It's crap like this......

[Steve H.]

Originally posted by WebmasterCathyCanada
Did I click on the Debate Board option by mistake??

Can't you move this to the DB? (kidding!! )

 

[GladysK]

Originally posted by dianeschlicht
I have a right to excersise my voting rights and NOT vote for him! I didn't vote for him last time, and I wont next time. Simple as that.

I have huge problems with this. Having no idea who will run against Bush,you would still vote aginst him, just to vote against him.

I tend to look at each candidate at EACH election and THEN make my voting decision.

 

[AirForceRocks]

C'mon.....if he agreed then why didn't he say it was okay? Why not say okay it shouldn't be called marriage but they should have a union?

I think there is a huge difference in "He didn't say it was OK" and "He finds it unacceptable". Perhaps he does find civil unions unacceptable, but I've not seen where he has said one way or the other.

Sounds like you mean religious aspect.

Actually, no, since civil marriages have been around for ages.

 

[DonnaS]

Originally posted by disneefamily
Disnee Dad Says.....................................When will this ever end?
gay dudes get to have marriage, it's a genetic thing, and they are the way they are. OK So child molesters are up next, it's a genetic thing, they can't help themselves. Then serial killers, it's in thier genes, they can't help themselves. Pyro guys, I didn't want to burn down the town, it's in my genes..
And most of all, cheating in marraige.
This happens ten times more than all the other activities.
But maybe it's in the genes.

This is the most disgusting train of thought I have ever read here. I'd like to thank RM for her eloquent response.



I may have to look into using that ignore feature now.

 

[TIdoublegaER]

Having no idea who will run against Bush,you would still vote aginst him, just to vote against him

Even not knowing who will be running against Bush next year, doesn't change the fact that as of right this minute, I will not vote for this man. I will abstain before he gets my vote. Can this change? Maybe, but he would need to drastically alter the way he is running this country for that to happen and I really don't think he will. Will I vote next year? More than likely. There are other parties beside Democratic and Republican. I'll wait to see who the other candidates are (for all parties) and where they stand on the issues. Then I'll make my decision.

But to directly answer your question, yes, I have voted for people in the past just to make sure the other did not get elected. Sometimes its about choosing the lesser of two evils.

 

[caitycaity]

I'm more concerned about the House spending time working on a constitutional amendment about this than the President spending time voicing an opinion about it.

ITA!!!

and i'm another one who will NOT be voting for Bush the next time around. Quite frankly, Mr. Potato Head could run against him and I still wouldn't vote for Bush, I would probably just not vote.

 

[ripleysmom]

WMCC, if you want to move the thread to the DB then that is fine. I started it here cause quite frankly, to me it wasn't a debate. This is just another example of why I don't like our President. I thought it would be deleted if I posted it on the DB.

 

[ripleysmom]

"'I think there is a huge difference in "He didn't say it was OK" and "He finds it unacceptable". Perhaps he does find civil unions unacceptable, but I've not seen where he has said one way or the other."

Obviously he agrees with what the Amendment represents otherwise he would have said it wasn't necessary....not let's wait and see.



"Actually, no, since civil marriages have been around for ages."

Then why not allow civil marriages to remain civil marriages?

As far as I could tell in your example of marriages you are proposing classifying only religious unions as marriages. The other ceremonies performed by non-religious officials were to be classified as unions.

If civil marriages have been around for a long time and are also a tradition why change that?

 

[Miss Jasmine]

What I want to know is why Dizneedad used the example with just men? Does he mean it's okay if it's two women?

I think it's great that we live in a country where we don't have to all think the same.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Obviously he agrees with what the Amendment represents otherwise he would have said it wasn't necessary....not let's wait and see.

Unless I'm mistaken, the proposed amendment has to do with marriage, not civil unions. Where did the President even address civil unions?

Then why not allow civil marriages to remain civil marriages?

Because to me, marriage is between a man and a woman, period. Call single-sex unions anything you want except for marriages. I don't see why the meaning of the word has to be changed for politically correct reasons.

If civil marriages have been around for a long time and are also a tradition why change that?

You are the one wanting to change the tradition, not me. I would like to keep marriages the way they are, i.e., one man, one woman.

I'm still curious, since you didn't answer this question before - if there were a Constitutional amendment passed tomorrow that outlawed abortion for any reason, would you or would you not be upset because other people's beliefs were being foisted on to you? Your last response to this question turned it around to the equivalent of "legalizing abortion doesn't affect anyone that doesn't want an abortion" (I agree), but it didn't answer the original question.

