US presidential election

[GreatCrippler]

Two wars we can't afford, record unemployment, gas pushing $5 a gallon. Why the hell is gay marriage such a hot topic? Two guys wanna get married, who gives a rats ass? Per usual, I imagine I will be voting Libertarian. Vote for who you believe in, not who you believe will win.

 

[Foxi4]

Vote for who you believe in, not who you believe will win.

That alone is a perfect principle to follow. If everyone would just listen to what their reason and heart say, people wouldn't be voting for "the popular candidate that will surely win" and instead choose representatives who actually *represent* them. This shouldn't be a popularity contest, I'm lovin' your attitude.

No vote is ever wasted, even if "your" candidate doesn't win the election. Vote in a way that will let you close your eyes at night knowing that you made the right choice.

 

[smile72]

Definitely for Ron Paul. Whether you like him or not, I think he is the best future for this country. If he isn't on the ticket, I'm doing a write in.

He still won't win whether he's on the ballot or not. And he would be one of the worst for the country, sure he gets us out of all conflicts,but he's much too state's rights like saying it's the state's right whether they should allow homosexual sex. He would be a terrible president. And to everyone (yes I know of Lawrence v.Texas)

I'd rather vote for someone who I agree with than for the people who are on the ticket. Besides, I'm all for reduction of big government, and I personally don't have an opinion on homosexual marriage.

The problem is that in some states people see homosexuality as wrong.
Now ask yourself, whats best of the following:
1. The federal government issues a mandate for homosexual marriages, creating more tension and diversity, and hatred between people.
2. People eventually sooner or later starts seeing it as acceptable, as other states do so, and thus don't really mind homosexuals getting married?

Forced change isn't good at all. Homosexual Marriages are becoming increasingly accepted. Change should happen slowly.

First off I was referring to sodomy laws, and forced change is good, it's what ended the Jim Crow Laws, and anti sodomy laws, which never would have been overturned in Texas,Mississippi, or Alabama.

 

[Gahars]

@[member='smile72']

Rare is it that we fully see eye to eye, but that day has arrived, at least on this issue of forced change.

Now, obviously, forced change shouldn't be applied to everything; for some issues, it is a matter of waiting. However, when it comes to the civil rights of an oppressed group of people, I think forcing change is more than justified. And to add on to his examples, without intervention, who knows how long the institution of slavery would have continued in the Southern states.

And you need to be careful with your assumptions. Homosexuality is becoming more accepted in many places, but there are still a large amount of areas where that isn't the case (or the opposition has become even more extreme in retaliation). Waiting it out will accomplish nothing there.

 

[smile72]

@[member='smile72']

Rare is it that we fully see eye to eye, but that day has arrived, at least on this issue of forced change.

Now, obviously, forced change shouldn't be applied to everything; for some issues, it is a matter of waiting. However, when it comes to the civil rights of an oppressed group of people, I think forcing change is more than justified. And to add on to his examples, without intervention, who knows how long the institution of slavery would have continued in the Southern states.

And you need to be careful with your assumptions. Homosexuality is becoming more accepted in many places, but there are still a large amount of areas where that isn't the case (or the opposition has become even more extreme in retaliation). Waiting it out will accomplish nothing there.

The south is a wonderful example, gay marriage will never never never times infinity be passed in the deep south if it is not forced it will be like the anti sodomy laws, which never would have been removed had the Supreme Court not struck them down.

 

[Sterling]

Just to be clear, I'm all for forced change when the crimes against a race/sexual orientation reaches the level of inhuman. Slavery and segregation were things I absolutely agree needed to be changed. However, I don't see forced change needed at this time. Homosexuals have plenty of ways to live their lives in happiness, and that will only increase as the times change. Homosexuals are in no way "oppressed". Mildly discriminated against? Sure, but not oppressed to the point of needing forced change.

 

[smile72]

Just to be clear, I'm all for forced change when the crimes against a race/sexual orientation reaches the level of inhuman. Slavery and segregation were things I absolutely agree needed to be changed. However, I don't see forced change needed at this time. Homosexuals have plenty of ways to live their lives in happiness, and that will only increase as the times change. Homosexuals are in no way "oppressed". Mildly discriminated against? Sure, but not oppressed to the point of needing forced change.

