurting my, is true.
Unless you called it the same thing as mine and preached the opposite of what I did.
Or you created a drink and called it Pepsi. It?s still a drink just like Pepsi, but is it not Pepsi.
One could go on and on.

no, thats wrong. all religions believe the other religions to be wrong, and thus are by default opposed. many call something by the same name, be it god or whatever, but mean different things. it is fundamental to religions. you may pepper around the issue with pc bullsh*t but thats what it boils down to. so your exception is irrelevant. your example is irrelevant.

All one can wish in this life is for everyone to leave them alone to be the best person that they can be.
So I agree, people should mind there own business. So please lead by example and stay away from what I, and the majority of the people, believe marriage is.

no ones altering a specific religions marriage. just governments. government doesn't legislate on what churches believe, and in turn churches have no place in government. no ones forcing your church to marry homos, so your two statements don't make sense. official government marriage is not christian marriage. get this through your head. this country isn't built on mob rule.


christians don't have a copyright on the word marriage anyhow.

OK. So what your are saying is that there is no PROOF that you can point to. But you believe that it is not a choice. And that somewhere out there is the proof, I just have to find it.
This is real simple. Prove it is not a choice and people will change there minds about it.
If you use "well I had a crush on a girl when I was a kid and no one taught me that" as proof, well, I don?t know how to reply to that, except to say. Being that the only real purpose for any species to exist it to reproduce, I would have to say that that is a normal reaction. So unless you have another purpose for human life, would you say that homosexuality is abnormal, an illness / defect or choice? Because if we go the core of life, those are your choices.

As for my examples being irrelevant: I was not talking about a different name for your church or religion. I was talking about you starting a religion and calling it a Catholic and preaching something other than what the true Catholic churches are preaching. So my point is relevant. Wouldnt you say?

 

[SNC]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

All one can wish in this life is for everyone to leave them alone to be the best person that they can be.
So I agree, people should mind there own business. So please lead by example and stay away from what I, and the majority of the people, believe marriage is.

no ones altering a specific religions marriage. just governments. government doesn't legislate on what churches believe, and in turn churches have no place in government. no ones forcing your church to marry homos, so your two statements don't make sense. official government marriage is not christian marriage. get this through your head. this country isn't built on mob rule.


christians don't have a copyright on the word marriage anyhow.

Bingo!

That's the crux of the whole debate right there!

What is? The narrowing this debate to marriage being a Christian institution?
I think the Jews and the agnostics would have a problem with that.
I think all religions believe that a marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
I could be wrong.

Could someone please point out at what point marriage was recognized by the government?
When did it change from a government to a religious institution, or vice-versa?
Is it both? Who has final say? Are they different or the same?
With out the governments OK I can not get married.
Where?s the separation? So the government is already involved in this.

More rambling to follow.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: SNC

OK. So what your are saying is that there is no PROOF that you can point to. But you believe that it is not a choice. And that somewhere out there is the proof, I just have to find it.
This is real simple. Prove it is not a choice and people will change there minds about it.
If you use "well I had a crush on a girl when I was a kid and no one taught me that" as proof, well, I don?t know how to reply to that, except to say. Being that the only real purpose for any species to exist it to reproduce, I would have to say that that is a normal reaction. So unless you have another purpose for human life, would you say that homosexuality is abnormal, an illness / defect or choice? Because if we go the core of life, those are your choices.

While I don't believe homosexuality is 100% genetic, there are many sources that point in that direction.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_caus3.htm
http://www.datalounge.com/datalounge/news/record.html?record=4181&continuebutton=Not+Now
http://www.scottowen.org/sowen/cause.asp

Besides, genetic causes of homosexual should not be the basis for determining that discrimination against gays is ok:
http://www.galha.org/glh/163/etiology.html

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: SNC


What is? The narrowing this debate to marriage being a Christian institution?
I think the Jews and the agnostics would have a problem with that.
I think all religions believe that a marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
I could be wrong.

Could someone please point out at what point marriage was recognized by the government?
When did it change from a government to a religious institution, or vice-versa?
Is it both? Who has final say? Are they different or the same?
With out the governments OK I can not get married.
Where?s the separation? So the government is already involved in this.

More rambling to follow.

Considering this nation's leaders are largely Christian (including the President), then, yes, for the purposes of the current debate, it's about ultra-conservative Christians vs. equal rights proponents.

