USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

You can talk about anything here

Moderator: Global Moderator

HuggyPierre
N3O Officer
N3O Officer
Posts: 1738
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 4:06 pm

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by HuggyPierre »

[quote=""Sporting_Lisbon""]I'm cheering for Obama too.[/quote]

Same here. But actually I'm not really into american politics, but i think the US need a change.

ZoRPrimE
Major
Major
Posts: 251
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 7:00 am
Location: Limassol, Cyprus

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by ZoRPrimE »

I find it interesting to get foreign views on what they want in a US presidency. As America is probably the country that most non-americans follow who's going to be president (other than thier own coutnries.) Non-US citizens offer a lot of insight into what America could/should do if you were not to look at any of america's own domestic concerns. I've had many euro's tell me they were absolutely surprised that Bush could and was re-elected. I think the key aspect that made it more surprising for foreigners than for US citizens was, the complete picture of US domestic affairs as well as foreign policy decisions. Also the problem with getting good fair foreign news is not just a problem for the US, it's a problem for all foreign countries and the more foreign they are the less reliable the snidbits of news you get are. You've got translate, you have original media bias, translating media bias and possibly yet another intermediary media bias, add to that the relative freedom of press in various countries and you don't have very reliable news. Which is why foreign travel IMHO is still a must for anyone wanting to understand better the percieved problems with a or any foreign country. europeans really have the American beat on this front however, foreign travel doesn't guarantee enlightenment. There are many people capable of seeing what they want to see no matter where they are. For Example: various politicians that have managed to see exactly what they thought they would see in Iraq.



I think globalization is making it ever more important for individual countries to make international affairs a larger concern in there domestic elections. I know the Iraq war is a biggie for US but I think at the end of the day very little will be done much differently by each of the candidates and if there is and it's largely unpopular that politician will modify thier statements to be competitive. As long as they didn't overcomit early. In US two party system it's about winning for your party (without popular support and influential friends you won't win!) After winning it's about taking care of your base that got you elected.
"It is by will alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the juice of sapho that thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by will alone I set my mind

KingKaramazov
Honorary Member
Honorary Member
Posts: 1216
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 12:12 pm
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by KingKaramazov »

Cyclo, Ron Paul's ideas are generally very interesting, and I think he isn't fairly represented by the media or by his fellow Republicans. Pretty much everybody talks about him as if he's some crazy old nut ranting and raving.

The fact is, he's never going to be elected. I'm not sure he really has the charisma or the personality to actually get people in politics to support him with any of his ideas, either, which is actually very important.

Personally the first thing I want to see in a prospective President is somebody who will be a good representative of the United States to the rest of the world. In many ways, that's exactly what the President is -- a representation of the American people.

That's why George Bush is such a terrible President, because his attitude and his actions cause the rest of the world to hate us and have an unfavorable opinion of the American people in general. Obviously he wasn't the ONLY person, by any means, who contributed, but he certainly did a lot.

Now, in regards to Health Care, we need a general revamp of our whole Medicare and Medicaid system. That is the main reason for our huge deficits and it's going to bankrupt our country within the next twenty years or so. Look up the Fiscal Responsibility Tour and GAO Chief David Walker if you don't believe me (David Walker -- now there's a guy I would support for President). The same goes for Social Security, although to a lesser extent.

In regards to taxes, I think they need to be looked at very carefully. Rich people can and should pay more taxes. But I completely agree with you that the definition of "rich" needs to be dealt with in the right way. People in the middle or upper middle class who have a total household income of under 200k a year don't qualify as rich. My family probably has a total household income of about 130, 140k a year so but we are by no means rich. My parents are having enough trouble paying for my college tuition. But there are people in the very highest echelon of the social strata who can afford to pay far more than they do in terms of taxes, people who indeed have benefited the most from the stability and economic prosperity that our government ensures. Those people probably pay far fewer taxes than anybody else simply because they have so much influence in Washington and because they have ways of getting around taxes.

