Why are you voting for Kerry?

[Jake712]

One of the only reasons I would vote for Kerry....hmmm....so not to vote for Bush.

Plus I despise Cheney's ideas.

[Pangloss]

Lol, you guys crack me up! Some really funny posts up there.

[Phi for All]

That's it, in a rather largish nutshell. Apologies for the length. (Maybe I should have started a separate topic, eh? I can see I didn't even get into why I don't[/b'] think these guys are really all that scary in the final analysis.)

I just reread this whole thread. Some great stuff. Sorry, it's been awhile since I checked back.

 

Pangloss, to me, the neo-con agenda seems very scary indeed. It ties in with how immense businesses are being awarded contracts only they can fulfill because of how easily they can pull political strings and get the contract parameters set in their favor. Why, in the final analysis, don't they scare you?

[Pangloss]

Doh, I should know better than to check for posts here right before hitting the sack. (grin) (You know what I mean? Once you visit the forum it erases your marker points, so then you're afraid you'll forget to respond to something the next day.)

 

Briefly (but I'll expand on this if I remember), they do concern me, but I think it's important to keep things in perspective. They're still a long way from the Hollywood stereotype Evil Republicans, and I have to actually interpret their words (at least a little) in order to arrive at an actual Fear Factor, if you take my meaning.

 

Also, all rhetorical fears aside, we have an amazingly resilient system of governance in this country. It's been pressed hard in recent years and still shows no signs of outright breakage, or even serious decay. The point here being that the Constitution is intended as a "living document", so let's make it earn its keep by testing the hell out of it. Better to hit it up front with known entities than to have someone sneak around the back door and blind-side us when we're not looking. Throw around a few Jose Padilla's and let's see what happens. It's not pretty, but democracy never is.

 

I'm being facetious here but I hope my meaning is coming across, in my current, very tired state. Obviously I don't mean that we should play around arbitrarily with a citizen's civil rights, for example. I'm just saying if they feel they have a case for suspension of rights on specific grounds, let's hear what they are, apply the constitutional test, and see what happens.

 

Go easy on me, I'm exhausted and probably not expressing myself very well. (grin)

[JHAQ]

I do not know what to do . I cannot vote for either Kerry or Bush . Just look at Kerry's voting record ( it is on the web ) & Bush is an rigid ideologue . To vote for Nader would be a vote for Bush ; maybe I will just write in John McCain -----

[Mokele]

Why not vote for Micheal Badnarik then, If you are only voting for Kerry cause you dont like Bush.

 

A) because I am unconvinced of the feasability of the libertarian philosophy but mostly b) I'm in Ohio, a big-time swing-state. I would much prefer to be stuck with Kerry than to take votes away from him and possibly result in Bush winning. If I were in a non-swing state, I'd vote 3rd party, but not in a swing state with lots of electoral votes.

 

Apparently you missed the debates. Chalk "a" and "c" off your list.

 

Unless he's openly endorsed gay marriage and turned around on his backing of that bigoted ammendment, c still applies.

 

Mokele

[r1dermon]

yeah, dont chalk c off your list. but, kerry is also opposed to gay marriage, he supports civil unions, just like bush. even though i am not gay, i feel that it is unconstitutional to ban gay marriage. there is no reason for it other than "tradition" its a belief system which is not endorsed by the american government(so we are led to believe) how can we have confidance in our government if they keep taking away core RIGHTS? you cant say that gay marriage is "wrong" because it might be wrong to you, but it isnt to someone else, and that someone else has the RIGHT to feel that way. just like i dont think shooting deer for no reason other than "its fun" is right, however, you have the RIGHT to blow a deers head off if you want. it has nothing to do with anything other than religion. which isnt a factor, right? it obviously is. sadly.

[Mokele]

but, kerry is also opposed to gay marriage, he supports civil unions, just like bush.

 

Yeah, that's one of the reasons I'm not keen on Kerry, but this issue is *very* important to me (I place more value on it as a deciding factor than Iraq, the War on Terror, and Afganistan combined), and while Kerry doesn't support it, at least he doesn't work actively against it to such an extreme level.

 

Mokele

[Douglas]

Yeah, that's one of the reasons I'm not keen on Kerry, but this issue is *very* important to me (I place more value on it as a deciding factor than Iraq, the War on Terror, and Afganistan combined), and while Kerry doesn't support it, at least he doesn't work actively against it to such an extreme level.

Both Bush and Kerry support civil unions. A civil union gives the gays the same rights as a married couple. What's wrong with that?