Oh well it's fine if it's just discrimination, yes forced change is needed, if people had voted, no state would have same sex marriage especially Iowa.

 

[Sterling]

Just to be clear, I'm all for forced change when the crimes against a race/sexual orientation reaches the level of inhuman. Slavery and segregation were things I absolutely agree needed to be changed. However, I don't see forced change needed at this time. Homosexuals have plenty of ways to live their lives in happiness, and that will only increase as the times change. Homosexuals are in no way "oppressed". Mildly discriminated against? Sure, but not oppressed to the point of needing forced change.

Oh well it's fine if it's just discrimination, yes forced change is needed, if people had voted, no state would have same sex marriage especially Iowa.

Look, that's just my opinion. You're free to disagree with me. I just can't justify massive forced changes with the current situation. Meanwhile there are much more pressing issues that MUST be dealt with. What with an aging infrastructure, shitty wars, and the current energy situation, it seems to me sorting a small social issue is the least of our worries.

 

[smile72]

Just to be clear, I'm all for forced change when the crimes against a race/sexual orientation reaches the level of inhuman. Slavery and segregation were things I absolutely agree needed to be changed. However, I don't see forced change needed at this time. Homosexuals have plenty of ways to live their lives in happiness, and that will only increase as the times change. Homosexuals are in no way "oppressed". Mildly discriminated against? Sure, but not oppressed to the point of needing forced change.

Oh well it's fine if it's just discrimination, yes forced change is needed, if people had voted, no state would have same sex marriage especially Iowa.

Look, that's just my opinion. You're free to disagree with me. I just can't justify massive forced changes with the current situation. Meanwhile there are much more pressing issues that MUST be dealt with. What with an aging infrastructure, shitty wars, and the current energy situation, it seems to me sorting a small social issue is the least of our worries.

I agree, but I wouldn't call it small, and I don't see Republican candidates solving any one of those.

 

[RchUncleSkeleton]

Honestly, gay marraige isn't a pressing issue for any of these candidates but I believe Ron Paul will be the best choice for this Country to move forward and get out of the disaster that Bush got us into and Obama hasn't been able to pull us out of. No one short of a gay president is going to put homosexual marraige as a priority unless they think it'll help them win, they really don't care personally.

 

[Gahars]

Just to be clear, I'm all for forced change when the crimes against a race/sexual orientation reaches the level of inhuman. Slavery and segregation were things I absolutely agree needed to be changed. However, I don't see forced change needed at this time. Homosexuals have plenty of ways to live their lives in happiness, and that will only increase as the times change. Homosexuals are in no way "oppressed". Mildly discriminated against? Sure, but not oppressed to the point of needing forced change.

If you couldn't marry, for the sake of example, the woman you loved for no other reason than the fact that you were a man and she was a woman, wouldn't you feel oppressed? That's the state infringing upon your pursuit of happiness right there (not a constitutional guarantee, sure, but it was an ideal the Founding Fathers staunchly believed in).

 

[smile72]

Honestly, gay marraige isn't a pressing issue for any of these candidates but I believe Ron Paul will be the best choice for this Country to move forward and get out of the disaster that Bush got us into and Obama hasn't been able to pull us out of. No one short of a gay president is going to put homosexual marraige as a priority unless they think it'll help them win, they really don't care personally.

A lot of gay men and women care about gay marriage and every gay member in the House of Representatives cares about it.

 

[Gahars]

Honestly, gay marraige isn't a pressing issue for any of these candidates but I believe Ron Paul will be the best choice for this Country to move forward and get out of the disaster that Bush got us into and Obama hasn't been able to pull us out of. No one short of a gay president is going to put homosexual marraige as a priority unless they think it'll help them win, they really don't care personally.

A lot of gay men and women care about gay marriage and every gay member in the House of Representatives cares about it.

And every member of Congress with gay constituents.

 

[smile72]

Honestly, gay marraige isn't a pressing issue for any of these candidates but I believe Ron Paul will be the best choice for this Country to move forward and get out of the disaster that Bush got us into and Obama hasn't been able to pull us out of. No one short of a gay president is going to put homosexual marraige as a priority unless they think it'll help them win, they really don't care personally.

