Republican Candidate Thread, Who are you Supporting?

[Memphis Slim]

There's a collosal difference. One is two people who are in love and want to spend the rest of their lives together. The other is anything but that.

None of you are answering the question. t: Three people can't spend the rest of their lives in love together??? Is that what you are telling me??? Number should not be a factor...right?? Just love and committment. Right?

 

[Mister Sinister]

None of you are answering the question. t: Three people can't spend the rest of their lives in love together??? Is that what you are telling me??? Number should not be a factor...right?? Just love and committment. Right?

The whole point of marriage is to provide stability to a relationship, between two people. You cannot be committed to two different people. Marriage is designed to keep two people together forever, why shouldn't we expand stability to any couple?

 

[SuBe]

None of you are answering the question. t: Three people can't spend the rest of their lives in love together??? Is that what you are telling me??? Number should not be a factor...right?? Just love and committment. Right?

Slim, I thought that we could share in a debate, but this is kind of ridiculas, I think that you posted about this Marriage thing 7 times. Get off it. The definition of Marriage is a bonding through ceromony between 2 people. Anything other than that is not marriage. I am not saying that more than 2 people can love eachother or anything. But that would go against the defination of what marriage is. If you want to argue who determine the Definition or whatever, go ahead. The English Languague. is far older than you or me, so I can't help you there. If you want to say, "well, we should change the definition of marriage" try, but then change the meaning of BLUE, or CAR or Water. Words have meanings, definitions. They don't change with the times, just because people might not like it.

 

[Immortalfire]

Tom Tancredo

 

[Memphis Slim]

The whole point of marriage is to provide stability to a relationship, between two people. You cannot be committed to two different people. Marriage is designed to keep two people together forever, why shouldn't we expand stability to any couple?

Says who? Some "two people" relationships are unstable......have you seen the divorce rates lately??

Again.......who says it's got to be two people? Who says it's "designed" that way? WHO???

 

[Memphis Slim]

Slim, I thought that we could share in a debate, but this is kind of ridiculas, I think that you posted about this Marriage thing 7 times. Get off it. The definition of Marriage is a bonding through ceromony between 2 people. Anything other than that is not marriage. I am not saying that more than 2 people can love eachother or anything. But that would go against the defination of what marriage is. If you want to argue who determine the Definition or whatever, go ahead. The English Languague. is far older than you or me, so I can't help you there. If you want to say, "well, we should change the definition of marriage" try, but then change the meaning of BLUE, or CAR or Water. Words have meanings, definitions. They don't change with the times, just because people might not like it.

What I'm hearing from you sounds like hypocrisy. Word-salad and double talk.

See....the whole "definition" of marriage thing is still not being explained as to how it came up. Marriage started long before the "English Language"....right?

See ...marriage had a meaning for a looooong time. Now some have come along and wanted it changed to something else. But those same people who wanted it changed to suit their cause don't want to change it to suit the cause of another. t: Interesting.

And they still can't give a clear reason as to why and on what basis it should not be changed. hmmmmmm,,,,,


Why should the rights of 3 consenting ...loving adults (male or female) be trampled upon? If they want to marry (based on individual freedoms) you should let them.

 

[Memphis Slim]

Tom Tancredo

LOLt:

 

[Mister Sinister]

Says who? Some "two people" relationships are unstable......have you seen the divorce rates lately??

Funny you should bring up the divorce rate, because the only state that has legalized same-sex marriage has the lowest divorce rate in America

Again.......who says it's got to be two people? Who says it's "designed" that way? WHO???

You're losing me here, is this your argument AGAINST gay marriage or your argument FOR polygamy? Do you have two girlfriends?

 

[jaguarr]

All this fixation on silly side-issues that are more about legislating morals than really fixing the domestic fiscal (deficit and unbalanced budget) and social policies (health care, social security, education) our country is facing, along with our foreign affairs problems (Iraq, diplomatic concerns, relationships with other countries) are what is choking this country to death. Quite frankly, if gay marriage and even abortion are things the Republicans are going to fixate on while not really giving those other things their FULL attention then they don't deserve to be in the White House as far as I'm concerned. Worry less about pushing moral agendas and more about fixing the serious issues, please.

jag

 

[SuBe]

All this fixation on silly side-issues that are more about legislating morals than really fixing the domestic fiscal (deficit and unbalanced budget) and social policies (health care, social security, education) our country is facing, along with our foreign affairs problems (Iraq, diplomatic concerns, relationships with other countries) are what is choking this country to death. Quite frankly, if gay marriage and even abortion are things the Republicans are going to fixate on while not really giving those other things their FULL attention then they don't deserve to be in the White House as far as I'm concerned. Worry less about pushing moral agendas and more about fixing the serious issues, please.

jag

Jag - Again we agree, there are far more important issues out there that really should be figured out at the State Level. That is the reason we have the 10th Amenment. I hope your Statement goes both ways across the ailse.

 

[jaguarr]

Jag - Again we agree, there are far more important issues out there that really should be figured out at the State Level. That is the reason we have the 10th Amenment. I hope your Statement goes both ways across the ailse.

It's definitely true; there are a lot of issues that should be driven at the state level that the Feds should keep their noses out of. And there are a hell of a lot of things that need to be fixed that don't get the full attention they deserve because people are obsessing over issues that pale in comparison where importance is concerned.

jag

 

[PemLam]

If same sex marriages are legalized, it needs to be done at the federal level. If kept at the state level, the problems will arise because of differences in state laws. For example, when a couple married in state A and enjoying all the same rights as "straight" marriages (medical coverage, legal protections, etc.) goes to state B that doesn't allow same sex marriages...do they get denied these same protections?

Consistency across the board is what's needed...though the chances of that happening are between slim and none.