[Pangloss]

Unfortunately civil unions *don't* give the same rights as marriage. Inheritence, medical benefits, adoption issues, all become major problems in civil unions. It's not just a government problem, you also have to get the private sector to recognize that they're the same thing.

 

Aside from the issue of polygamy coming up again, I can't think of a single reason why they can't just be allowed to become "married".

[r1dermon]

exactly...its retarded. its all the "traditional" belief system. now, i'm not gay, but if i were, i'd be totally pissed at the total disregard for the constitution and the lack of respect. all men are created equal. that should stand for something, we do with ourselves what we want, and we should be able to "marry" whoever we want. its not a hinderance to society, there are so few gay people compared to heterosexuals that it makes absolutely no difference. and i dont see how it could send the wrong message to kids, they are subjected to the evening news every day. they'll just learn to discriminate...isnt that a lot worse?

[Douglas]

Unfortunately civil unions *don't* give the same rights as marriage. Inheritence' date=' medical benefits, adoption issues, all become major problems in civil unions. It's not just a government problem, you also have to get the private sector to recognize that they're the same thing.

 

Aside from the issue of polygamy coming up again, I can't think of a single reason why they can't just be allowed to become "married".[/quote']

I don't see a problem with any of those issues, why should there be one?

"Marriage" is just a word, civil union can mean the same.

[budullewraagh]

if it means more to the homosexual community, why oppress them?

[Pangloss]

I don't see a problem with any of those issues, why should there be one?

"Marriage" is just a word, civil union can mean the same.

 

Obviously it means something to you, because you don't want them to be called the same thing. Why re-invent the wheel here? If they're the same, they're the same....

[Sayonara]

The issue of marriage and gay rights has been discussed exhaustively in a few (very good) threads in the politics forum.

 

Heads up: virtually every argument against gay marriage reduces to special pleading.

[john5746]

Both Bush and Kerry support civil unions. A civil union gives the gays the same rights as a married couple. What's wrong with that?

 

If you got Bush to really tell you what he thought, he would tell you that homosexuals will go to hell, if they don't repent.

 

It is hard to support someone who thinks you are going to hell, don't you agree?

 

Yes, people will respond saying he never said that, etc. But he believes it I have no doubt.

[Mad Mardigan]

Gay marrige is a crime against nature. It is natural instinc to reproduce, homos accomplish nothing, thus are under the natural selection. Nature didnt select them to survive.

[Mokele]

Gay marrige is a crime against nature. It is natural instinc to reproduce, homos accomplish nothing, thus are under the natural selection. Nature didnt select them to survive.

 

1) Perhaps you would care to explain why homosexuality has been found in 400+ species of animals, ranging from beetles to birds to chimps, then?

 

2) That's what you think. You are entitled to your beliefs, just as I am entitled to mine. But why should your beliefs dictate how I can live my life, and what legal rights I can have? You are free to live your beliefs, but to force me to live your beliefs, regardless of their flaws or merits, is antithetical to the very concept of individual freedom. I don't ask you to change your mind, though I'd like it if I could do so; your tone indicates you will not reconsider. All I ask is live and let live.

 

Mokele

[budullewraagh]

Gay marrige is a crime against nature. It is natural instinc to reproduce, homos accomplish nothing, thus are under the natural selection. Nature didnt select them to survive.

buddy, thats a terribly shortsighted and ignorant appraoch to take. yes, homosexuals will never reproduce. natural selection will take its course in this case. however, there is absolutely no reason to deny them the rights to marriage, as it is their constitutional right. to say that homosexuality is not natural is also incorrect. homosexuality, although not remarkably common and certainly not a marjority, is found in many species. in fact, "straight" animals also sometimes partake in homosexual actions. dont be hating man

[Mad Mardigan]

1.) I think in some species of animals homosexual acts are acts of dominance, trying to be the alpha male of the region.

 

2.) There is no changing my mind on that matter. Everybody makes a choice in life, if you choose to live a certain way, you should be prepared for the consequences of that choice.

[Pangloss]

Yeah I'm not going to get into this. I just wanted to go on record.

[Yakuzi]

2.) There is no changing my mind on that matter. Everybody makes a choice in life, if you choose to live a certain way, you should be prepared for the consequences of that choice.

 

It's not really a choice now is it? Or did you think at one point in your life:"Hmm, will I choose girls or boys to have sex with? Let me flip a coin on that" Of course you didn't, it's just the way you feel...

