|

11-03-2004, 11:15 AM
|
 |
change my title babo
|
|
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 6,758
|
|
Idiots- Bipartisian voting.
I LOVE the idiots that vote for the names they recognize the most=\ How hard is it to realize, you read each parties platform, decide which one you agree with, and vote that way. The US uses a party system, voting different ways just causes trouble!
On a side note michigan proposal 2 which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman recently passed; Debate
__________________
“There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about.” - John von Neumann
|
| Sponsored Links |
|

11-03-2004, 11:18 AM
|
 |
Poker Professional
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: FL
Posts: 1,764
|
|
Hey bonch, I agree. Vote on the issues, not the person. Also, the ban on gay marriage passed in all 11 states that there was an amendment in. Oh, and Bush is giving his victory speech. 
|

11-03-2004, 01:45 PM
|
|
Chaser
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Randolph, MA
Posts: 215
|
|
I don't think a ban on gay marriges is a good thing. I'm not gay, I am soon to be engaged, and I think the more people that can experience marraige the better. Why does it matter if its 2 men or 2 women? I think its blatant descrimination. In a couple generations there will be an amendment to the US Constitution granting any two citzens of the US the freedom to marry each other. People forget that less than 100 years ago it was illiegal for a black person to marry a white person in many states. It sounds silly now, just like this debate will sound silly to our great granchildren. I'm kind of proud to be living in the one state that its totally legal for two people to mary. Most of the other things about living here suck 
|

11-03-2004, 02:03 PM
|
 |
Poker Expert
|
|
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Berkeley/Kansas
Posts: 1,386
|
|
The thing I favor is the system where a gay partnership receives almost all the same benefits as a married couple (tax breaks etc). I think that they should eventually win the right to be termed a "marriage" but for now, it's not exactly a battle worth fighting and if they keep trying to push it, it will just end up being worse for their image. It's fine that they decided a marriage was defined as between a man and a woman, but it is not right to take away their benefits/rights just for being gay.
|

11-03-2004, 02:12 PM
|
|
Check Raiser
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 615
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bonchkid
I LOVE the idiots that vote for the names they recognize the most=\ How hard is it to realize, you read each parties platform, decide which one you agree with, and vote that way. The US uses a party system, voting different ways just causes trouble!
|
Actually, I intentionally voted for a state auditor that was from the opposite party as the one I was trying to vote into the state government.
I figure the best way to be sure my state is spending its funds wisely is to ensure the person watching over those expenditures is from the OPPOSITE party as the people spending the cash.
As for gay marriage...as long as science continues to provide anecdotal data showing the sexuality is, to some degree, tied to genetics, then I'll be casting my ballot in opposition to any initiative or amendment attempting to place limits on what is or is not identified by government as a "marriage."
In all honesty though, there's a simple solution around it all -- have the government stop selling licenses for it in the first place! (after all, what good is getting the license when you're not allowed to dress up in orange and try shooting yer wife anyway?) The whole "marriage debate" derives from the dissonance between a church/religious definition/view of marriage and a governmental one, which must align itself with anti-discrimination laws, equal protection clauses, et al.
__________________
:cool:
To be successful in business, surround yourself with professionals. To be successful in poker, surround yourself with idiots.
|

11-03-2004, 03:53 PM
|
 |
Poker Hustler
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Medford, MA... Covesville, VA in the summers
Posts: 824
|
|
I think the whole gay marraige debate is stupid.
Fuck the constitutional amendment, fuck states' rights, and fuck other people trying to force their religious beliefs on others.
Whatever happened to PEOPLE'S rights?
|

11-04-2004, 08:05 AM
|
 |
Fish
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Posts: 88
|
|
Bravo on your eloquence. It is pretty sad that the vote against gay marriage decided the election. Also, exit polls showed terrorism was a major factor in voting. Yet the state with the most at stake NY, voted for Kerry.
|

11-04-2004, 11:09 AM
|
 |
change my title babo
|
|
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 6,758
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by eclinchy
I think the whole gay marraige debate is stupid.
Fuck the constitutional amendment, fuck states' rights, and fuck other people trying to force their religious beliefs on others.
Whatever happened to PEOPLE'S rights?
|
"fuck x fuck y fuck z" doesnt get your point across at all.
__________________
“There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about.” - John von Neumann
|

11-04-2004, 11:10 AM
|
 |
change my title babo
|
|
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 6,758
|
|
My opinions on gay marriage, and gay people in general are extremely strong. I won't dicuss them here, if there is another topic, or if this turns into it I might.
__________________
“There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about.” - John von Neumann
|

11-04-2004, 12:00 PM
|
|
Chaser
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Randolph, MA
Posts: 215
|
|
aww come on bonch, you can't tease like that. Spill it! 
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:31 AM.
|
 |
|