next »

[Thermalsig]

I realized that posting oppose or support with out explaining my reasons may have left me open to peoples misunderstanding of what and why I chose. Here it is in better definition if you care to read.
Abortion Rights - No federal legislation banning abortion.   support-     women must have free will, I oppose it for myself, but I will not take away any womens right to decide for herself people
Death Penalty - States' right to issue the death penalty.    support -some people in rare instances deserve death
No Child Left Behind - Maintaining the No Child Left Behind Act.   oppose-it can and should be done better
Embryonic Stem Cells - Legalizing research that uses stem cells derived from embryos.    support-it will shortly be a non issue. They have developed ways of doing it with normal cells.
ANWR Drilling - Drilling for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge.  oppose-nuff said
Kyoto - The US adhering to the Kyoto Protocol.      support-we must work together as a planet
Assault Weapons Ban - Reinstating the Assault Weapons Ban.   support-we don't need them.
Guns - Background Checks - More thorough background checks for gun ownership.  support-everyone should be thoroughly checked. Including a mental eval.
Patriot Act - Maintaining the Patriot Act.   oppose-our govt shouldn't have a right to wire tap with out a court and proper evidence.
Guantanamo - Maintaining a military presence at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.  oppose-we are doing things there that are despicable and make the world hate us. Most of all because we were supposed to be better than that.
Torture - Torturing prisoners such as enemy combatants or suspected terrorists.  oppose-I don't consider sleep deprivation torture though and has been shown to effective time and time again.
Wiretapping - Intercepting internet/telephone communications without a warrant.  oppose-see Patriot act
Citizenship Path for Illegals - Creating a path by which illegal aliens already in the US can become citizens.       support-make a legal pathway for illegals to first identify them and then get them paying taxes to help offset the cost to the healthcare system they impose.
Border Fence - Constructing a border fence between the US and Mexico. support-If you have skills and labor talents we need, get here legally and we as a govt should make it possible.
Net Neutrality - Regulations to ensure that public networks treat all content, sites, and platforms equally.       oppose-I refuse to give over the right to decide what will work on their system over to big business. It will beleft to be decided by the end providers. The last mile providers. They will drive out open source and anyone that can't pay them what M$ and others do.
Iran Sanctions - Maintaining trade sanctions with Iran.   oppose-didn't work on Cuba. Only made the people suffer.
Iran - Military Action - Utilizing military action to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear capabilities.       support-in all reality, we should never have given the nod to anyone to have nuclear power and we must stop proliferation.
Iraq War - Maintaining the current war with terrorists in Iraq.   oppose-what purpose is served
Iraq Troop Surge - The increased troop presence in Iraq.  oppose-won't make a difference. We don't have enough to cover the whole country. Ineffective.
Iraq Withdrawal - Withdrawing from Iraq. support. nuff said
Minimum Wage Increase - Increasing the minimum wage.   support-we have got to close the wage disparity gap.
Same-Sex Marriage - Allowing same-sex marriage. oppose-Marriage is between a man and women.
Same-Sex Civil Union - Allowing civil unions between people of the same sex.  support-same sex union is not marriage
Same-Sex Constitutional Ban - The creation of an ammendment that bans same-sex marriage. support^^
Universal Healthcare - The creation of a federal, universal healthcare system.  support-we have to do something to equalize healthcare, although Universal Healthcare has its own problems.


*that missing 'd' in candidate kept bugging me..ya mad steamer..   W.

[nnex]

why would u oppose same sex marriages?
not to attack u, really, but why would u deny gay couples the blessing of marriage?
who are we to judge what is "right" or "sane"?

it's a bit shortsighted to oppose same sex marriages imo.

again, i am not attacking your statement, because i believe in freedom of speech and mind, but i am just curious what your backgroundinformation is behind you opposing it.

[keasy]

I oppose same sex marriage.

Marriage is the union between a man and a woman not a man and man or woman and woman. They do deserve equal rights with the law of a land supporting them the same as a married couple. we need marriage to keep a divide, that's not a negative I just believe that we need an aspect to relate normality to and if some hard-line homosexuals had their way heterosexuals would be a minority. as it is they are a minority and their way of life in most peoples opinion is against nature. So they should have the law on their side in civil partnership but marriage is ancient and between man and woman, why should we change that for a minority ? It can also be a personal thing, to me and my wife a religious ceremony was important but gay life styles are contradictory to traditional religious marriages.

