TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Your Favorites for the Primary
Pages (6): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 »

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Listen, right now, we're in a mess. Now, before we talk about new civil liberties, we have to worry about losing BASIC civil liberties. This country is in a mess. You want to start talking about gay rights, while troops and Iraqis are dying everyday. Sorry, but gays aren't getting killed everyday in an occupation. Stop the killing, then worry about new civil liberties. Secure the basic liberties, which right now, are in peril.

How does the War in Iraq have anything to do with basic American civil liberties? I'm not talking about the civil liberties of Iraqis, I'm talking about the civil liberties in the United States, where freedom is supposed to be pre-eminent.

quote:

Their constituents are the ones who bring up issues to their legislator to go to Congress to lobby for. Well, right now, constituents are too engulfed in Iraq, Iran, and the "war on terror" to care enough to even want to consider why gay couples deserve equal status as married couples have under the law. That issue is barely covered in the mainstream media. Little has been mentioned in the current primaries about it. Do you know why that is? It's because the bigger issue of our foreign policy (Iraq, Iran, etc.) has everyone's full attention. All I'm saying is fix the situation, then focus on new civil rights.

The mainstream media is not a barometer of what average Americans care about. As popular as cable news is, the majority of Americans don't even watch it. What is most important to a person varies based on the individual in question. Just because the PDD is obsessed with Iran and Iraq does not mean Joe Schmoe in Peoria is. If Joe is gay, or has friends or relatives that are gay, I bet he cares very deeply about the issue of gay marriage, and believes that the inability of two people in love to have that love recognized by the state like any other two people in love is a transgression against our fundamental rights as individuals.

I'm not saying that foreign policy isn't important. I'm simply saying that this issue really is as well for a lot of people, and I find it surprising that you are overlooking its significance and relevance.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov How does the War in Iraq have anything to do with basic American civil liberties? I'm not talking about the civil liberties of Iraqis, I'm talking about the civil liberties in the United States, where freedom is supposed to be pre-eminent.

Have you not been watching what the bush admin has been doing with this war on terror? The Patriot Act? Domestic spying? Verizon and AT&T helping warrentless wiretapping? Where have you been?

quote:

The mainstream media is not a barometer of what average Americans care about. As popular as cable news is, the majority of Americans don't even watch it. What is most important to a person varies based on the individual in question. Just because the PDD is obsessed with Iran and Iraq does not mean Joe Schmoe in Peoria is. If Joe is gay, or has friends or relatives that are gay, I bet he cares very deeply about the issue of gay marriage, and believes that the inability of two people in love to have that love recognized by the state like any other two people in love is a transgression against our fundamental rights as individuals.

If gays want new civil rights, not just them have to want it. The majority of the voters have to want it. The point is the atmosphere for debating gay rights is not favorable for those who want them. War is the reason why.

quote:

I'm not saying that foreign policy isn't important. I'm simply saying that this issue really is as well for a lot of people, and I find it surprising that you are overlooking its significance and relevance.

Ok, fine. Get voters out in good enough numbers to vote in favor or gay rights. You don't get what I'm saying. Do you think voters right now are in any mode to clamor for gay rights? No.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Well he was breaking campaign finance reform laws, which in my opinion are actually good components of election law.

Yeah.

But hey, it's okay to get financed by military and pharmaceutical industries, but we got a big problem when doritos gets involved!!

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_M I think this is totally incorrect. Politicians are a part of the society. Gay civil rights are not acceptable to many people in the US. Same sex marriages are still not as socially acceptable as straight marriages anywhere in the world. The politicians stand to gain more by opposing these rights than supporting them. How many people will frown on same sex marriages ? You can talk about this all over the internet, but when it comes to real life, society is still not ready to accept these issues. If you see two gay men openly kissing in public what fraction of the watchers will feel a revulsion and what fraction will approve of the behavior ? Now replace the kissing couple by a guy and a girl.

I know when I see a black guy kissing a white girl in public I feel such strong words such as "revulsion".