I don't care about the marriage amendment. G a y people can get married or have civil unions for all I care. They're people too, and they don't choose to be the way they are. Religion is supposed to be removed from politics (re: Constitution) so it is not right in any way to rule against g a y marriage based on religious views or what the Bible says. As for adoption rights, unless I am given some kind of proof that children who are raised by same sex parents are somehow not given equal care or something as children who are raised by heterosexual parents, I don't think there's any good reason not to let them adopt. You can make the argument that g a y parents might somehow pressure their children to become g a y (which I think is probably completely untrue) but to be honest, straight parents pressure children to be straight. It works both ways. Anyways, I don't think that's an issue that should decide an election. Social issues should be worked out by individual states if you ask me.

I'm completely for abortion. The decision belongs in the hands of the people who have to choose between giving birth or not, and nobody else. That's all I have to say on the matter.

As for Iraq - it was a mistake, it had nothing to do with our national security or terrorism, and now us being over there is doing more to foster terrorism than anything else. I'm not completely isolationist, however. If we need to intervene in states where terrorist cells are located, then I'm all for it. But nation building is not our responsibility. I don't think we can safely withdraw from there immediately but we should set some kind of timetable which would put pressure on the Iraqi government to start getting things together. It would also get us more support from our allies and other European nations who have disagreed with us on the war so far.


All in all, what I want in a candidate is somebody who is willing to be open minded and who will listen to the people, the Congress, and his advisers, and who will not see any of the people speaking to him in terms of parties but in terms of what they have to say. It's really difficult to say for sure, but I think both Obama and McCain could fall into that category. All I know is they are much better than Hillary or Romney. I'm glad Romney is out, and I'm hoping Hillary is not nominated.
"Why are some people all grasshopper fiddlings, scrappings, all antennae shivering, one big ganglion eternally knotting, slip-knotting, square-knotting themselves? They stoke a furnace all their lives, sweat their lips, shine their ey

Navarone_Guy
Honorary Officer
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 9:02 am
Location: Over there

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by Navarone_Guy »

I'm not even going to get started on this, because I know if I join in it's going to get nasty. I'm very, very, very into politics... and very opinionated to boot.
Groovy.

User avatar
RascalJones
N3O Member
N3O Member
Posts: 1275
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:22 am
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Contact:

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by RascalJones »

Religion is NOT supposed to be removed from politics. The Constitution only says that the Government has no power to dictate which religion people belong to, or who or how they choose to worship (outside of anything illegal of course, like human sacrifice).

User avatar
I__CHAOS__I
N3O Member
N3O Member
Posts: 3009
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 12:55 am
Location: ??

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by I__CHAOS__I »

I think history proved more than once that politics and religion should NOT be kept together... Religion is a freedom, based on individual believes/experiences and has nothing to do with politics, which should be based on rights and collective approvals.
Image
Wisdom is the supreme part of happiness. - Sophocles
Happiness belongs to the self-sufficient. - Aristotle

User avatar
RascalJones
N3O Member
N3O Member
Posts: 1275
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:22 am
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Contact:

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by RascalJones »

I'm completely for abortion. The decision belongs in the hands of the people who have to choose between giving birth or not, and nobody else. That's all I have to say on the matter.
Too bad the person that is in the womb has no say in the matter.

User avatar
RascalJones
N3O Member
N3O Member
Posts: 1275
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:22 am
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Contact:

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by RascalJones »

[quote=""RascalJones""]Religion is NOT supposed to be removed from politics. The Constitution only says that the Government has no power to dictate which religion people belong to, or who or how they choose to worship (outside of anything illegal of course, like human sacrifice).[/quote]

Quoting yourself is good, right?

Anyway, I thought I'd post the first amendment text regarding religion, just to back up my point...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

KingKaramazov
Honorary Member
Honorary Member
Posts: 1216
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 12:12 pm
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by KingKaramazov »

Separation of church and state. In my mind it doesn't just extend to the separation of the political entity of the church from the political entity of the government.

The people of a diverse nation should not be subject to legislation based on the uniform religious beliefs of one legislative body.

