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. |
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 1:27 PM, Wednesday October 27, 2010 EDT jpc4c:
My argument is not simplistic and weak. It is simple and strong. You don't need God and the rest of it. Using "whatever" in the pre-reply is a sign that your argument is faltering. The operational argument stands. |
|
Cal Ripken wrote
at 1:43 PM, Wednesday October 27, 2010 EDT srkemruger:
using the phrase "the rest of it" is exactly what I did when I said "whatever." try not to be so hypocritical. your arguement that homosexual marriage is different from heterosexual marriage and therefor not as valid is completely weak. Saying that there's an operational difference does not negate the civil liberty these people should have. Not sure I could be anymore clear, but you've yet to state any reason why gay marriage should be illegal other than that you believe there's a operational difference, to which I already gave you reasons why drawing up contracts does not qualify as a legitimate alternative. |
|
Vermont wrote
at 1:54 PM, Wednesday October 27, 2010 EDT Right now all people have the same rights in this area. All men have the right to marry a woman. All women have the right to marry a man.
If you are talking about adding a new right for everyone, that is different than saying they don't have equal rights now. I'm sure your natural response is that they can't marry who they _want_ to. We have many restrictions against marrying who you want to, including family members, people who are already married, people of a certain age, etc.. This is not even an argument against gay "marriage," but just an attempt to frame the discussion more accurately. That, and I am monte-lite, and can't resist posting. |
|
superxchloe wrote
at 1:58 PM, Wednesday October 27, 2010 EDT jpc, arguing with skrum is useless. He reiterates the same points you've already given evidence against. if I were you I wouldn't bother.
|
|
Shevar wrote
at 2:00 PM, Wednesday October 27, 2010 EDT i love how a topic called "Tea Party Candidates" is totally stuck on homosexuality.
i think homosexuality is a result of confused or misguided instincts, which every species can "suffer" from. it's pretty natural that things dont always go as they are supposed to. i have 3 octodons, all male, and of course they fuck each other. I think genes play a minor roll in this issue, it's more the environment a person grows up in. For example there was a study that showed an increased chance of coming out homo when the mothers hormone balance was somewhat off during pregnancy and i'm sure there are a lot of other factors that influence a persons sexuality. the human sexuality is way more complex then the pure strive towars reproduction, even though that is the kernel of it. but all of this doesnt matter, since it is simply a matter of equal rights. |
|
|
Cal Ripken wrote
at 2:01 PM, Wednesday October 27, 2010 EDT and the same arguement could be made if legally you had to marry within your race.
additionally, you fail to mention why there's any reason to deny a homosexual couple's marriage - when there are plenty of reasons to keep people from marrying children, etc... alright I'm done fielding repetitious arguements. If you all want to continue to support intollerance and hate (which is exactly what you're doing even if you only support the "logical" basis for denying this basic liberty), so be it. Maybe go talk to a homosexual and explain it to them why they shouldn't be able to marry who they love. The weight of the issue might carry better in person. I wont be checking this thread again. |
|
|
Cal Ripken wrote
at 2:02 PM, Wednesday October 27, 2010 EDT post was in response to Verms, sorry didn't make that clear.
|
|
Thraxle wrote
at 2:03 PM, Wednesday October 27, 2010 EDT Oh you'll check it again. You've already read this post!
|
|
BLUNTMAYNE420 wrote
at 2:04 PM, Wednesday October 27, 2010 EDT Lots of parallel dialogues going on in this thread, way to go moon. A shining example of how to create a 100+ thread.
Also, what's up Chase. How's the teaching and shit going? |
|
Homer Simmpson wrote
at 2:22 PM, Wednesday October 27, 2010 EDT I can't believe nobody even laughed at my kama sutra comment.
|