Forum
Tea Party candidates.
|
moondust wrote
at 9:48 AM, Tuesday October 26, 2010 EDT
Every time I read about them and their policies, I wonder how people can even consider voting for them.
Am I right when I believe that they hate pretty much everything that's not white, male, straight, married, and rich? Also: what's the point of their obsession with God and religion? I don't think that religion should play a role in politics at all. And I think it's dangerous if politicians from the (still) most powerful country base their decisions on an ancient book. Do Tea Party candidates still live in the Dark Ages? But what I really want to know now: Why do so many Americans actually want to vote for those hateful people? Apart from the fact that I would (most likely) always vote for a democratic candidate, it would be still better to vote for a more moderate repuclican than for a Tea Party candidate. Comments from Americans (Thrax included ;-)) would be appreciated. |
|
Thraxle wrote
at 11:06 AM, Wednesday October 27, 2010 EDT 100!!.....damn you monte!!!
|
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 11:27 AM, Wednesday October 27, 2010 EDT jcp4c:
An operational definition means that if you don't meet the operational definition, you don't need the operation. So why bother? Ordinary contract law can take care of other arrangements. |
|
Cal Ripken wrote
at 11:31 AM, Wednesday October 27, 2010 EDT srukmreahegerser:
Because ordinary contract law does not meet all the needs a marriage provides for a couple. |
|
montecarlo wrote
at 11:38 AM, Wednesday October 27, 2010 EDT jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c has a mancrush on thrax jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c jcp4c
|
|
|
Cal Ripken wrote
at 11:40 AM, Wednesday October 27, 2010 EDT im staring and I still dont see any sailboat in all of that
|
|
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 11:51 AM, Wednesday October 27, 2010 EDT jcp4p:
Ordinary contract law can meet some fiscal, sociological, emotional, and legal needs. So what particular needs are met for a couple only by marriage? You have the floor. |
|
|
Thraxle wrote
at 11:51 AM, Wednesday October 27, 2010 EDT You shoulda mixed in the "has a mancrush on" throughout the post. Woulda been more fun to find.
|
|
|
Cal Ripken wrote
at 12:10 PM, Wednesday October 27, 2010 EDT Skrum:
The point is, gay couples shouldn't have to resort to drawing up a legal contract when they want the basic liberties given to heterosexual ones through marriage. Or what about visitation rights at a hospital - in some places only a married family member is allowed, not someone with a contract saying "oh we're in a committed relationship" Additionally being Married to the person you love comes with whatever invaluable emotional wealth each person who gets married sees in it. One person might see marriage as nothing more than a legal contract (one that yes, can largely be recreated without an official marriage), but the point is to many people there is a weight that the title of "married" carries. It brings with it whatever emotional support you feel from it. Not to mention what you perceive society sees your relationship as. Or the simple fact that granting homosexual marriage would benefit the community in that the state finally recognizes their equality. Yes a lot of the tangible benefits can be gained elsewise, but your asking everyone homosexual couple to sacrifice the intangibles. The point is, they shouldn't have to sacrifice anything. |
|
|
Thraxle wrote
at 12:18 PM, Wednesday October 27, 2010 EDT Guess we need to rewrite the vows too since there's no need for the terms husband and wife anymore.
"Do you take this person to be your lawfully wedded partner?" |
|
jurgen wrote
at 12:22 PM, Wednesday October 27, 2010 EDT "You may kiss your other half"
or "you may kiss your 2 other thirds" in case you want to allow threesome marriages btw: +1 for threesome marriages, I am pro-bisexuality |