But eventually black and white couples will become accepted in society and be able to marry, I'm sure.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I don't. But I do like to point out blatant hypocrisy by the GOP base instead. And for someone like Grandpa Fred to be aligned with someone who's colorful past in the drug trade is, well, rather interesting to say the least.

What about pointing out the hypocrisy of the democratic base?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby What about pointing out the hypocrisy of the democratic base?

Are there certain topics you have in mind? Not to say I don't have my gripes at some of the issues with the Democrats right now, actually I've got a lotta gripes with them, which I've expressed intermittently on this forum lately. But what did you have in mind?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Are there certain topics you have in mind? Not to say I don't have my gripes at some of the issues with the Democrats right now, actually I've got a lotta gripes with them, which I've expressed intermittently on this forum lately. But what did you have in mind?

I think the question was more of a statement on your eagerness to call out the republicans when both parties are just as corrupt.

Though I won't lie; since we were just talking about gay rights, the first thing that came to mind when I was typing it were some of Clinton's shadier motions on stalling civil rights.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby I think the question was more of a statement on your eagerness to call out the republicans when both parties are just as corrupt. Though I won't lie; since we were just talking about gay rights, the first thing that came to mind when I was typing it were some of Clinton's shadier motions on stalling civil rights.

Well here's a bone to throw out against a pretty well-known Democrat pertaining to gay rights. One of Obama's top spokesmen "blasts gays at Gospel concert", and Obama has done very little to distance himself from him:

http://www.americablog.com/2007/10/...-at-gospel.html

http://www.nysun.com/article/65297

Can't say that helped Obama out too much.

(so does that count? )

I think whats going on at home is a hell of a lot more important than whats going on overseas.

You're obviously straight, so this argument doesn't hit close to home for you. Maybe its because your rights aren't being denied directly, only people you know.

People may not be dying for gay rights but equality is a given right, a promised right. And thats something the US fights wars for so how is this any different? You don't need a war for change..or have you forgotten about movements like those for women's rights and inter-racial marriages/schools/towns.I honestly don't see the difference.

So yes, this is more important than the war in Iraq, or immigration, or damn taxes.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Have you not been watching what the bush admin has been doing with this war on terror? The Patriot Act? Domestic spying? Verizon and AT&T helping warrentless wiretapping? Where have you been?

Now you're changing the subject though - you referred to the war in Iraq, not the Patriot Act, which is indeed an infringement on civil liberties. So yes, I'm familiar with those things, but you did not bring them up in your original argument.

quote:

If gays want new civil rights, not just them have to want it. The majority of the voters have to want it. The point is the atmosphere for debating gay rights is not favorable for those who want them. War is the reason why.

Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll. Oct. 19-22, 2007. N=1,039 registered voters nationwide. MoE � 3.

"Which of the following statements comes closest to your view? Same-sex couples should be allowed to legally marry. OR, Same-sex couples should be allowed to legally form civil unions, but not marry. OR, Same -sex couples should not be allowed to either marry or form civil unions."

10/19-22/07
Marry: 30%
Form Civil Unions: 26%
Neither: 38%
Unsure: 6%

quote:

Ok, fine. Get voters out in good enough numbers to vote in favor or gay rights. You don't get what I'm saying. Do you think voters right now are in any mode to clamor for gay rights? No.

Who are you to judge what the important issues are for any particular voter? Just because you care about the Iraq War and vast financial conspiracies does not mean that is the hot-button issue for everyone. The Family Values people are seriously considering not supporting the nomination of Rudy or Mitt based on their stand on abortion and civil unions, and yet that is not an influential election issue? Says who? The issues that are in sharp focus are cyclical - lest you forget that John Kerry lost the 2004 election as a direct result of civil union amendments being on multiple state ballots in contested states like Ohio. It's an issue that brings people out to vote en masse, and we're still suffering the consequences of it.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll. Oct. 19-22, 2007. N=1,039 registered voters nationwide. MoE � 3. "Which of the following statements comes closest to your view? Same-sex couples should be allowed to legally marry. OR, Same-sex couples should be allowed to legally form civil unions, but not marry. OR, Same -sex couples should not be allowed to either marry or form civil unions." 10/19-22/07 Marry: 30% Form Civil Unions: 26% Neither: 38% Unsure: 6% Who are you to judge what the important issues are for any particular voter? Just because you care about the Iraq War and vast financial conspiracies does not mean that is the hot-button issue for everyone.

