Let's settle it right here on KFM!

[Mr Punch]

Americans only please.

Once only please.

Those other political threads are nowhere near useful persuasive debate on either side. Just vote!

[Vash]

I choose Kerry just because there's no one else running who doesn't have the expression of the third grader who just figured out where Waldo was every time he says something nifty.

On the plus side, I don't much like Kerry. I loathe bush, though. Bush, the band, however, owns all over three different brands of @$$.

[Mr Punch]

Originally posted by Vash
I choose Kerry just because there's no one else running who doesn't have the expression of the third grader who just figured out where Waldo was every time he says something nifty.

On the plus side, I don't much like Kerry. I loathe bush, though. Bush, the band, however, owns all over three different brands of @$$. Thank you Mr Vash, but kindly keep your opinion to other threads. But before you go, is owning 'all over three different brands of @$$' a good thing? [/out of the loop grandpa voice].

[Xebsball]

Screw you!!! I voted! I voted and its for Larry Flint!! :mad:

[mickey]

They are both on the same side: The Skull and Bones.

I registered to vote for Kerry in the primaries. After I learned that they are connected, I realized that my vote did not count for anything-- it was already too late. I chose not to vote for him.

Now you may understand why George W. Bush called to congratulate Kerry.

America stands to lose again. Wake up everybody!!!!

mickey

[Vash]

Originally posted by Mat
Thank you Mr Vash, but kindly keep your opinion to other threads. But before you go, is owning 'all over three different brands of @$$' a good thing? [/out of the loop grandpa voice].
Que?

Mickey:

Yeah, I kinda assumed they was Frat boyz. But, Kerry hasn't had his chance to rape the American peeps, so let him have a go!

[David Jamieson]

They are both on the same side: The Skull and Bones. Yes a yaley frat boy circle jerk group rules american politics :rolleyes:

this has always killed me when people go on about skull and bones. it's a bunch of uni kids for kripes sakes lol.

[Shaolinlueb]

im a democrat, but i dont like kerry.

[Xebsball]

YEAH!!!! CIRCLE JERK!!!!!!!!
YEAH!!!!!

[Indestructible]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
Yes a yaley frat boy circle jerk group rules american politics :rolleyes:

this has always killed me when people go on about skull and bones. it's a bunch of uni kids for kripes sakes lol.

Didn't you see the movie, Kung Lek?:rolleyes:
* que ominous music*
* spoken in the voice of the kid that said" I see dead people!"*
They control everything...

[mickey]

I wish they were just a bunch of university kids.

Though Kerry may not have had the chance to rape the American public, he did help deceive them; he helped bury evidence of POW's/MIA's in Vietnam. Are you willing to forgive him for this?

Why give him the chance to do more damage?

I am not pro Bush, I am anti Bush and anti Kerry and against any subversive turd that represents agendas other than the well being of the American people.

This is worse than seeing Janet's boob at the Superbowl.

SERIOUSLY!!!


mickey

[PaulH]

If you don't like my posts, there is a good way to get even! I voted demb! Kerry, my man, I love you! Ha! Ha! ~($)($)~

[CaptinPickAxe]

I choose the lesser of two evils...

I'm not wasting my vote. I vote bush outta office! I also vote to revoke his Texanship.

[IronFist]

Nader :D

Dude, I dunno :confused: Ralph Nader is cool, tho.

[count]

Are you better off than you were when Bush took the office? Vote Bush! But no matter what you think,
VOTE!

[SifuAbel]

I'm a kerry. Bush served his purpose. He was a cowboy when we needed a cowboy. Now, we don't need a cowboy anymore.

And as my wife keeps saying, he was a C student. I think think that C stood for something else. :D

[sean_stonehart]

Look what happened last time we had an "A" student... :rolleyes:

You're right about the cowboy description though...

At this point I'm really really undecided... I'm a moderate republican but I really don't like some of the things Bush has done, but I don't know enough about Kerry yet to make that kind of decision...

[SifuAbel]

You mean clinton?

Yeah, getting your horn honked isn't a crime.

