Just wondering, with future elections what issues do you think are really important?

[Mugg Mann]

Secondly, Gallup's polling is unreliable. They have been way off the past two Presidential elections. Even so, within the margin of error, it's prety close to 50/50.

I decided to do some factual research instead of relying on your perceptions, since previous fact checking has found your perceptions to be faulty.

The final gallup poll counting voters who were not undecided prior to the 2004 presidential election had Bush winning with 49% of the vote to Kerry's 47%. Here is the link showing that:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/polls/usatodaypolls.htm

The actual election had Bush winning with 51% of the vote to Kerry's 48%.
Here is one of the many links you can use to verify this:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/president/

Bush won by a margin of three percent when the final gallup poll predicted he would win by two percent. Let's again review your perception of reality based on what you posted:

"Gallup's polling is unreliable. They have been way off the past two Presidential elections."

The fact that you consider a difference of one percent sufficient to validate the phrases "unreliable" and "way off" casts serious doubts on your credibility, and only verifies that the reality you claim to accurately perceive is vastly different from the reality that the rest of us actually live in.

 

[Mariposa]

1. Separation of church and state.
2. Reform of social programs-better run, better funded, more readily available.. Real help.
3. Education reform- MORE FUNDING- more teachers, better stocked schools, more alternative education options (performing arts schools, science academies, etc) as part of the public school system

 

[WIcruizer]

you have, based on your posts, demonstrated an inability to fully comprehend nuance.

That's precious. You twist polls to tell you what you want them to say, and then say I don't understand "nuance." There is no nuance in supportuing the war, or withdrawing troops. They are two very different questions, and you attempted (and failed) to represent those views as being one in the same.

 

[dcentity2000]

Energy, energy, energy.

Renewable sources of energy (tidal power, wind farms, solar fields, geothermal etc) are all too underdeveloped to provide us with sufficient energy as it stands. Coal, oil and gas are running out and fast too.

That means more nuclear energy.

That's gonna be a huge topic of contention.



Rich::

 

[Mugg Mann]

That's precious. You twist polls to tell you what you want them to say, and then say I don't understand "nuance." There is no nuance in supportuing the war, or withdrawing troops. They are two very different questions, and you attempted (and failed) to represent those views as being one in the same.

I stand by my comments. This sidebar to the thread started because the point was made by a poster that gay marriage should be illegal because the majority of Americans weren't in favor of it. I pointed out that by that logic, we shouldn't be fighting the Iraq war because the majority of Americans are against that as well, and then provided a number of different polls to back up that sentiment. The wording may not be as neat and tidy as you apparently need it to be in order to follow the logic, but the overwhelming sentiment expressed by the public is quite clear. That was my only point around that particular issue.

Your continued dodge of your misstatements surrounding the Gallup polls still remains on the record. One can't help but notice that you had no comment concerning that.

 

[toto2]

First, most laws do originate from religious doctrine. Murder, assault, theft, etc. So just because an objection to gay marriage is based on religious doctrine doesn't make it any less valid.

But here's a non-religious objection. Gay marriage doesn't make sense. I don't care if two gay people consider themselves "married." I just don't believe the state should acknowedge it. I say that with no knowledge of the legality of gay marriage, because whther it is "legal" or not is not my point. Marriage has always been acknowledged as being between a man and woman. It is tradition. What's next, can two giraffes get married? A man and 4 women? A man and his Porsche? Before you say that's ridiculous, 20 years ago anyone would have said two men getting officially married was ridiculous also. And it is.

I am not a giraffe or a Porche. In some African countries , it is a tradition to cut a ******** and sew her sexual organ until marriage. Yep , it is a tradition , so we should not get outrage about that.


It has been a tradion for many , many , many years that Americans of american descent should not drink in at same water as Americans of Europeen descent . Did it make this tradition right ?


But I think that same-sex marriage as been used a screen against much more important things in the USA.

 

[Mugg Mann]

I decided to do some factual research instead of relying on your perceptions, since previous fact checking has found your perceptions to be faulty.

The final gallup poll counting voters who were not undecided prior to the 2004 presidential election had Bush winning with 49% of the vote to Kerry's 47%. Here is the link showing that:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/polls/usatodaypolls.htm

The actual election had Bush winning with 51% of the vote to Kerry's 48%.
Here is one of the many links you can use to verify this:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/president/

Bush won by a margin of three percent when the final gallup poll predicted he would win by two percent. Let's again review your perception of reality based on what you posted:

"Gallup's polling is unreliable. They have been way off the past two Presidential elections."