finally something i can agree with.
thanks for the poll too

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Now you're changing the subject though - you referred to the war in Iraq, not the Patriot Act, which is indeed an infringement on civil liberties. So yes, I'm familiar with those things, but you did not bring them up in your original argument.

Well, now you know what I was referring to..

quote:

Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll. Oct. 19-22, 2007. N=1,039 registered voters nationwide. MoE � 3. "Which of the following statements comes closest to your view? Same-sex couples should be allowed to legally marry. OR, Same-sex couples should be allowed to legally form civil unions, but not marry. OR, Same -sex couples should not be allowed to either marry or form civil unions." 10/19-22/07 Marry: 30% Form Civil Unions: 26% Neither: 38% Unsure: 6%

AND? I have yet to hear one presidential candidate even mention gay rights. Repeat this poll across america, not just LA, and you will not find a ubiquitous support or even a care about gay rights. And my point is, Iraq is the defining issue of today, not gay rights.

quote:

Who are you to judge what the important issues are for any particular voter? Just because you care about the Iraq War and vast financial conspiracies does not mean that is the hot-button issue for everyone. The Family Values people are seriously considering not supporting the nomination of Rudy or Mitt based on their stand on abortion and civil unions, and yet that is not an influential election issue? Says who? The issues that are in sharp focus are cyclical - lest you forget that John Kerry lost the 2004 election as a direct result of civil union amendments being on multiple state ballots in contested states like Ohio. It's an issue that brings people out to vote en masse, and we're still suffering the consequences of it.

I am not judging the important issues for voters. I'm telling you what the main issue most voters are focused on. Today, that is Iraq. I really don't know why you won't accept that..

I think the solution, until there is a focus on the issue, is to give states the right to decide for themselves. Federal government should not be involved. Each state should decide on its own over the issue. No constitutional amendments, no legalization on the federal level is appropriate in my opinion.

im glad my points were totally ignored.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Well, now you know what I was referring to..

You never once mentioned it! How could I possibly derive the Patriot Act from your reference to Iraqis being killed overseas?

quote:

AND? I have yet to hear one presidential candidate even mention gay rights. Repeat this poll across america, not just LA, and you will not find a ubiquitous support or even a care about gay rights.

This is how polling works - it is sponsored by a certain group (The LATimes in this case), conducted by a national polling agency (Bloomsberg in this case), and uses nation-wide sampling to create an idea of what the national sentiment on a particular issue is. So that was a national poll that reflects that this country is deeply divided on the idea of gay marriage/civil unions. I'm sorry that wasn't clear.

quote:

And my point is, Iraq is the defining issue of today, not gay rights.

It's very naive to think that only one issue matters in an election cycle. Very naive. If Iraq were the defining issue of this election, than Giuliani, who supports this Administration's policy, would be nowhere near a frontrunner when 50% of his own party disagrees with how the war is being conducted. It is pretty obvious that political support is garnered for a variety of issues.

quote:

I am not judging the important issues for voters. I'm telling you what the main issue most voters are focused on. Today, that is Iraq. I really don't know why you won't accept that..

This whole argument started because you criticized barbina for staking importance to the issue of gay rights!!! You told her that the war in Iraq should be more important to her. That's what our disagreement is over, not whether more Americans are concerned about Iraq or civil unions, which is kind of a moot point!

quote:

I think the solution, until there is a focus on the issue, is to give states the right to decide for themselves. Federal government should not be involved. Each state should decide on its own over the issue. No constitutional amendments, no legalization on the federal level is appropriate in my opinion.