In other words, not everybody in America is Christian or Jewish, so why should laws be created based on Christian beliefs? In any case, my point is, there should be greater reasons for the creation of a law than because "the Bible says so." If you find me an objective reason why *** people shouldn't be able to marry each other, then I'll give the stance some more credit. Otherwise, you're just enforcing religious beliefs on people who don't belong to your religion.

Regarding abortion, it's a very polarizing issue, but I feel strongly, as I said, that the choice belongs in the hand of the person who is pregnant. It's far too easy for political activists, particularly male ones, who are so removed from the situation to make philosophical statements and stances against the issue. But the fact is, it doesn't apply to you. You have NO idea what it's like to be in that situation, and there's NO way for a law to fairly apply to every single situation that might arise when it comes to abortion. I agree that it is a moral decision. However, it's one that belongs in the hands of the mother, and nobody else.
"Why are some people all grasshopper fiddlings, scrappings, all antennae shivering, one big ganglion eternally knotting, slip-knotting, square-knotting themselves? They stoke a furnace all their lives, sweat their lips, shine their ey

User avatar
Cyclohexane
Honorary Officer
Posts: 384
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Houston, Texas
Contact:

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by Cyclohexane »

OK, another long post but I put some time and thought into it so I’m sure it’s a good read. I’m going to try to only comment on the ideas I disagree with you on. I can’t argue with you on George Bush and the military industrial complex. I agree. I understand where you are coming from on many of these issues, and think you have logical arguments, but…

[quote=""KingKaramazov""] Pretty much everybody talks about him as if he's some crazy old nut ranting and raving.

The fact is, he's never going to be elected. I'm not sure he really has the charisma or the personality to actually get people in politics to support him with any of his ideas, either, which is actually very important. [/quote]

That may be what the majority of what the media thinks but does that make it true?
Charisma is like beauty, all in the eye of the beholder. As far as getting others in politics to support his ideas, well that is the beauty of being president, the power of veto. We can work on Senators / Congressmen one state at a time.

[quote=""KingKaramazov""] Personally the first thing I want to see in a prospective President is somebody who will be a good representative of the United States to the rest of the world. In many ways, that's exactly what the President is -- a representation of the American people. [/quote]

I believe Ron Paul is a representation of the Constitution. His entire voting record is based upon these principals (check out what he says about the Patriot Act all the other candidates support). If the Constitution is not American, well maybe I woke up in the wrong country.

[quote=""KingKaramazov""] Now, in regards to Health Care, we need a general revamp of our whole Medicare and Medicaid system. That is the main reason for our huge deficits and it's going to bankrupt our country within the next twenty years or so. Look up the Fiscal Responsibility Tour and GAO Chief David Walker if you don't believe me (David Walker -- now there's a guy I would support for President). The same goes for Social Security, although to a lesser extent. [/quote]

I’m also in agreement with the healthcare system needing a general revamp but I think there are other solutions by fixing indirect problems first. Changing what is currently wrong with the system does not fix these other indirect issues (i.e. illegal immigration) and we will still be left with a broken system.

[quote=""KingKaramazov""] In regards to taxes, I think they need to be looked at very carefully. Rich people can and should pay more taxes. [/quote]

Rich people can and do pay more taxes. 40% of $200,000 = $80,000, 40% of $35,000 = $14,000, etc. Tax brakes for companies stimulates the economy by allowing for investment, research and development, and of course, expansion, and more jobs. Tax brakes and even government contracts are awarded to small businesses as well. Have you ever worked for a poor man? As far as the rich upper elite, getting tax brakes and taking advantage of loop holes, I do not know enough about this to make any comments. I’m sure it occurs, but perhaps to a much lesser extent than we think. In any regards, removing the income tax and paying more for everything you buy (or own in property taxes), will ensure the rich upper elite pay their fair share. I’m not sure we are saying anything different here.