And, fwiw, the Catholic Church did not force itself upon marriages until 1563. The first marriage *laws* were enacted by the Egyptians.

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: SNC

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
perhaps some of us don't have the dangerous blind conviction you do in unproven unscientific assumptions. is it really a choice? can you become gay? are you afriad of gay recruitment? your entire case is dependent on your unsupported assumption that its a choice.


this is the land of liberty, not the land of christianity. you live, you let live. you have no case that they are harming you or others, you should mind your own business and live your life the way you wish, and not legislate your idea of how others should live as the taliban does.

and don't even try to go down the slippery slope. used endlessly against all progress, to defend slavery, to defend descrimination, to defend segregation, anti misegination etc.

and really.. if you cared about personal accountability you wouldn't support a liar and draft dodger as president.

Can you point me to scientific proof that some one is born gay?
With out that proof you are the one that is making assumptions.

quite frankly, I don't know why anyone who would CHOOSE to be gay.

 

[SNC]

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: SNC

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
perhaps some of us don't have the dangerous blind conviction you do in unproven unscientific assumptions. is it really a choice? can you become gay? are you afriad of gay recruitment? your entire case is dependent on your unsupported assumption that its a choice.


this is the land of liberty, not the land of christianity. you live, you let live. you have no case that they are harming you or others, you should mind your own business and live your life the way you wish, and not legislate your idea of how others should live as the taliban does.

and don't even try to go down the slippery slope. used endlessly against all progress, to defend slavery, to defend descrimination, to defend segregation, anti misegination etc.

and really.. if you cared about personal accountability you wouldn't support a liar and draft dodger as president.

Can you point me to scientific proof that some one is born gay?
With out that proof you are the one that is making assumptions.

quite frankly, I don't know why anyone who would CHOOSE to be gay.

DING DING!!!!! We have a winner!!!!!! On a certian level I agree.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: SNC

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: SNC

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
perhaps some of us don't have the dangerous blind conviction you do in unproven unscientific assumptions. is it really a choice? can you become gay? are you afriad of gay recruitment? your entire case is dependent on your unsupported assumption that its a choice.


this is the land of liberty, not the land of christianity. you live, you let live. you have no case that they are harming you or others, you should mind your own business and live your life the way you wish, and not legislate your idea of how others should live as the taliban does.

and don't even try to go down the slippery slope. used endlessly against all progress, to defend slavery, to defend descrimination, to defend segregation, anti misegination etc.

and really.. if you cared about personal accountability you wouldn't support a liar and draft dodger as president.

Can you point me to scientific proof that some one is born gay?
With out that proof you are the one that is making assumptions.

quite frankly, I don't know why anyone who would CHOOSE to be gay.

DING DING!!!!! We have a winner!!!!!! On a certian level I agree.

People do lots of surprising things... I could think of many reasons why someone would choose to be gay, but the "why" is truly irrelevent to the issue.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: SNC

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: SNC

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
perhaps some of us don't have the dangerous blind conviction you do in unproven unscientific assumptions. is it really a choice? can you become gay? are you afriad of gay recruitment? your entire case is dependent on your unsupported assumption that its a choice.


this is the land of liberty, not the land of christianity. you live, you let live. you have no case that they are harming you or others, you should mind your own business and live your life the way you wish, and not legislate your idea of how others should live as the taliban does.

and don't even try to go down the slippery slope. used endlessly against all progress, to defend slavery, to defend descrimination, to defend segregation, anti misegination etc.

and really.. if you cared about personal accountability you wouldn't support a liar and draft dodger as president.

Can you point me to scientific proof that some one is born gay?
With out that proof you are the one that is making assumptions.

quite frankly, I don't know why anyone who would CHOOSE to be gay.

DING DING!!!!! We have a winner!!!!!! On a certian level I agree.

People do lots of surprising things... I could think of many reasons why someone would choose to be gay, but the "why" is truly irrelevent to the issue.

Oh, do tell, daniel...do tell!

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: FrankyJunior
First off I'm a Republican all the way and am very happy with how Bush has handled the whole War issue. But lately there are 2 things that are completely unforgivable to me that will probably have me voting for whoever the Democratic or Independant nomonee is (depending on their stance on the same issues).