The fact that you consider a difference of one percent sufficient to validate the phrases "unreliable" and "way off" casts serious doubts on your credibility, and only verifies that the reality you claim to accurately perceive is vastly different from the reality that the rest of us actually live in.

Just bumping to give WICruizer another chance to answer this.....

 

[WIcruizer]

Just bumping to give WICruizer another chance to answer this.....

Just as soon as you answer why you feel "support for the war" and "pulling out of Iraq" are one in the same. Since you keep backpeddling from this, I'm left to believe either you still think those statements are one in the same.

 

[Mugg Mann]

See posts #60 & #85. I've already addressed your point. Twice, in fact. And then refer to post #63, where bsnyder apologized for the same misinterpretation of my comments that, based on your posts, you seemingly are not able to comprehend in the proper context. I respect bsnyder for demonstrating maturity and perceptiveness in recognizing his mistake and moving on, and I look forward to further debate with him.

I've included this summary only because frankly, for whatever reason, you apparently need it. Either you can keep up with the discussion or you can't, and there's a growing body of evidence that the latter may in fact be true. Whether you find it satisfactory to your liking or not (or even if you can understand it or not), you have my response.

The board still awaits your response to your apparent factual inaccuracy around the Gallup poll as stated in post #81, as you continually grasp for any reason whatsoever not to address it. It would appear that you blindly follow the current administration's standard protocol of trying to divert attention from mistakes you've made by going on the attack, especially when that attack is based on fictional reasons.

 

[hokiefan33]

While I do not share it, I can appreciate your perspective, and to be fair, your assumptions about me regarding this issue would be correct. I believe that religious diversity (including the lack of religious beliefs among many in the populace as an equally legitimate viewpoint) are one of the great strengths of this country. May I also assume that your objections to gay marriage are religious in nature? If so, may I respectfully ask how you reconcile your objections with the fact that the first amendment, while protecting your right to believe whatever doctrine you want, specifically prohibits passing laws that establish any type of religious doctrine in this country?

Sorry, I've been out of town, but wanted to address your comments. You are correct, my objections are religious in nature. As to how I reconcile them with the 1st Amendment, I honestly don't feel they need to be. Since my objections are religious, rather than political or legal, I don't feel they need to be reconciled against a legal standard. The 1st Amendment guarantees certain legal freedoms, but doesn't make you believe one thing or another. My religous objections aren't based upon what is legal, but upon what I believe to be moral and correct, given my religious beliefs. To me, it's like comparing an apple and an orange. They don't work against each other. I'm all for allowing people to have their own religious freedoms, no problem with that. And along with that is my right to be able to say that I think certain things are Biblically incorrect, based upon religous reasons.

 

[hokiefan33]

But what you and Hokie propose is to ensure that the state does not recognize marriages that run afoul of your belief system. That cannot be reconciled with any honest reading of the Establishment Clause. Not only that, it's not right

To be clear, I haven't "proposed" anything, so let's refrain from sticking words in my mouth, thank you.

And you say "it's not right." Based on what? To say "it's not right", there has to be a standard for right and a standard for wrong. What is your standard? Amazingly enough, I would say that many different people have many different standards. And the "legal" standard, at least for me, is not my highest standard.

 

[hokiefan33]

I wouldn't ask someone to vote for same-sex marriage if they felt that vote violated their beliefs. I would however, ask them to abstain from voting on the issue if it came to that. I would hope that people who realize that someone else's marriage is none of their business, wouldn't vote against it based on their own personal beliefs. That would be a little hypocritical, wouldn't it?

How is it hypocritical? It's not saying one thing, then doing another, is it? If that vote comes up for me, I've said I oppose it, and I would vote to oppose it, which would back up 100% what I say. How is that hypocritical? I am being asked to give my vote on a matter as a citizen, and I would be doing that. What you are saying, it seems, is "vote yes if you agree, but don't vote at all if you disagree." What do you call that? I would hope that people have enough conviction about what they believe to back it up with a vote, if and when the vote presents itself.

