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 6:17 PM, Tuesday October 26, 2010 EDT Can I stick my dick in a guys ass, cum, and have a baby pop out in 9 months?
No? Then we were "made" to be man and woman. Not by some mythical being in the sky, but by our genetic code. No religion involved whatsoever. |
|
jilm2 wrote
at 6:24 PM, Tuesday October 26, 2010 EDT Youre implying that the purpose of sticking your dick in a guy ass must be to have a baby. What about playing Kdice? Can you spend 9 months playing Kdice and have a baby pop out? That proves that we were made not to play Kdice.
|
|
|
Thraxle wrote
at 6:27 PM, Tuesday October 26, 2010 EDT I can't play KDice and claim it as a tax break. Gay marraiges can.
|
|
K8Dice wrote
at 6:34 PM, Tuesday October 26, 2010 EDT I'm sure there is a way somewhere to do that Thrax lolz.
|
|
fcuku_ wrote
at 6:36 PM, Tuesday October 26, 2010 EDT counterpoint: homosexuality is natural.
|
|
|
Thraxle wrote
at 6:38 PM, Tuesday October 26, 2010 EDT If homosexuality is natural then heterosexuality is unnatural and procreation will cease to occur in our species.
|
|
|
fcuku_ wrote
at 6:39 PM, Tuesday October 26, 2010 EDT youre making assumptions. they are both natural. not everything is as red and blue as you make it out to be.
|
|
|
jilm2 wrote
at 6:40 PM, Tuesday October 26, 2010 EDT Thats a fair point, marriage is a social construct and must have some social purpose. But the question what is or is not "natural" is irrelevant again.
If you believe that the goal of the institution is to promote baby-making, then it makes sense to oppose gay marriage. But I dont really see why to provide benefits to any childless couples and not to give them to gay couples with adopted or somehow obtained kids. If you believe that the goal is to promote "family" unit even when not necessarily involving kids then I dont see why one should exclude gay couples. If you believe that marriage is just a tradition and there is no strong reason why to favour married people over singles - yeah, thats my stance - then legal marriage should be made obsolete and replaced by 1. privately organized celebration informally called marriage + 2. system of formal agreements among any 2 and more people giving each of them certain specific rights but no tax advantages. That actually looks quite probable in a near future, at least in Europe/Czech Republic. More children are already born outside of marriage here and the number of married couples decreases steadily over last 20 years. It makes no sense to keep something that people themselves reject. |
|
|
Thraxle wrote
at 6:43 PM, Tuesday October 26, 2010 EDT Red and blue....lol
The only reason dems support homosexuals (or any minority for that matter), is to grab votes. The term "majority rules" hasn't been applicable for quite some time now. Squeeky wheel gets the oil. |
|
|
fcuku_ wrote
at 6:47 PM, Tuesday October 26, 2010 EDT counterpoint: the only reason republicans support jesus is to secure votes
|