So the whole 'consequence' thing is a lot of bollocks. If you live in a free country there shouldn't be any discrimination in any area IMHO

 

Anyway, back OT:

I'm not a US citizen so it won't surprise you when I say I would vote John Kerry. The reason: just so Bush won't be president. I would've voted Gore too 4 years ago for the same reason...

I don't hate America, but I do find Bush a total idiot and I seriously can't understand why so many americans still support him, especially after all the mistakes he made, with or without lying. His total lack of respect towards the world and the UN is something you would only expect from a backward dictatorship.

To this day I haven't met a non US citizen who would vote George W and I doubt I ever will

[Pangloss]

Really? That's interesting.

 

For what it's worth, as a Florida undecided voter, hearing that everyone in the rest of the world would vote Kerry actually pushes me in the direction of Bush. Partly because I tend to buck the trend anyway, and partly because I know that what the world is pissed about with Bush has a lot to do with what he refused to give THEM.

 

The world treats us like a welfare bazaar.

It expects us to do what we're told, regardless of the consequences to ourselves.

They complain when we ask them to return the favor.

They complain when we don't give away enough money.

They complain when we give out too much money (to the "wrong" people).

They complain about our hypocrisy, while ignoring their own.

 

Have we returned the favor unkindly? No doubt. I'm sure we deserve a lot of the criticisms the world has leveled against us. But has the world returned that unkindness and error with respect and consideration? Has the Christian world turned the other cheek, and helped its neighbor? Has the world lead the United States into cooperation through honorable example?

 

Yeah, right.

 

That glass house the rest of the world lives in could use a little Windex. And put those stones down before somebody really gets hurt!

[atinymonkey]

Gay marrige is a crime against nature. It is natural instinc to reproduce, homos accomplish nothing, thus are under the natural selection. Nature didnt select them to survive.

 

I know the post has already been countered, but I felt the need to point out homophobic posts are against the forum rules. Point 2.l) : -

 

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=6206

 

 

I know I'd prefer it if that sort of view was put back in the box, and a lid put on it. I'd rather not have to deal with your homophobic opinions, if it's all the same to you.

 

Thanks.

[Sayonara]

Gay marrige is a crime against nature.

A crime against nature? What exactly is that supposed to mean? (Given that a biologist is going to expect that which is found in nature to be inherently natural, but not really expect nature to include any concepts of crime, judgement or acceptance).

 

 

It is natural instinc to reproduce

If you think there are no homosexuals (men or women) who don't have the same reproductive desires/drives as straight people despite their sexual orientation, you've obviously not conversed with many gay people or taken any interest in what they had to say, for which you can blame no one but yourself.

 

Even if they didn't, saying "It is natural instinc to reproduce" would be a red herring if you were talking about a group whose biology imposes no such natural instinct.

 

If random archaic instincts that are the remnants of non-sentient animal biologies dictate to you how you believe the planet's only self-aware, cogniscient species "ought to" exist, then presumably you also oppose modern medicines, invasive surgery, any form of body art or piercing, birth by caesarian section, baby incubators, monogamous relationships, trade regulations, legal recourse, contraception, writings or archives of any kind, and the entire world of non-primary technologies.

 

 

homos accomplish nothing, thus are under the natural selection. Nature didnt select them to survive.

1) I don't know what planet you spend your time on but here on Earth gay people contribute massively to society.

2) Even so, linking "accomplish[ing] nothing" to being "under the natural selection" is tenuous at best. Provide a causal route or don't commit yourself to such bizarre statements.

3) Selection doesn't "pick winners".

 

 

 

yes, homosexuals will never reproduce. natural selection will take its course in this case.

Both untrue (even assuming there is a critical genetic component to homosexuality). Many gay people have children, and therefore pass on their genetic material.

 

Even if the cause is fully genetic, which it almost certainly is not, selection can't strip homosexuality out of any species because there is no pressure on sexuality.

 

 

 

1.) I think in some species of animals homosexual acts are acts of dominance, trying to be the alpha male of the region.

"Some" meaning "a few of the very small number of species that have such hierarchies"? How helpful.

 

Reducing all of homosexuality to a single sexual act - and then considering that to be a form of dominance over another individual in animals - is a form of reverse anthropomorphisation (is there an actual word for that?). It only goes to show how malformed your information is, and the lengths you will go to to try and twist logic into the same shape as your opinions.

 

 

2.) There is no changing my mind on that matter. Everybody makes a choice in life, if you choose to live a certain way, you should be prepared for the consequences of that choice.

That's the most ignorant thing you have ever said on here - you have missing information which you could easily go out and get, but won't, and have substituted it with bigotry.