[quote=""KingKaramazov""] I don't care about the marriage amendment. G a y people can get married or have civil unions for all I care. They're people too, and they don't choose to be the way they are. [/quote]

Nor do I, I go by the don’t ask don’t tell rule. I just don’t want it rubbed in my face and on every single channel on evening TV. I do not think it is normal behavior, if it were, civilization would cease to exist. Man and woman is how babies are made, that is a fact. If you cannot make a baby naturally…

[quote=""KingKaramazov""] Religion is supposed to be removed from politics (re: Constitution) so it is not right in any way to rule against g a y marriage based on religious views or what the Bible says. [/quote]

[quote=""RascalJones""]Religion is NOT supposed to be removed from politics. The Constitution only says that the Government has no power to dictate which religion people belong to, or who or how they choose to worship (outside of anything illegal of course, like human sacrifice).[/quote]


While I never brought up religion, it is something I am fairly educated on. Rascal here is 100% correct but I want to elaborate because I do not think his statement provides enough historically documented facts, so I will. You will not find the phrase “separation of church and state” in the Constitution. We are not supposed to have religious leaders, but leaders that are religious are what our country was founded on.

Two professors from UofH, Donald Lutz and Charles Hyneman, wanted to know whom our Founding Father’s most often quoted. They studied ~15,000 documents over ten years of research. The three men that they most often quoted were British philosopher John Locke, French philosopher Baron Montesquieu, and the English judge Sir William Blackstone. Our founding fathers quoted from the Bible four times more than they quoted Montesquieu or Blackstone, and twelve times more than they quoted John Locke. More than a third of the founding father’s quotes came directly from the Bible, and another 60 percent came from those aforementioned authors who based their writings on the Bible. Write this off to “Lies my Teacher Told Me” or “Lies a Political Party Fed Me.”

Here is a little history:
In 1801 a group of Baptists in Connecticut were alarmed over a rumor throughout the Northeast that the Congressional denomination was about to be established as the national denomination of the United States. As Christians of various denominations became disturbed by the prospect of establishing a national denomination (similar to that of the Anglican Church in England), President Thomas Jefferson addressed the matter. In a letter addressed to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, Jefferson stated:

[quote="" Thomas Jefferson ""]“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. [/quote]

What you must also know is that a year after President Jefferson wrote the aforementioned letter to the Danbuy Baptists, he recommended that the U.S. Congress sign a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians that included federal funding to support missionaries to the natives and land grants. He did this on three occasions while in office. I am sure that the ACLU would take this “faith based organization” to court. However, in the first 140 years of our nation, our judiciary reaffirmed our nation’s Christian foundation and encouraged our government’s support of the Christian faith.

Our Constitution is the foundation of the U.S. government—there is little question over this statement. I think that one must look at the men who drafted our Constitution; one must ask what qualified them to participate in unprecedented formation of the greatest nation on earth. It is interesting to note that the Delaware Constitution of 1776 established clear guidelines for its representatives:

Art. 22, Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust . . . shall . . . make and subscribe to the following declaration, to wit ‘I . . . do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures to the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.

At his inaugural address, the first in our nation’s history, Washington acknowledged God’s role in the founding of our country:

[quote=""George Washington""]It would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being….No People can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States. Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some…providential agency…. We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself had ordained. [/quote]

Please note the words of our second President John Adams:

[quote="" John Adams""]The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were . . . the general Principles of Christianity….I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature. [/quote]

I presume that John Adams knew a little more about the intent of the U.S. Constitution than you or I—or even the “omniscient” ACLU.

Want further proof of the foundation of our country, open your wallet and read the back of every dollar bill. “In God We Trust” is printed on all of our currency. No religion and politics are two and the same, but I will agree that extreme examples of this in history become twisted and evil. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Now everything I said above is based on historically documented facts. Now here is my opinion based on my faith, the problems we are having as a country is directly due to a lack of trust in our Father. Having a leader that submits to the will of a higher power is very important. The reason people are losing sight of this is because of the lies of politicians claiming faith on one hand while stealing with the other. I cannot vote for a man that says one thing and votes another. Ron Paul votes what he says and you can look it up. I do not care what the polls say or what Hollywood tells me is the norm and what I should believe. I do not believe that America must cater to the religions of the minority. They chose to leave their sh!t hole of a country and move here. They want the blessings that America offers, but reject the true author of those blessings.