[Gangsterfist]

I am going to vote for the guy that puts bush out of office, the lesser of two evils if you will

[Vash]

Originally posted by SifuAbel
You mean clinton?

Yeah, getting your horn honked isn't a crime.

Have you actually seen Monica Lewinsky? That should've been.

[WanderingMonk]

My heart says Nader, but will vote for Bush unless something really really bad about Bush comes out before the election.

[mickey]

WanderingMonk,

Here is one for you:

When 9/11 broke out, George was hiding out in Florida............. amongst school children. Sounds like something right out of Stephen King but it is true.

mickey

[Mr Punch]

42 votes.

300-odd views.

I appreciate a lot of the readers may be repeaters or not Americans but I sure hope the real turnout is a **** sight higher than that.

[count]

Originally posted by Mat
42 votes.

300-odd views.

I appreciate a lot of the readers may be repeaters or not Americans but I sure hope the real turnout is a **** sight higher than that.
LOL, Nah, that's par for the course in The United States. Most of the people here are pretty apathetic when it comes to voting. Funny thing is, they aren't so apathetic when it comes to criticizing and complianing.

[Tak]

I wish Mary Carey would run for president. In fact, I can't believe she didn't beat Ahnold in the race for Governator.

Mary Carey in 2008!

[Kymus]

I am unsure of who I am voting for. I know for a fact though that I am not voting for Bush or Kerry. Anyone who wants to take peoples freedoms away based mostly upon religion is not someone I want to run this country, but that's just me. Other than that, I want to learn more about other canidates.

[Christopher M]

Bush and Kerry are the only possibilites for president. In terms of voting ideologically for someone who cannot win, Nader and whoever the Libertarian's put forth are probably the only other choices even vaguely meaningfull.

I don't think Kerry's reason for opposing same-sex marriages is based on religion. He seems to support civil unions, which is the best position anyway - would be even better if he made heterosexual couples only elgible for civil unions as well, and left marriage to religion!

As for voter turnout... it's going to be amusing, in the saddest sense of the term, if there's no increase in voter turnout after all the complaining people have been doing about Bush. If that happens, as many are predicting, it will show just how empty everyone's rhetoric really is.

[Kymus]

Originally posted by Christopher M
In terms of voting ideologically for someone who cannot win, Nader and whoever the Libertarian's put forth are probably the only other choices even vaguely meaningfull.

would be even better if he made heterosexual couples only elgible for civil unions as well, and left marriage to religion!

As for voter turnout... it's going to be amusing, in the saddest sense of the term, if there's no increase in voter turnout after all the complaining people have been doing about Bush.

Imma reply to each as "1,2,3"

1: That's basically what I figured.. Most of the votes seem to be between Bush and Kerry

2: I can understand your opinion there. Although, a lot of people (not referring to anyone in general) don't realise that many religions have their own ways to Wed people. I wonder if people would have a problem of gay marraige if it were not under Christianity. I mean, I know for a fact that the Pagans have Hand Fasting rituals, and I'm sure the Buddhists have soemthing..(do they).

3: yeah, that's what I'm starting to notice as I've been looking on different voting polls

[norther practitioner]

would be even better if he made heterosexual couples only elgible for civil unions as well, and left marriage to religion!


I've been saying something similar for a while....

I've always seen the word marriage and read in religous conitations, and then there are legal "couples." I think that the government should allow same sex couples/ civil unions/whatever you want to call it. Let religons decide who they want to marry, and let states decide who's they like to pass on certain tax breaks etc. There should be more seperation then there is imho.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kymus
Although, a lot of people don't realise that many religions have their own ways to Wed people. I wonder if people would have a problem of gay marraige if it were not under Christianity.

I'm not sure I follow. What do you mean?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by norther practitioner
I think that the government should allow same sex couples/ civil unions/whatever you want to call it. Let religons decide who they want to marry

Yes. The idea that you have to go through some ritual to get the government's stamp of approval on your emotional relationships is absurd and offensive. People belong to voluntary cultural communities for those sorts of things; or not, as is their wont.