And why? Is marriage a civil right in some states but not others? You're the libertarian here, not me.

quote:

Originally posted by barbina im glad my points were totally ignored.

I didn't comment on them because I agree with them and thought they stand pretty well on their own.

quote:

Originally posted by barbina im glad my points were totally ignored.

Nobodies ignored your points. I rather agree with you. I'm just saying we have bigger issues that need to be taken care of before voters will come out in numbers large enough to lobby for gay rights.

quote:

It's very naive to think that only one issue matters in an election cycle. Very naive. If Iraq were the defining issue of this election, than Giuliani, who supports this Administration's policy, would be nowhere near a frontrunner when 50% of his own party disagrees with how the war is being conducted. It is pretty obvious that political support is garnered for a variety of issues.

How is Iraq not the defining issue is my question to you..

What issue is more important than the Iraq war and war on terror. I'm not saying nothing else is important, I'm saying they are defining issues that take precedent over all others. I really don't know how war is ever NOT the defining issue of any country involved in a large scale operation.

quote:

This whole argument started because you criticized barbina for staking importance to the issue of gay rights!!! You told her that the war in Iraq should be more important to her. That's what our disagreement is over, not whether more Americans are concerned about Iraq or civil unions, which is kind of a moot point!

Well, hmm. People dying over there because of a war, nobody dying over here because they don't have marriage rights. Which one is more important? Obviously, there are much more pressing issues that I believe should be resolved, before we focus on social issues. How can we fix our social woes if we're fighting wars, spending billions on weapons, instead of our own society. That's my point.

quote:

And why? Is marriage a civil right in some states but not others? You're the libertarian here, not me.

I believe states should decide things such as drug decriminalization, gay rights, and similar issues. I don't believe the federal government should be involved in legislating society. Sometimes, there needs to be comprimise. State power can be one way of comprimising on gay rights, and slowly over time, states might change their law to make it favorable for gay rights. It can't just happen overnight. I do believe that under the guarentee of liberty by the constitution, gives gays the right to claim marraige rights. I agree with barbina!!

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I rather agree with you.

wtf? whats with the pretence of limited government at all costs Mr. Originalist?

what would Ron Paul say?

quote:

Originally posted by barbina I think whats going on at home is a hell of a lot more important than whats going on overseas. You're obviously straight, so this argument doesn't hit close to home for you. Maybe its because your rights aren't being denied directly, only people you know. People may not be dying for gay rights but equality is a given right, a promised right. And thats something the US fights wars for so how is this any different? You don't need a war for change..or have you forgotten about movements like those for women's rights and inter-racial marriages/schools/towns.I honestly don't see the difference. So yes, this is more important than the war in Iraq, or immigration, or damn taxes.

Look, my sister is a lesbian and she has had the same gf for over a year. I can tell you from experience that it is disgusting to have homesexuals under the same roof.
But, really gay rights are not want is making this country into a shithole. It has to be that many times I go out to the movies, I am always asked to show my ID. Once when I was 20, my sis and I went to the an early movie show and were refused to watch the film because we weren't over the age of 21. My sister had forgotten to bring her ID so the lady rejected us. Also, we give moron's the right to enforce laws that they break all the time. I am talking about police offficers. The government hires only two type of people. Really smart ones or really stupid ones. They do this so that the smart ones move up and the stupid ones stay at the menial jobs. Sadly, the stupid ones have moved into the senate, congress and even our white house.
This whole stupid people taking over our system has been ruining the American society because stupid people don't want less of a government, they want a bigger government to hold their hand. Our biggest threat comes from an ever expanding government believe it or not. Moving to Canada won't change anything. You still will be left unhappy because guess what? People there are homophoebic too. You don't have every Canadian waving gay flags, do you? No.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo wtf? whats with the pretence of limited government at all costs Mr. Originalist? what would Ron Paul say?

Pretext? The same reason why we had a revolution in the 1770's.