I feel that in closing and removing any further comments about religion, I must reiterate this point once again. I am not suggesting that people can’t worship whom that want—or not at all. After all, it is by God’s design that mankind have free will.


[quote=""KingKaramazov""] As for adoption rights, unless I am given some kind of proof that children who are raised by same sex parents are somehow not given equal care or something as children who are raised by heterosexual parents, I don't think there's any good reason not to let them adopt. You can make the argument that g a y parents might somehow pressure their children to become g a y (which I think is probably completely untrue) but to be honest, straight parents pressure children to be straight. It works both ways. Anyways, I don't think that's an issue that should decide an election. Social issues should be worked out by individual states if you ask me. [/quote]

You got me there, that is my personal opinion and agree it should be argued at the state level. Did you know that the governator of California is in support of a law that would make it illegal for teachers to use the words “Mom” and “Dad”. I’m not making this up, they want the word “Parents” used instead. Since when have we become such pu$$ies where even small words hurt our feelings? What worries me is what is going to happen to this generation of pu$$ies when we have a real threat.

I grew up with a Mom and a Dad and I cannot imagine not having a strict hand and a compassionate side as well. I know you can argue that there are feminine males and masculine females but is that the role models we want for children? It is unnatural, if it were natural, then two men or two woman could have a baby. If they want to love each other, fine, but do not turn the family into an unnatural thing.

Perhaps our enemies in the Muslim world are not so mad about our politics but our morals and what we have accepted as normal. Do you know *** are murdered in some of the third world sh!t holes?


[quote=""KingKaramazov""] I'm completely for abortion. The decision belongs in the hands of the people who have to choose between giving birth or not, and nobody else. That's all I have to say on the matter. [/quote]

Life begins at conception. To argue this or deny this fact is just rationalization to accept murder due to a lack of responsibility. There have been premature babies born and survive before the 6 months where abortion is legal. It is a life, not a choice. The choice is to wear protection, to abstain, or for adoption.

My wife and I have had three miscarriages. Out of the five times my wife has been pregnant, 3 babies died on us before entering the world. My faith tells me there is a reason for their being, looking back on it, I see that reason but I will stay away from any more religious views and stick to facts that can be measured. You cannot tell me that these babies were not alive, their hearts were beating and you could see fingers and even their brains developing in the ultrasound. If they were not alive, how could they die?

Abortion and what this guy did in Galveston to a 3 month old that is on the news right now is not much different. So he killed a 3 month old by stomping on his head, why is it treated differently? It’s not like he stuck a vacuum into a womb and ripped out a six month old baby screaming and crying to dispose of in the trash. That is exactly what happens, they do feel pain, they do try to run in the womb by moving to the other side and squiring away. These are facts and I’m sure some internet research can get you some disgusting photos to look at but I cannot do this for you. I seen pictures from protestors of abortion that can to my University once and I still remember them.

Abortion in extreme cases with own or health reasons where the mother can die is a gray area for me and I’m not decided. I know my wife would risk her life to ensure the life of her child, she has.

[quote=""KingKaramazov""] Regarding abortion, it's a very polarizing issue, but I feel strongly, as I said, that the choice belongs in the hand of the person who is pregnant. It's far too easy for political activists, particularly male ones, who are so removed from the situation to make philosophical statements and stances against the issue. But the fact is, it doesn't apply to you. You have NO idea what it's like to be in that situation, and there's NO way for a law to fairly apply to every single situation that might arise when it comes to abortion. I agree that it is a moral decision. However, it's one that belongs in the hands of the mother, and nobody else. [/quote]

Why are males removed from the situation? Is it not possible to feel pain of loss when your baby is murdered? The father should at a minimum, have a voice. She did not get pregnant by herself.