 

[Jenzebelle]

Quite frankly, Mr. Potato Head could run against him and I still wouldn't vote for Bush

ITA with Caity on this one.
President Bush could not be much more different than my beliefs and the political topics that I feel are important. I think even Mr Potato Head is more in sync with my political views

 

[Pat_Elliott]

Originally posted by WebmasterCathyCanada
Did I click on the Debate Board option by mistake??

Amen. I discovered the DB because I got tired of going to the debate board and watching chest puffing, mental self-stimulation, and bashing of those who'd rather <<hug>> than prove themselves worthy. Man, it used to be a nice neighborhood over here!

FYI, I'm a firm supporter of GWB. That doesn't mean I agree with everything he says. It will never cease to amaze me that folks either think they can change each others minds by repeating their points scarcastically over and over again, or that any individual disagreement with a politician is yet another sign of a whole political ideology. In some ways, President Clinton was an ****. As is President Bush. The only decent man that's held office in my lifetime was Jimmy Carter. And we all see how that turned out. Nice guys don't make good Presidents. You can't please everyone and run a country. Run it for four years, then let the people decide. God Bless America.

And no, I won't answer to the OP. If one wants to give an answer that will certainly get them flamed, aren't they supposed to go to the DB?

 

[Pat_Elliott]

Originally posted by caitycaity
ITA!!!

and i'm another one who will NOT be voting for Bush the next time around. Quite frankly, Mr. Potato Head could run against him and I still wouldn't vote for Bush, I would probably just not vote.

Just for the record, many of us felt fairly sure Mr. Potato Head could have beaten Clinton in '92. So don't count your Deans before they hatch.

And you may have an idea with not voting. Given the political state of this country where two men with brains, education, and experience spend over a year talking about what a moron the other one is, I'm begining to rethink my politics. I used to believe voting was a cherished right and duty, and those who didn't vote were spitting on the flag.

Now, when I see folks debate ideology, I start thinking maybe it would make a bigger statement to join the already half this country that simply doesn't vote. One can argue the 2000 election and its finer points until the cows come home. But in the end, whoever you think "really won," they won with about 25% of the public's vote. 75% of the country either didn't like them or didn't care enough to vote. Might be the name calling. Just a suggestion.

Pat

 

[Jenzebelle]

Did I click on the Debate Board option by mistake??

Nope. This isn't in "proper debate format" and would have been closed

 

[fklhou]

Since this thread has not been moved to the DB yet, here is some satire that fits on this thread. See http://www.internetweekly.org/photo_cartoons/cartoon_frist_gay_cats.html

Sen. Frist Supports Constitutional Amendment Banning Gays from Performing Cat Autopsies

(IWR Satire) - Senator Bill Frist announced that he was in favor of a constitutional amendment against homosexuals performing cat autopsies.

Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, said the Supreme Court's decision last week on gay sex threatens to make the American home a place where criminality is condoned.

"I have this fear that this zone of privacy that we all want protected in our own homes is gradually -- or I'm concerned about the potential for it gradually being encroached upon, where criminal activity within the home would in some way be condoned."

"And I'm thinking of -- whether it's prostitution or illegal cat autopsies performed in the home -- to have the courts come in, in this zone of privacy, and begin to define it gives me some concern."

"I very much feel that killing a cat is a sacrament, and that sacrament should extend and can extend to that legal entity of a union between -- what is traditionally in our Western values has been defined -- as between a heterosexual man and his cat. So I would support the amendment,' Frist said on ABC's "This Week."

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by Jenzebelle
Nope. This isn't in "proper debate format" and would have been closed

You owe me a monitor!!!

 

[caitycaity]

Originally posted by Jenzebelle
Nope. This isn't in "proper debate format" and would have been closed

bwahahahahahahahahahaha!

 

[Michelina]

"Maybe the answer is to have marriages only performed in churches, synagogues or mosques, and have everything outside of that, be it heterosexual or homosexual, be called a civil union"

What would keep 2 men and 2 women from getting married in a church or synagogue? There are many religious denominations that have no prejudice against homosexuals and welcome them to their sacraments (including ordination)

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by Michelina
"Maybe the answer is to have marriages only performed in churches, synagogues or mosques, and have everything outside of that, be it heterosexual or homosexual, be called a civil union"

What would keep 2 men and 2 women from getting married in a church or synagogue? There are many religious denominations that have no prejudice against homosexuals and welcome them to their sacraments (including ordination)

While there are some denominations that recognize gay marriages, they aren't really legal marriages in any sense of the word (except in Vermont, and possibly Hawaii). But I do see your point, so I don't know what the answer is. Perhaps calling all homosexual unions one thing and heterosexual unions marriage.

I don't know the answer - I just know that my personal feeling is that a union between two men or two women, legal or not, is not a marriage under any current understanding of the word marriage.

 

[CathyCanada]

Kim, I was just kidding!!!!!

LOL Jenn.
CC