 

[Steve Rogers]

All this fixation on silly side-issues that are more about legislating morals than really fixing the domestic fiscal (deficit and unbalanced budget) and social policies (health care, social security, education) our country is facing, along with our foreign affairs problems (Iraq, diplomatic concerns, relationships with other countries) are what is choking this country to death. Quite frankly, if gay marriage and even abortion are things the Republicans are going to fixate on while not really giving those other things their FULL attention then they don't deserve to be in the White House as far as I'm concerned. Worry less about pushing moral agendas and more about fixing the serious issues, please.

jag

You don't think there's more to it than that? I am not gay and personally, I don't believe in abortion. But my stance is this: Who the hell is the federal government to tell people who they can and cannot marry? Who are they to butt into your desicions to keep a baby? The way I see it, the issues aren't gay marriage and abortion, it's the federal government having too much power in the day to day lives of American citizens. And that is an important issue, because it is one of the issues this country was founded on. I agree, there are more pressing issues right now, but I wouldn't write this off so quick as a silly side issue.

 

[SuBe]

If same sex marriages are legalized, it needs to be done at the federal level. If kept at the state level, the problems will arise because of differences in state laws. For example, when a couple married in state A and enjoying all the same rights as "straight" marriages (medical coverage, legal protections, etc.) goes to state B that doesn't allow same sex marriages...do they get denied these same protections?

Consistency across the board is what's needed...though the chances of that happening are between slim and none.

Medical Coverage is not a right, it is not stated in the Bill of Rights. And Same Sex Married couples have the same Legal Protection under the law, just as Hetrosexual Married Couples.

 

[SuBe]

You don't think there's more to it than that? I am not gay and personally, I don't believe in abortion. But my stance is this: Who the hell is the federal government to tell people who they can and cannot marry? Who are they to butt into your desicions to keep a baby? The way I see it, the issues aren't gay marriage and abortion, it's the federal government having too much power in the day to day lives of American citizens. And that is an important issue, because it is one of the issues this country was founded on.

Best Post I read today.

 

[jaguarr]

You don't think there's more to it than that? I am not gay and personally, I don't believe in abortion. But my stance is this: Who the hell is the federal government to tell people who they can and cannot marry? Who are they to butt into your desicions to keep a baby? The way I see it, the issues aren't gay marriage and abortion, it's the federal government having too much power in the day to day lives of American citizens. And that is an important issue, because it is one of the issues this country was founded on. I agree, there are more pressing issues right now, but I wouldn't write this off so quick as a silly side issue.

That's why it's a silly side issue to me; the government has no business butting into those issues at all.

jag

 

[Steve Rogers]

That's why it's a silly side issue to me; the government has no business butting into those issues at all.

jag

So you are saying the way these situations are currently is fine?

 

[jaguarr]

So you are saying the way these situations are currently is fine?

The situations are the way they are BECAUSE the government has stuck their nose into the middle of it. So, no, it's not fine. But.....BUT.....with all the other things that are currently circling the bowl regarding our country that need immediate attention, these are bullsh1t issues that should take a backseat. That's all I'm saying.

jag

 

[Steve Rogers]

The situations are the way they are BECAUSE the government has stuck their nose into the middle of it. So, no, it's not fine. But.....BUT.....with all the other things that are currently circling the bowl regarding our country that need immediate attention, these are bullsh1t issues that should take a backseat. That's all I'm saying.

jag

Fair enough.

 

[The Overlord]

I see those as as the right to bare arms more than gay marriage and abortion.

So then you support big government, because it seems like you seem to support big government when it comes to promoting family values?

So which is it, do you support big government orsmall government? What's more important the free market or family values? Is outsourcing good or bad and if it is bad, doesn't stopping it interfer with the free market?

This why the GOP is going to fail, their whole platform is based on contradictions. Family Values and Free market Capitalism are at odds with each other, if you believe completely in the free market, you can't complain that there is too much sex on TV, because what's on TV is decided by the free market.

 

[sinewave]

i agree with everything jag has said.

 

[PemLam]

Medical Coverage is not a right, it is not stated in the Bill of Rights. And Same Sex Married couples have the same Legal Protection under the law, just as Hetrosexual Married Couples.

I suppose I should have said "family medical coverage". States that have outlawed same sex marriages HAVE denied medical coverage to "married" gay couples. And they are NOT always afforded the same protections under the law...look at the examples of "life partners" being denied "by-law" insurance benefits when pursued in states not recognizing same sex marriages. There are numerous cases of conflicting enforcement of same sex marriages.

Like Jag said though, there are FAR more important issues that should be addressed before something this insignificant.

 

[Memphis Slim]

All this fixation on silly side-issues that are more about legislating morals than really fixing the domestic fiscal (deficit and unbalanced budget) and social policies (health care, social security, education) our country is facing, along with our foreign affairs problems (Iraq, diplomatic concerns, relationships with other countries) are what is choking this country to death. Quite frankly, if gay marriage and even abortion are things the Republicans are going to fixate on while not really giving those other things their FULL attention then they don't deserve to be in the White House as far as I'm concerned. Worry less about pushing moral agendas and more about fixing the serious issues, please.

jag

So, after all of that, you're okay with 3 people getting married then?

 

[The Overlord]

So, after all of that, you're okay with 3 people getting married then?

So your okay with big government then?

 

[hippie_hunter]

And pretty much all of our past Presidents........if not all...most were.

So why now this issue that a "creationist" can't be president??? That's just idiotic!

You know, as much as this pains me, I have to agree with celldog here. The guy's an ordained minister, so hating him for beleiving in creationism, which is in his religious beliefs is just rather petty. It would be like hating a candidate for being Jewish or athiest.