Giuliani

[Chyse]

Okay, so the only candidate i didn't hate, Rudy Giuliani, dropped out of the race a week or so ago. He was the ONLY republican candidate that supported civil unions. All the other republicans are opposed to it. And only Hilary supports civil unions on the democratic side and i'm NOT voting for her for other reasons. Giuliani had a great plan, in my opinion, for border control, and a non-extreme or terrible plan for Iraq, again in my opinion. And his healthcare ideas i can live with. And he supported stem cell research. Which i strongly support.
Now that he's out of the race all the other candidates suck for me. None of them carry more than one or 2 of my political beliefs. And basically gay marriage is doomed as far as i can see. Everybody hates gays for some reason, i don't get it. Can somebody please explain this to me???

But how am i supposed to know who i'm going to vote for, when all the candidates suck? (in my opinion)

I'd almost rather vote for nobody, but that's dumb because i want to have a say in what happens in my country. This race isn't 2 sides really. It's just one side that's slightly different in certain beliefs. I mean, shouldn't there be a candidate for every belief? by that i mean, say i am for gay marriage. All the candidates oppose gay marriage, but only 2, (now 1) support civil unions! Shouldn't there be a candidate that supports gay marriage? If there is one belief, shouldn't another candidate have the opposite belief? Otherwise not everybody is represented.
Basically at this point, there aren't 2 political parties. They all believe the same GENERAL stuff for the most part. There's no radical difference between the candidates. Yeah, a few of their beliefs may be opposite. But all that they differ in is details. One or two beliefs. There are no candidates that have a radically different belief from another candidate. To me that's not representing all of the U.S. and it sucks...

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3494, old post ID:64158

[Chris Vogel]

Everybody hates gays for some reason, i don't get it. Can somebody please explain this to me???

Queer people don’t fit into gender roles, and our relationships can’t possibly create children. I think that worries people, because they see gender and childbearing as cornerstones of our society. (This is just my theory! I could go more into it, but that might be off-topic.)

Edit: Now that I’m out of school (You made me late! ): Gay marriage isn’t so important in the grand scheme of things, and it will probably continue on a state-by-state basis no matter what the president wants. Candidates have to cater to the electorate, or else they won’t be electable.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3494, old post ID:64159

[Chyse]

Chris, yeah the whole man-woman thing has to do with reproduction. But why do a lot of people get married? Many, in fact i think most, couples have sex before marriage. So why do people get married then? Well from what i've witnessed and what i've heard from talking to girls, is for commitment. A girl wants a man to propose so she knows he wants to be committed to her for the rest of their lives. It's pretty much the most romantic thing ever because it's such a sacrafice. So if these same couples are having sex, without wanting a baby, before marriage, then the marriage can't be so they can have sex. So if a man (or woman) wants to show is boyfriend(or girlfriend) that he(or she) loves him(or her), why should the government stop that? Why should the government stop certain people from being happy just because of the way they do it?
I discussed this in religion class between my classmates. They brought up drugs. Drugs make people happy and the government restricts it. Drugs however, also are proven to cause brain/body damage.

Then they brought up how homosexuals are much more likely to get AIDS. Well, we don't ban sex for people who know they have herpes. If a girl says to her boyfriend, "I have an uncurable STD. Will you still have sex with me?" He has the option of saying "yes," doesn't he? We don't stop people from showing their love physically when it certainly means an STD, why must we stop it when there's only a chance of an STD?
They also made the arguement that with a male and a female have sex and they have STDs it could make a baby. While that's true, the baby can have serious birth defects and has a much greater chance of being miscarried.

My biggest problem with the banning of gay marriage is that a marriage or "civil union" is an act of love. Why should the government keep people from loving one another? Even though the church says that gays should not marry, doesn't the bible also say "I give you a new commandment, Love one another?"

I understand why states ban marriage itself between homosexuals, because marriage is a religious thing. But why not civil unions? Why can't they marry in a way that's totally religion free?



Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3494, old post ID:64183

[Chris Vogel]

I’m not sure how I feel about gay marriage, because I’m not sure how I feel about the whole concept of marriage. (I’m absolutely sure that civil unions are a silly idea though.) I didn’t mean to start a gay-marriage debate or even state my side; I’m just tired of people – the general electorate, not you – only thinking about certain hot-button issues.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3494, old post ID:64251

[Stasi]

Touche. But then again, a lot of people attach a "life-or-death" kind of urgency to whatever their pet cause is, and will thus be more inclined to vote only on that one issue. Unfortunate.... But then again, I could probably think up some scenarios where I'd be a single-issue voter.