[Kymus]

Originally posted by Christopher M


I'm not sure I follow. What do you mean?

What I am saying, is that the Christians did not create the Religous partnership we call Marraige (some people I have talked to, feel that Marraige is ONLY under God), and therefore (for example) 2 Pagans who are of the same sex, could be Wed as a Marraige (as apposed to Civil Union), as it is religous .

I hope I am making more sense this time. If not, I'm really sorry! :)

[Kymus]

Originally posted by norther practitioner

Let religons decide who they want to marry


I agree 100%. If we are not all of the same religion, why should we be bound by their laws? I brought this up with a friend who is against gay marraige because she feels it is against God's wishes. It is my opinion, that since I am not Christian, but am Buddhist, I shouldn't be bound by those laws, just as no one who isn't Buddhist should be bound by their laws. So yea.. what I am trying to say is.. Well said NP :)

[Christopher M]

I don't think the government is going to stop two Wiccans from celebrating a religious ritual affirming their lifelong commitment, right? And if you apply for a marriage liscence, you don't go through anything Christian.

So it seems like the government is simply enforcing their ideas of cultural institution upon us, rather than enforcing a Christian idea or something like that.

[norther practitioner]

rather than enforcing a Christian idea or something like that.

Many will argue that those were built off of Judeo-Christian values...
aka, not allowing same sex marriages.

[Kymus]

The Govt, maybe not, but I can see an uproar started about it from others.. Then again, the fact that I may wear a t-shirt will cause an uproar with some people too.. My biggest problem is that most of this debate (among americans) is that most people do not support Gay marraige because of their religous beliefs. If the Govt were to opropriatly change things so that a marraige was simply defined as a religous partnership, and civil union, non-religous, and give both the same rights, I really wouldn't care. Although I think that people would still not be satisfied fully... We, as americans, have grown very relaxed with the word "Marraige" and it seems to simply mean a bound, serious, loving relationship. You can get married in a court, or in a church. For many people, it is simply the legal binding that they wish for, not so much the "united under (insert name here)". Sorry if I am running on a tangent here or anything. :).

[norther practitioner]

I would be interested, if give the question:

Would you be against the state qualifying same sex couples for the same tax breaks you get as a married couple?

what the yes no would be....

or:

Would you be against the state qualifying same sex couples for the same rights you get as a married couple?

and:

Would you be against the state qualifying same sex couples for the same recongition as married couples get?

etc.

Family values is what a lot of people towards the right bring up... I don't think thats always the issue.. a part of it, of course, because then same sex couples may then get an equal chance of adopting etc. it is a sticky subject, that I don't think a lot of people realize how big it can get.

to kind of sum things up....
Allow the state to sanction civil unions as it sees fit.. drop the word marriage, or keep it, whatever you want to call it....
Allow religons to denote who they'll marry, and that can be part of it, or not, let the individuals sort themselves out. States give liscences to certain people to perform marriages, etc... keep that, that doesn't need to change.

but get over this whole old school thing with marriage/state/etc.

[Kymus]

NP, to answer your question simply, I feel that ****sexuals deserve the same rights all US citizens deserve. I find it completely wrong to disallow 2 people who can't help their sexual prefrence to not be able to marry.
I hope that answers all your questions.. If I happened to miss something with that statement, lemme know

[Kymus]

oops. When I say "marry" I mean a jointed legal relationship with rights equal to what a legally married couple has. Just wanted to clarrify ;)

[Mutant]

I voted for Kerry. He's about as wooden as a cigar store indian, but he's electable and can beat Bush. He's been a decent senator here in Mass, and i don't think he's a bad person. He's a republicrat but he's our best chance to get rid of Bush.

fwiw, i support gay marriage. I look at it as a civil rights issue. And i really don't want the government amending the Constitution to limit or repress people....

The above comments regarding the making of all marriages into civil unions as far as the government is concerned is very interesting, i hadnt thought of it that way. Semantics?

[Christopher M]

Originaly posted by Kymus
the word "Marraige" and it seems to simply mean a bound, serious, loving relationship.