[quote=""KingKaramazov""] All in all, what I want in a candidate is somebody who is willing to be open minded and who will listen to the people, the Congress, and his advisers, and who will not see any of the people speaking to him in terms of parties but in terms of what they have to say. [/quote]

Me to, but I want a president that will also ignore the whining people, the Congress, and his advisers when they are wrong. All this political pandering and correctness is part of the problem, not the solution. It is impossible to make everyone happy, so why try?
Last edited by Cyclohexane on Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lead, Follow, or Get the Hell out of the way!

QUICK REFERENCE GUIDE & AOE3 TWC TAD UNIT COMPARISON:
AOE3 TWC TAD Quick Reference & AOE3 TWC TAD UNIT COMPARISON

User avatar
RascalJones
N3O Member
N3O Member
Posts: 1275
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:22 am
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Contact:

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by RascalJones »

[quote=""KingKaramazov""]
Separation of church and state. In my mind it doesn't just extend to the separation of the political entity of the church from the political entity of the government.
[/quote]

Separation of Church and State is found nowhere in any official historical documents of the United States. The only thing dictated is that the Gov't must not create a state-mandated church. (state meaning gov't) (Remember, at the time, they were distancing themselves from Britain and the state-run Church of England.)



[quote=""KingKaramazov""]

The people of a diverse nation should not be subject to legislation based on the uniform religious beliefs of one legislative body.

In other words, not everybody in America is Christian or Jewish, so why should laws be created based on Christian beliefs? In any case, my point is, there should be greater reasons for the creation of a law than because "the Bible says so." If you find me an objective reason why *** people shouldn't be able to marry each other, then I'll give the stance some more credit. Otherwise, you're just enforcing religious beliefs on people who don't belong to your religion.
[/quote]

BUT, IF the majority of the people are of faith (any faith), and the same moral themes run through those faiths, and that majority votes based on those morals they hold, then the elected will represent the electors. Then, the elected will be responsible for upholding the values that they promoted to get elected in the first place. If they don't, they won't last long, and the electors will find someone that DOES represent them and their views.

It's simple math, the majority always wins (OK, except for the 2000 election, but we won't go there).

KingKaramazov
Honorary Member
Honorary Member
Posts: 1216
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 12:12 pm
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by KingKaramazov »

Like I said, I want the laws I am forced to follow to be based upon logic and philosophical reasoning, not upon religious beliefs. If you can give me objective reasoning why a law should be passed, then I will listen to you. But if you say that your religious beliefs tell you that something should be legal or illegal, then I stop listening.

I'm not religious, and I don't think my actions should necessarily be dictated by religious ideals that I don't subscribe to. That's just a back-handed way to try to push your religion on me. I respect your right to believe what you do, but give me some objective reason why this law should be passed for the benefit of society or I don't recognize your right to push your ideals onto my life, or onto anybody else's life.



Homosexuals are people, too, and as I said before, they don't choose to be homosexual. Do you honestly think anybody would choose to be homosexual in a society where homosexuals are essentially oppressed and ridiculed? I agree with you, I don't want to see homosexuality flaunted here and there and everywhere, just as I don't think heterosexuality needs to be flaunted here and there and everywhere. Look, I'm straight, and homosexual stuff can make me feel uncomfortable. But is that a good reason to discriminate against homosexuals? Not at all. You say that it's not natural and therefore the right of homosexuals to choose their lifestyle shouldn't be as recognized as yours.

Who says homosexuality is not natural? There have been homosexuals for as long as man has existed. There are homosexuals in other species, even. Do you think God has told you that homosexuality is unnatural? Where? In the Bible? The Bible was written by man. It is, at best, an interpretation of God's words based on stories passed down through generations of men. The Christian religion teaches you that you should not assume to know and understand the workings of God because he is infinite and beyond human understanding. What I say is, if God created homosexuals, how can you say that he necessarily does not recognize their right to live as they choose?