 

[Puffy2]

It is tradition. What's next, can two giraffes get married? A man and 4 women? A man and his Porsche? Before you say that's ridiculous, 20 years ago anyone would have said two men getting officially married was ridiculous also. And it is.

In a free country any adult citizen should be free to marry any other adult citizen of their choosing. This excludes animals and cars or children because they are not adult citizens.

As for the multiple spouse thing, as long as they are all adults (18 and over) and enter into the contract freely, I think they too should be able to "marry" if they want. People are already doing this in Utah with little to no legal prosecution.

Still, folks, this issue doesn't matter in the large scheme of things. Focus on what is important (whether or not you will have a job with a livning wage , whether your right to own property will be protected, whether we will have honest elections, whether we will have dependable energy resources at fair prices, whether or not you can afford a college education, whether or not you will have access to healthcare when you need it without losing your home, whether your son /daughter will be drafted to fight an unjust war - these things MATTER...whether Bill and Steve decide to get a civil union licence across town DOES NOT)

 

[hokiefan33]

In a free country any adult citizen should be free to marry any other adult citizen of their choosing. This excludes animals and cars or children because they are not adult citizens.

As for the multiple spouse thing, as long as they are all adults (18 and over) and enter into the contract freely, I think they too should be able to "marry" if they want. People are already doing this in Utah with little to no legal prosecution.

Still, folks, this issue doesn't matter in the large scheme of things. Focus on what is important (whether or not you will have a job with a livning wage , whether your right to own property will be protected, whether we will have honest elections, whether we will have dependable energy resources at fair prices, whether or not you can afford a college education, whether or not you will have access to healthcare when you need it without losing your home, whether your son /daughter will be drafted to fight an unjust war - these things MATTER...whether Bill and Steve decide to get a civil union licence across town DOES NOT)

Puffy, I respect your right to your opinion. Keep in mind, however, that others have opinions that differ from yours, and it is only your opinion that certain issues "matter" and certain issues "do not." For many other people, the issues that you don't think matter at all are very important to them, and the issues that you think do matter are not at all important to others. It all has to do with what perspective you are viewing these matters from.

 

[AnaheimGirl]

How is it hypocritical? It's not saying one thing, then doing another, is it? If that vote comes up for me, I've said I oppose it, and I would vote to oppose it, which would back up 100% what I say. How is that hypocritical? I am being asked to give my vote on a matter as a citizen, and I would be doing that. What you are saying, it seems, is "vote yes if you agree, but don't vote at all if you disagree." What do you call that? I would hope that people have enough conviction about what they believe to back it up with a vote, if and when the vote presents itself.

I think it's hypocritical to admit that another person's marriage is none of anyone else's business, then turn around and vote to regulate another person's marriage. My comments were directed at another poster who specifically said

I don't care what they do in their own home. It's none of my business. But don't ask me to endorse gay marriage with my vote!

If it's none of your (general "your") business, why stick "your" nose in someone else's marriage by voting to prevent them from marrying the person they love? If you (again, general "you") do feel strongly enough about same-sex marriage to vote against it, then don't try to pretend you don't, by saying it's none of your business. That's what's hypocritical.

And WRT the first amendment. As you said

My religous objections aren't based upon what is legal, but upon what I believe to be moral and correct, given my religious beliefs. To me, it's like comparing an apple and an orange. They don't work against each other.

If they don't work against each other, why does it matter whether same-sex marriage is legal? This wouldn't change your beliefs. Your church would not be forced to perform or even accept such marriages. It would only be legal. It would allow people of other religions, who believe differently, to marry in accordance with their beliefs. If, as you say, you're

all for allowing people to have their own religious freedoms, no problem with that.

then why on earth would you vote to force others to conform to your religious standards?

 

[hokiefan33]

I think it's hypocritical to admit that another person's marriage is none of anyone else's business, then turn around and vote to regulate another person's marriage. My comments were directed at another poster who specifically said If it's none of your (general "your") business, why stick "your" nose in someone else's marriage by voting to prevent them from marrying the person they love? If you (again, general "you") do feel strongly enough about same-sex marriage to vote against it, then don't try to pretend you don't, by saying it's none of your business. That's what's hypocritical.

That's fine, sounds like it was intended at a different poster. Trust me, on this issue, I'll always say and vote the same way.

And WRT the first amendment. As you said

My religous objections aren't based upon what is legal, but upon what I believe to be moral and correct, given my religious beliefs. To me, it's like comparing an apple and an orange. They don't work against each other.

