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. |
|
Cal Ripken wrote
at 12:28 PM, Wednesday October 27, 2010 EDT wah wah wah change is scary
|
|
|
Cal Ripken wrote
at 12:30 PM, Wednesday October 27, 2010 EDT btw that talk show was called CrossFire and it was fucking terrible. haha
|
|
Thraxle wrote
at 12:30 PM, Wednesday October 27, 2010 EDT Yeah, but you and I are funnier.
|
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 12:33 PM, Wednesday October 27, 2010 EDT jcp4p:
I always thought that visitation rights were up to the patient. If the patient is unconscious, someone else would need to stand in, but that person would, or should, have the same rights to choose the patient has. Extension of recognition does not always elevate the one to whom recognition is extended. Sometimes it debases the ones that already have recognition. Like counterfeit money. So if you want to argue equality in extending recognition, you also have to show that there would not be debasement. |
|
|
Thraxle wrote
at 12:38 PM, Wednesday October 27, 2010 EDT skrum:
It's "jpc4p"........FYI |
|
|
Cal Ripken wrote
at 12:41 PM, Wednesday October 27, 2010 EDT " So if you want to argue equality in extending recognition, you also have to show that there would not be debasement."
Debasement? Any negative effects of being allowed to be married (go ahead, name one, please) would certainly be weighed by the adults who are choosing weather or not to be married. The point is they should be allowed that liberty. You've yet to say one rational reason why they shouldn't. I assume you're arguing for the sake of arguing. |
|
Homer Simmpson wrote
at 12:45 PM, Wednesday October 27, 2010 EDT If there were to be a gay gene, then in the case of identical twins, either both twins would be gay, or both straight. This is not usually the case in sets of twins with at least one gay twin.
your sexuality is a choice. being non heterosexual is unnatural and i think a bit unnerving and disgusting, and i am morally opposed to it. However in America its your right. While I have an issue calling it marriage, i do think our constitution requires we extend equal rights to gay couples. since they aren't infringing on anybody elses rights by being gay. |
|
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 12:53 PM, Wednesday October 27, 2010 EDT jpc4p:
I was asking you for reasons for considering opposite-sex marriage and same-sex marriage equal. If you want me to give reasons why they are not equal, I have already given one: the operational reason. Even if there are no other arguments, no morals, no God, that argument would be sufficient. But if you want to bring in moral arguments, here is one: same-sex marriage is a counterfeit. To slightly change a quote by Ayn Rand (hardly a religionist) from The Fountainhead: "Don't set out to raze all shrines; you'll frighten men. Enshrine homosexuality, and the shrines are razed." |
|
|
Cal Ripken wrote
at 1:00 PM, Wednesday October 27, 2010 EDT "I was asking you for reasons for considering opposite-sex marriage and same-sex marriage equal."
Outside of the basic gender description, I would see no reason how they aren't equal. Regardless though, my whole point has been on the civil liberties of these citizens that we are denying. If you want to see them as two different things, whatever, I hardly see how that vindicates an infringement on their freedom. |
|
|
Cal Ripken wrote
at 1:04 PM, Wednesday October 27, 2010 EDT Essentially you just said: "Homosexuality is different than heterosexuality, therefore it's not as good."
Do I really need to point out why this arguement is simplistic and weak? |