[Thermalsig]

I'm for same sex civil union, I just don't believe it can be a marriage. I think that a marriage is between a man and a woman. Same sex union is a different classification(though no less important), and should be named/notated differently. I believe I have the right to decide what I think a term should mean to me, and I'm tired of everyone(not you ) wanting me to bend my will to fit what everyone thinks should be correct. There are too many different people stirring the pot. Why not instead, create a new term with close or the same benefit's that fits the situation. After all. It is a same sex union.  We are in an evolving society and I have/had gay friends who think the same as I do. After all, it's not the terminology most care about, it's the rights associated with them that matter.

[nnex]

I oppose same sex marriage.

 They do deserve equal rights with the law of a land supporting them the same as a married couple.

how can they have equal rights if we deny them marriage?

i am not going advertise for them, but i keep thinking it should be possible if they want it.

it's an endless discussion and everybody is entitled to their opinion in it.
i respect u guys say u believe in the catholic values of marriage and i also think it's somewhat sacred. it should just be at least possible for same sex couples also. they don't bother people with it right?

[Wooster]

I'm against marriage completely, it's an antiquated idea borne out of superstitious beliefs and should be consigned to the annals of history. 

[keasy]

They would bother me though.

If I had a married same sex couple next to me and they wanted to raise kids etc like a normal married couple it would bother me as I don't believe it's right.

As said before same sex union through civil partnership is fine it is equal rights, equal rights is not rewriting definitions and marriage by definition is between a man and a woman.


In fact tomorrow I'm going to fazadoo my winklepik then daladooze in front of the  lalapulp.



In fact tomorrow I'm going to eat my dinner then snooze in front of the TV.


To illustrate a point no less.

[keasy]

I'm against marriage completely, it's an antiquated idea borne out of superstitious beliefs and should be consigned to the annals of history. 

That's why the country has gone to the dogs, no traditional married family values for kids  :P

In some cases my sarcasm above is indeed correct.

Nope I don't fancy a World where people can just swan in and out of relationships as they please without more than just their conscience to keep things at a moral value. We need marriage and the laws it implies, to many scumbags could do as they please. It's bad enough with things the way they are.

[nnex]

well, i don't think marriage is so sacred that it should be for just 1 part of the sexual population.
free world, equal rights.

restrictions are a little short from discriminations..it's a thin line

[keasy]

Civil union gives them all the rights a same sex marriage has, so what's the problem ?

Isn't it good enough ?

No it's all PC brigade changing things that aren't broken and imposing minorities values upon a majority ?


And if you don't think it so sacred, why bother with it at all, never mind for same sex ?

[nnex]

i just think that marriage should aso be available for gay people that believe in it's values. it's not just the heterosexual couples that believe in it's values. the bible says it's just for heterosexuals, but isn't that just a bit...wel.."old"?

[keasy]

So change for change sake ?


Nah, marriage is heterosexual, it's ours we want to keep it as a definition that pronounces the love and commitment between and man and woman, it's ours we want to keep it as our defining declaration. Gay love is arguably no different but I'm in the yes it is different camp (oh noes I used the word camp).

[nnex]

rofl:-)
don't mind u use the word camp, hehe

it's just that i believe that your sentence: "want to keep it as a definition that pronounces the love and commitment between and man and woman" should stop after "a definition that pronounces the love and commitment"

nevertheless i am glad we have a discussion like this. also i am glad that there are still people that firmly believe in their values. i have my own values, but they are a bit different.

in the end we are all humans with our own will.

[keasy]

Gayness doesn't sit comfortably with me but neither does denying someone the right to say inheritance just because their partner was the same sex. That's why I reckon civil union is a good compromise.
Maybe I'm just a dinosaur (homophobicrex).

[Thermalsig]

well, i don't think marriage is so sacred that it should be for just 1 part of the sexual population.
free world, equal rights.

restrictions are a little short from discriminations..it's a thin line

No it's not. I'm not Catholic by the way.  But you and others are asking everyone else to redefine what they see as marriage. Marriage is, in the biblical sense and the social sense defined by nature's bounds as the ability of two people as a long term nucleus engaged in the natural act of bearing and raising of children at its core. That is not what same sex union is. Why redefine marriage to fit a term it doesn't apply to?