If they don't work against each other, why does it matter whether same-sex marriage is legal? This wouldn't change your beliefs. Your church would not be forced to perform or even accept such marriages. It would only be legal. It would allow people of other religions, who believe differently, to marry in accordance with their beliefs.

It matters b/c I believe strongly in my beliefs, and I believe the issue of same-sex marriages, if legalized everywhere, would be detrimental to our society. I object to them, religiously. If they are eventually legalized, I will still object to them religiously, but could not then object to them legally. If we pass laws banning them, then I will still object religiously, and could also then object legally. However, believing strongly as I do, I would always seek to try and match up legally with what I believe religiously. If I didn't, how strong would my religious convictions really be? I didn't make this an issue myself, but since it IS an issue, I will certainly voice my opinion and tender my vote, if and when I am given the opportunity.

If, as you say, you're

all for allowing people to have their own religious freedoms, no problem with that.

then why on earth would you vote to force others to conform to your religious standards?

As I said above, b/c I would then be a hypocrite, if I said I believe religiously that it is unacceptable, but then either voted to allow it or didn't vote to ban it. I would then be saying that I believe it, but not strongly enough to take a stand on it. I will always object to it, religiously. But that doesn't mean I can legally stop it. But if given the chance to legally stop it, I would, b/c to not do so would mean I had no convictions.

 

[AnaheimGirl]

then why on earth would you vote to force others to conform to your religious standards?

As I said above, b/c I would then be a hypocrite, if I said I believe religiously that it is unacceptable, but then either voted to allow it or didn't vote to ban it.

This is kind of funny. You find it hypocritical not to vote against something you oppose religiously, but I find it hypocritical to claim to be for religious freedom, while voting to ban other people from legally marrying in accordance with their own religious beliefs.

I believe the issue of same-sex marriages, if legalized everywhere, would be detrimental to our society.

How so?

 

[WIcruizer]

Mugg, I was wrong about Gallop's poll for the 2004 election. I remember a mess that followed the election, but it was Zogby. (They changed their prediction after the election.) However, Gallop was way off in the 2000 Presidential election, and if memory serves, they weren't very accurate on the mid term elections.

 

[scubamouse]

Originally Posted by hokiefan33
I believe the issue of same-sex marriages, if legalized everywhere, would be detrimental to our society.

More detrimental than divorce which gets precious little attention from the political right?

and i'll save you the searching my view on this from an earlier post on this thread

gay marriage - i'd like to see the gov't get out of the business of issuing marriage licenses period.

let the states issue civil union licenses and have churches issue marriage certificates. if a church allows gays to get married great, if not fine. it would also mean that people like Kenny Chesney and Brittany et al wouldn't be married either and therefore their marriages wouldn't impact 'the sanctity of marriage' either. i'd like the discussion to focus on the adverse impact of short lived marriages which i think are far more problematic than whether adam and steve can be 'married' for 20 years or not.

 

[hokiefan33]

This is kind of funny. You find it hypocritical not to vote against something you oppose religiously, but I find it hypocritical to claim to be for religious freedom, while voting to ban other people from legally marrying in accordance with their own religious beliefs.

I find it hypocritical not to vote against something that I oppose religiously, that is true. I am for all freedoms currently afforded individuals by our laws - doesn't mean I agree with them, but I uphold each individual's rights to those legal freedoms. However, as I've pointed out, religious freedoms and legal freedoms don't always coincide. I believe my religion clearly prohibits same-sex marriages, among other things. Does that mean that if they are legally allowed, that I would then be for them? No, I would still object on religious grounds, and though people would then have legal freedom to have them, I still would not agree, though I would support their legal right to do so. The fact that religious and legal freedoms don't coincide also means, for me, that given the opportunity to bring legal freedoms closer in line with my religious thinking, I would choose to do so (i.e. vote to ban same-sex marriages). The fact that I support people's legal right to do something, whether I agree with it or not, doesn't mean that I would never change it, it only means that given the rights as they exist right now, I support their RIGHT, even if I don't support their ACTIONS. There's a difference, and I think you're missing that.

As to the "why" of the question, we don't have that kind of time, and all it would be is my opinion versus the opinions of many others who disagree, so it doesn't even matter.


How so?[/QUOTE]