1) Bush has said over and over that he is very strongly in agreement that the US should adopt a policy of discriminating against it's own citizens simply based on ones Secual orientation. I am not gay and don't know all that many people who are. However, why should people be discriminated against and not have the same rights as everyone else simply because they have a relationship with someone who is the same sex as them. The whole point of if someone is gay or not doesn't affect anyone, in any way, except for that couple. So if they want to get married, why should they not be allowed to? Now I'm not talking about having children or anything more than the simple fact of being able to get married. If Bush keeps his strong stance for this deliberate discrimination (and other candidates are opposed to it) then they will get my vote.

2) Bush seems to have complete disregard for the environment. He has opened up natrual forrest reserves to be completely destroyed for logging, oil digging, etc. The natural forrests and such we have left are so incredibly small alreayd, we need all the help we can get to preserve them. Eventually we will get to a point where they are completely gone and then it will be far too late to do anything about it. If he continues to reverse policies that are in place protecting forrests and parks and such and opens them up to being destroyed, this again is a main concern that would force my vote a different direction (again assuming other candidates have the opposite view).

Does anyone else share my concerns about this or is it just me? hmm.

Ah well.

1) Marriage has always been defined as the union between a man and woman. What you are calling discrimination is not changing the status quo. There are large ramifications to this change. Now personally I believe if a same sex couple want to live together they should. They should have certain rights such as inheritance and hospital visitation rights, etc. Should that union be called "marriage". I'm not convinced that is the proper term.

2) Nope, you have bought into the dems propaganda.

a) What natural forrest preserves has he opened up to be completly destroyed? Has a democrat ever advocated logging to control forrest fires? (Be careful, I already know the answer to that one)
b) If ANWR is opened up what will the footprint of the drilling operations be? ie. what percentage of the land will be affected?

Let's discuss this from an informed opinion, not the slanted view that some have. Get educated and answer those questions and we'll continue.

 

[abracadabra1]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel1113

2. Homosexuals are not discriminated against. They have every right that straight citizens have. I straight citizen cannot marry someone of the same sex, just as a homosexual cannot marry someone of the same sex. No discrimination here.

If that isn't one of the most bone-headed, trollish things I've ever read up here I don't know what is!

Really? Perhaps you misread what I said...

Can a straight man marry a woman? Yes.
Can a straigh man marry a man? No.

Can a homosexual man marry a woman? Yes.
Can a homosexual man marry a man? No.

Same rule applys to both parties...

Does a heterosexual choose to be heterosexual? No.
Does a homosexual choose to be homosexual? No.
Can a heteroxsexual get married? Yes.
Can a homosexual get married? No.


Ah...disparity!

Can a homosexual get married? Sure. Just not to another person of the same sex. They have every right to get married to someone of the opposite sex, just as heterosexuals do.

There is no discrimination going on here. You could argue that it is unfair, but it sure of a heck isn't discriminatory.

You see, homosexuals haven't lost any rights. They just don't have the extra rights that they demand.

I don't think it's about extra rights, rather about being able to choose who you want to marry.
A heterosexual male will choose a woman of his liking, whereas a homosexual will choose a male of his liking. And since they are homosexually oriented, the federal government is not allowing homosexuals to marry.

Marriage is nothing more than a sheet of paper...as mentioned before, the divorce rate in this country has all but diminished any sanctity it one held.

 

[UCSDHappyAsian]

Bush was doin okay in the first 2 year of his presidency.... but not doin too well lately... i guess it has to do with all those deaths in Iraq. Well.... Although I did not agree with all his policies... i will still vote for him

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Yeah, policy doesn't matter. Might as well vote for him again.

 

[Mill]

What Bush had done to piss me off:

1. Not Iraq(the war that is), I was fine with that.
2. His idea to make an Amendment regarding Gay Marriage? WTF? It should be left to the states. Feds have never regulated marriage.
3. No problem with his idea about immigration, but it should clamp down immediately after we have secured enough workers.
4. Environmental policy.... so-so. I've seen much better.
5. His idea to fill the SPR. Moronic!
6. Not admitting he takes full personal responsibility for lapses in intelligence about Iraq. The buck stops here or is supposed to.
7. Not the tax cuts.
8. His spending is out of control. I have no problem combining increased spending with tax cuts to stimulate the economy, but he is spending like a drunk sailor who has been on a boat for 6 months. The TSA was simply not needed. Defense spending did need to go up, but Homeland security should have been delegated to the states with block grants. I seriously doubt Alabama needs the same amount of funding as New York. We tend to be more Conservative than Bin Laden.

 

[etech]

Mil

"5. His idea to fill the SPR. Moronic! "

Why do you think so?