A lot of gay men and women care about gay marriage and every gay member in the House of Representatives cares about it.

And every member of Congress with gay constituents.

Such as Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and even those without many gay people in their district such as John Lewis.

 

[Harumy]

I won't vote of course
But if I had to i think i'll choose Obama ^^
A lot of people here like him too!

 

[Foxi4]

The south is a wonderful example, gay marriage will never never never times infinity be passed in the deep south if it is not forced it will be like the anti sodomy laws, which never would have been removed had the Supreme Court not struck them down.

Right now you're just assuming that every person from the deep south of the states is a redneck with a shotgun and straw sticking out of their shoes. Aren't you just as discriminating againts them as the souther states altogether are discriminating againts gay marriage?

 

[smile72]

The south is a wonderful example, gay marriage will never never never times infinity be passed in the deep south if it is not forced it will be like the anti sodomy laws, which never would have been removed had the Supreme Court not struck them down.

Right now you're just assuming that every person from the deep south of the states is a redneck with a shotgun and straw sticking out of their shoes. Aren't you just as discriminating againts them as the souther states altogether are discriminating againts gay marriage?

Nope, they are in the bible belt.

And I never said that, you said that. If I were you Foxi, I would change my view of the South. It's a lot different than you think. It's not that stereotype that you think it is. But it is overly religious.

 

[Foxi4]

The south is a wonderful example, gay marriage will never never never times infinity be passed in the deep south if it is not forced it will be like the anti sodomy laws, which never would have been removed had the Supreme Court not struck them down.

Right now you're just assuming that every person from the deep south of the states is a redneck with a shotgun and straw sticking out of their shoes. Aren't you just as discriminating againts them as the souther states altogether are discriminating againts gay marriage?

Nope, they are in the bible belt.
And I never said that, you said that.

What does that matter? They could be in the Orion's Belt for all I care, what you're saying is that forced changes are necessary because some people disagree with you.

Your country was built on the foundations of democracy, stick to it.

 

[smile72]

The south is a wonderful example, gay marriage will never never never times infinity be passed in the deep south if it is not forced it will be like the anti sodomy laws, which never would have been removed had the Supreme Court not struck them down.

Right now you're just assuming that every person from the deep south of the states is a redneck with a shotgun and straw sticking out of their shoes. Aren't you just as discriminating againts them as the souther states altogether are discriminating againts gay marriage?

Nope, they are in the bible belt.
And I never said that, you said that.

What does that matter? They could be in the Orion's Belt for all I care, what you're saying is that forced changes are necessary because some people disagree with you.

Your country was built on the foundations of democracy, stick to it.

That's a dumb argument, when people are discriminated against the majority doesn't matter look at slavery, Jim Crow, anti-sodomy. None of these would have passed by people's vote and none of them did in the south, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Georgia struck down their anti sodomy laws but only through their Supreme Court.

 

[Sterling]

Just to be clear, I'm all for forced change when the crimes against a race/sexual orientation reaches the level of inhuman. Slavery and segregation were things I absolutely agree needed to be changed. However, I don't see forced change needed at this time. Homosexuals have plenty of ways to live their lives in happiness, and that will only increase as the times change. Homosexuals are in no way "oppressed". Mildly discriminated against? Sure, but not oppressed to the point of needing forced change.

If you couldn't marry, for the sake of example, the woman you loved for no other reason than the fact that you were a man and she was a woman, wouldn't you feel oppressed? That's the state infringing upon your pursuit of happiness right there (not a constitutional guarantee, sure, but it was an ideal the Founding Fathers staunchly believed in).

Of course I would, but depending on the bigger issues, I wouldn't agree to devoting time and resources to it unless many of the things that need to be solved were, or close to being resolved. Of course, using your example, the state in question would have most of the straight couples leaving post haste. That's big because the majority of the people in the US are straight. The reason it's a small social issue is because it's limited to a minority. While this won't diminish it's importance (which it's about the most important social issue right now), there are much more pressing things that need to be attended to!