Sure, obviously homosexuals cannot procreate. But is procreation the sole source of validation for a loving relationship? Plenty of people are in relationships, indeed even marriages, and do not have children. Is their love and right to marry, then, illegitimate? The argument against homosexuals, I have found, is far too often based on blind religious beliefs as well as the uncomfortable feeling that straight people get when trying to understand or deal with homosexuals. If you remove yourself, your religious beliefs, and your heterosexual biases from the argument, I think you may find that there really is no good reason why homosexuals don't deserve the same rights and recognition as anybody else.



I think abortion is the kind of issue where people are on one side or the other, and it is extremely difficult if not impossible to persuade somebody to switch sides. But I'm going to be very honest. I think the life of somebody who is actually living and who has an established life is more important than the life of a little sea monkey living inside a person's womb. Maybe you call abortion murder, but that doesn't bother me. The only lives I worry about being ruined are the mothers who may be put in a situation where they cannot possible afford to give birth, for one reason or another, yet are forced to. Giving people abortion rights prevents children from being born into situations where they are not wanted and thus reduces the number of people who will grow up in negative circumstances and lead unproductive or destructive lives. Yes, many mothers can always consider adoption, but that is not always an option, and there's no certainty that adoptive parents will always be necessarily better. In the end, people should be able to choose when they want to have a child. Certainly birth control should be the first and foremost method of determining when people have children, and it should be made as readily available as possible to people who choose to have sex and want to be safe. I mean anybody. But abortion should be left as an option, and the decision must be left with the person who actually has to consider giving birth to a child. The father, perhaps, should have some say in things, but honestly, he's not the one who has to become pregnant and push a baby out of a tiny crack between his legs. I'm saying this as a male. Anyway, like I said, I think it should be determined at the state level, so it shouldn't be a large issue in a presidential election.

As for Ron Paul, like I said before, his ideas are nice but there's no way that he would be able to get support for any of them with the Congress if he were to be elected. We have to think realistically.
"Why are some people all grasshopper fiddlings, scrappings, all antennae shivering, one big ganglion eternally knotting, slip-knotting, square-knotting themselves? They stoke a furnace all their lives, sweat their lips, shine their ey

User avatar
RascalJones
N3O Member
N3O Member
Posts: 1275
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:22 am
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Contact:

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by RascalJones »

Abortion - I've given up arguing abortion. Might as well bang my head against a brick wall. The fact that I believe it is a human life, and others believe it's a "gob of goo", a "sea monkey", or "just a clump of cells" is the difference, and until I give up believing that it is a human life or someone on the other side starts to believe that it is life, there will always be a difference. I can't believe there's anyone alive that believes that results of conception IS a human life and still supports abortion.

Marriage - I don't pretend to know enough about this to take a stance. Anything I say will make me look bad, so ...

KingKaramazov
Honorary Member
Honorary Member
Posts: 1216
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 12:12 pm
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by KingKaramazov »

Yea, abortion is an issue that, like I said, is usually irreconcilable between people who do not agree. That's part of why I think it should be left up to states.

Regarding marriage, I don't pretend to know anything really about marriage itself, but I think that when it comes to talking about g-a-y marriage or g-a-y rights all you need is some objective reasoning to determine that they're humans too and therefore they should have the same rights as heterosexual people.
"Why are some people all grasshopper fiddlings, scrappings, all antennae shivering, one big ganglion eternally knotting, slip-knotting, square-knotting themselves? They stoke a furnace all their lives, sweat their lips, shine their ey

User avatar
I__CHAOS__I
N3O Member
N3O Member
Posts: 3009
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 12:55 am
Location: ??

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by I__CHAOS__I »

my opinion about abortion (and similar moral items like euthanasia) is that you cannot have a single law to cover it all. There are just too many different situations, I would even say that each case is different and should be treated accordingly. What if the mother is in high danger of losing her life? What if they know that the unborn kind will die shortly after birth while living in pain? This is not a black/white item, and whatever law is used, it should reflect that.
Image
Wisdom is the supreme part of happiness. - Sophocles
Happiness belongs to the self-sufficient. - Aristotle

Post Reply