Ron Paul would agree with me. With liberty being a guarenteed birth-right, if gays want to be married, then let them get married. They are not violating anyone elses rights. No crime is being committed.

As for state's rights, it would be much easier for individual states to decide the gay rights issue than for the federal government to do so.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton As for state's rights, it would be much easier for individual states to decide the gay rights issue than for the federal government to do so.

If it is a right protected under the Constituion, what needs to be decided? This is where I lose your "stick to the Constitution" argument.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton How is Iraq not the defining issue is my question to you..

I'm not denying that Iraq is a tremendously important issue for a great many voters. I'm simply trying to point out that for some, it is not the only defining issue of this campaign.

quote:

What issue is more important than the Iraq war and war on terror. I'm not saying nothing else is important, I'm saying they are defining issues that take precedent over all others. I really don't know how war is ever NOT the defining issue of any country involved in a large scale operation.

Again, I agree in principle (I'm a student of foreign policy after all), but you have to look at it from the perspective of how individual issues impact individual people. If you were gay, gay marriage would matter a great deal to you, as it would to myself.

quote:

Originally posted by ams.rld Look, my sister is a lesbian and she has had the same gf for over a year. I can tell you from experience that it is disgusting to have homesexuals under the same roof. Moving to Canada won't change anything. You still will be left unhappy because guess what? People there are homophoebic too. You don't have every Canadian waving gay flags, do you? No.

I do NOT appreciate you attacking me. I have seen, FROM EXPERIENCE, that Canada is a MUCH more tolerable country when it comes to the homosexual population. Also, as being one of the few countries that DOES allow same-sex marriages it obviously is much more open to the idea of homosexuality. It is people like you who make me want to leave the US. You need to be more tolerant of people around you. You are not the only person living in this country, let alone this world. Judge yourself before you judge others. I shouldn't have to flee to another country to be who I am and to get what I was garunteed when I was born -until, of course, when it will be a woman I am marrying instead of a man. I am not asking for "everyone to wave a gay flag" I'm asking for the right to marry the woman I love. Your sister deserves that right, and your respect too.

Human is human. Love is love.
Whoever supports it most gets my vote.

And to everyone else..
sorry about the thread jack

quote:

Originally posted by barbina I do NOT appreciate you attacking me. I have seen, FROM EXPERIENCE, that Canada is a MUCH more tolerable country when it comes to the homosexual population. Also, as being one of the few countries that DOES allow same-sex marriages it obviously is much more open to the idea of homosexuality. It is people like you who make me want to leave the US. You need to be more tolerant of people around you. You are not the only person living in this country, let alone this world. Judge yourself before you judge others. I shouldn't have to flee to another country to be who I am and to get what I was garunteed when I was born -until, of course, when it will be a woman I am marrying instead of a man. I am not asking for "everyone to wave a gay flag" I'm asking for the right to marry the woman I love. Your sister deserves that right, and your respect too. Human is human. Love is love. Whoever supports it most gets my vote. And to everyone else.. sorry about the thread jack

Ok, sarcasm flew over your head.

I don't see how sarcasm could be fitting for a heated political thread.
Especially since your comments had any joking matter behind them.
I'd work on that.
So if you truly were being sarcastic, then I apologize.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov If it is a right protected under the Constituion, what needs to be decided? This is where I lose your "stick to the Constitution" argument.

I believe in the choice of individual states to decide social issues according to the constitution. Unless there is a threat of a loss of law and order over an issue, I don't think the Federal government should be involved in social issues at the local level.

quote:

Again, I agree in principle (I'm a student of foreign policy after all), but you have to look at it from the perspective of how individual issues impact individual people. If you were gay, gay marriage would matter a great deal to you, as it would to myself.

I agree, but the reality of the current situation makes the war a more important issue in terms of money, ethics, lives, etc. Realizing this, before we can debate a relatively minor social issue(in terms of people affected), we need to remedy our greatest problem which is the war.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.