If that's the case, then why do you depend on your government to validate your marriage? Surely we shouldn't expect our governments to approve or disapprove of our loving relationships.

[Kymus]

Originally posted by Christopher M
[B]

If that's the case, then why do you depend on your government to validate your marriage? Surely we shouldn't expect our governments to approve or disapprove of our loving relationships.

I think we keep misunderstanding eachother here :). I really don't care what the Government thinks. I just want to make sure that every person has the same rights as a citzen of this country. And you're right, "we shouldn't expect our governments to approve or disapprove of our loving relationships."

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by norther practitioner
Many will argue that those were built off of Judeo-Christian values.

I'm sure it's based off of some kind of historical reasoning. Nonetheless, a civil marriage and a Christian marriage are two different things.


Would you be against the state qualifying same sex couples for the same... as married couples get?

I don't think "marriage" should be a term in legislation at all.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kymus
I think we keep misunderstanding eachother here...

Well, sure. That bit I responded to, you seemed to be saying that people would not be happy only getting civil unions from the state, because they were used to the idea of getting marriages, and they followed the definition of marriage you supplied. I was merely replying to that reasoning.

[Kymus]

..so when I find a girl and want to be with her for the rest of my life.. am I gonna end up saying: "Jane".. will you Civil Union me? :D *note: Dumb Joke*

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by MutantWarrior
The above comments regarding the making of all marriages into civil unions as far as the government is concerned is very interesting, i hadnt thought of it that way. Semantics?

Depends on your definition of semantics. It's a solution to one of only two reasonable points of contention in the gay marriage debate; so, though it may be semantics, it's certainly not empty semantics.

The first of these points of contention is as follows: social conservatives feel that marriage is an important part of what keeps our society functioning, and thus is within the mandate of the state to regulate. Conversely, social progressives feel that marriage is an outmoded instrument of prejudice, and thus similarly is within the mandate of the state to regulate - merely, in a different way. Both of these positions ultimately agree that the state should intervene in social matters, and they both want the state to intervene to support their ideology; they differ merely in what their ideology is. Both these groups are very large, and it is unlikely that either will vanish or change their minds. So, this is problematic.

The solution I proposed to this was a third position, the libertarian one, which disagrees with both the conservative and progressive positions in that it declares that the state should not interfere with social matters, regardless of what the outcome of that interference is. By retracting state involvement in social institutions, that is - marriage at all, the libertarian position solves the problem of inequality which is of the utmost concern to the progressives (both hetero- and ****sexuals are being treated the same), and maintains the demands of the conservatives by preserving their cultural traditions.

This is not a perfect position: some progressives will not accept it because they will not accept even voluntary cultural institutions forbidding certain kinds of marriage; many progressives will not accept it because they view the explicit title of marriage to be the goal itself, rather than equality, and consider compromises like this to be the equivalent of social conservatives saying "If we can't have this toy, no one can." Some conservatives will not accept it because they will not accept even voluntary cultural institutions allowing certain kinds of marriage; some conservatives will not accept it because they view maintaining a cultural stigma against same-sex couples as valueable, and feel this diminishes that.

Nonetheless, it still seems like the best position of those available to us.

The other potentially reasonable argument against gay marriages is the view that same-sex couples do not provide an ideal environment for raising children. This is a much more difficult problem for two reasons: firstly, the science has gone both ways on this one, so little can be said empirically; secondly, if we are to take this as problematic, then we must also take steps against the sorts of heterosexual relationships which interfere with ideal child-raising - which would require a substantial rethinking of our entire view on the state's involvement with our families. In any case, this is a contentious issue regardless of one's position on the above matter.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kymus
..am I gonna end up saying: 'Jane'.. will you Civil Union me?

Well, if you belong to a voluntary cultural community which practices marriage, such as a religion, you'd presumably ask her to engage in that practice with you. In any case, this doesn't seem like any business of the state's.

[HopGar]

Bush is my pick. Simple as that.

[Mr Punch]

They don't come much simpler.





:D