***edit:

In response to the OP:)

Giuliani did great things for NYC - not everyone feels that way, but he turned a rathole of a huge city into something respectable and relatively safe. I'm not sure that he was Presidential material, though.

Oh, and btw, "civil union" does not necessarily = "gay marriage". I think I said in another thread somewhere that I support civil unions but don't support gay marriage. My reasoning is in that other thread in the Debates forum.

I'd almost rather vote for nobody, but that's dumb because i want to have a say in what happens in my country. This race isn't 2 sides really. It's just one side that's slightly different in certain beliefs. I mean, shouldn't there be a candidate for every belief? by that i mean, say i am for gay marriage. All the candidates oppose gay marriage, but only 2, (now 1) support civil unions! Shouldn't there be a candidate that supports gay marriage? If there is one belief, shouldn't another candidate have the opposite belief? Otherwise not everybody is represented.
Basically at this point, there aren't 2 political parties. They all believe the same GENERAL stuff for the most part. There's no radical difference between the candidates. Yeah, a few of their beliefs may be opposite. But all that they differ in is details. One or two beliefs. There are no candidates that have a radically different belief from another candidate. To me that's not representing all of the U.S. and it sucks...

I doubt I'll be voting for President, though I will go to the polls on election day for the local elections. I didn't vote for President in 2004, either. Like you, I believe that most of the political elite in Washington that call themselves either Democrat or Republican are two sides of the same coin. I absolutely despise Presidential elections and each time they come around, I find myself hating the manner with which our representative government operates, at least at the Federal legislative and Presidential level. But I could go on and on about that....

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3494, old post ID:64256

[Chyse]

Oh, and btw, "civil union" does not necessarily = "gay marriage". I think I said in another thread somewhere that I support civil unions but don't support gay marriage. My reasoning is in that other thread in the Debates forum.

Yeah, i remember that huge thread. Marriage is relgious. Civil unions are only legal.

And yeah, i guess i am being a little close-minded about my voting decision. Gay marriage is just such a huge injustice in my mind, it's like saying 1+1 doesn't equal 2 to me...


Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3494, old post ID:64343

[Stasi]

[quote=goalguarder12] [quote=-> Oh, and btw, "civil union" does not necessarily = "gay marriage". I think I said in another thread somewhere that I support civil unions but don't support gay marriage. My reasoning is in that other thread in the Debates forum.
[/quote]
Yeah, i remember that huge thread. Marriage is relgious. Civil unions are only legal.

And yeah, i guess i am being a little close-minded about my voting decision. Gay marriage is just such a huge injustice in my mind, it's like saying 1]</div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I dunno about the concept of marriage being necessarily religous, though it is religious institutions that are the most resistant some form of gay civil union. As for your voting decision, just vote for who you think will do the best job overall, and bear in mind that in another four to eight years, someone else will be in office to either backtrack or progress things. Or, don't vote....

***edited to remove stuff that I basically already said in my previous post.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3494, old post ID:64368

[Chyse]

[quote=-> Oh, and btw, "civil union" does not necessarily = "gay marriage". I think I said in another thread somewhere that I support civil unions but don't support gay marriage. My reasoning is in that other thread in the Debates forum.

Yeah, i remember that huge thread. Marriage is relgious. Civil unions are only legal.

And yeah, i guess i am being a little close-minded about my voting decision. Gay marriage is just such a huge injustice in my mind, it's like saying 1]</div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I dunno about the concept of marriage being necessarily religous, though it is religious institutions that are the most resistant some form of gay civil union. As for your voting decision, just vote for who you think will do the best job overall, and bear in mind that in another four to eight years, someone else will be in office to either backtrack or progress things. Or, don't vote....

***edited to remove stuff that I basically already said in my previous post.

Well, i guess you're right, but 4 years seems like a fairly long time... and even though a new person will be available, how do i know they'll be any better? and just because there may be a new person in 4 years, doesn't mean i can let the next 4 years be terrible. With that mentality, i'll die before somebody i like runs.

As for not voting...I have to vote. Voting to me is very important. If you don't vote, then you don't have any say in the government at all. And if you don't have any say in the government at all, it's almost like your opinions don't matter because they never do or change anything. If nothing is effected by my opinions, what's the point of caring about them? I have to vote. I want to vote.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3494, old post ID:64381