Bush Wins

[Rudey]

So were you Democrats upset when Bill Clinton told Kerry to say he was against gay marriage to win this election (Kerry didn't btw and made a mistake)?

It didn't quite seem to upset you.

Were you upset when Democrats voted against gay marriage? No it seems this is simply a Bush/Republican issue.

And where have they rewritten the constitution? Perhaps Dick Cheney is against it and would have something to say about that. Perhaps George Bush is against it and was quoted towards the end of the election saying that states should have the right to decide will mean something.

So when you guys are busy painting fairy-tale land, do you use special brushes or what?

-Rudey

[ZTAngel]

Originally posted by AlphaGamDiva
yes, there is discrimination. there has ALWAYS been discrimination. and for the past while, there has been an amazing amount of discrimination against Christians. that offends me....personally. we are not allowed to pray in schools (unless we're quiet about it), we are not allowed to say the pledge to the flag b/c of "under God"....it will more than likely be taken off of our currency sooner than later. it will never be fair to EVERYONE.....but no one was screaming "discrimination" when anything was taken away from us. when Christians are being persecuted and denied what we believed to be our rights, people are like, "so?" we didn't want roe v wade, but here it is. why should one group of this country get more consideration than another? they shouldn't, but it happens. it's cool to be gay and need rights, but it's not cool to be a Christian....ever. yeah, we're allowed to get married, but marriage to us is a holy thing....it's not a civil right or an American priviledge, but something given to us by God. that's why most conservatives want it protected, so to speak, b/c they see gays as habitual and unremorseful sinners that should not partake in such a holy gift. again, not saying that i agree, but that's what i understand.

But not everyone in this country is Christian. The Christians are certainly not being persecuted. Give me a break. They are pandered to. How would you feel if this country was run by a Muslim or Jewish leader who makes his decisions based on what Mohammed or Moses would do? This country was founded on freedom of religion and I currently feel that W does not care that I'm a Jew. His policies and decisions are all based on what Jesus would do and, yes, I have a huge problem with it.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by ZTAngel
But not everyone in this country is Christian. The Christians are certainly not being persecuted. Give me a break. They are pandered to. How would you feel if this country was run by a Muslim or Jewish leader who makes his decisions based on what Mohammed or Moses would do? This country was founded on freedom of religion and I currently feel that W does not care that I'm a Jew. His policies and decisions are all based on what Jesus would do and, yes, I have a huge problem with it.

That's not fair of you to say either.

I have a huge issue with the Democrats no longer just being liberal but being left-wing and embracing people like Sharpton and Michael Moore who are beyond insulting to Jews.

But then again this isn't about right or wrong. This is about politics.

-Rudey

[WCUgirl]

I guess this is directed toward AlphaGamDiva, or whomever else wants to answer.

Okay, we've determined the (Christans'? Conservatives'? Just trying to generalize those who are against gay marriage for religious reasons, not trying to offend anyone!) problem w/ gay marriage is that marriage is a holy union designed by God.

What about civil unions? Would you be opposed to that? It extends the legal rights to gay couples w/o involving religion, so I don't see how that could be offensive.

If you're a Christian, you'll probably still think the gay couples who are joined in a civil union are "living in sin" or whatever, but people do sinful things every day. Technically, sleeping w/ someone before marriage is a sin...so by that reasoning there should be a law making it illegal to have sex before marriage. Just a thought.

Oh, and Rudey, I personally would prefer that Kerry not say he was against gay marriage (if he truly wasn't) just to win the election. If he is against it, but didn't say it, then yes, he made a mistake. But that's just me. :shrug:

[Rudey]

Did you read the post I made?

This isn't about good vs. bad.

This isn't about Republicans/Bush vs. gays.

And this election wasn't based only on gays.

But there are tons of threads on gay marriage so I'm sure those who are against it, including Democrats and non-Christians, would be willing to talk about it.

-Rudey

Originally posted by AXiD670
I guess this is directed toward AlphaGamDiva, or whomever else wants to answer.

Okay, we've determined the (Christans'? Conservatives'? Just trying to generalize those who are against gay marriage for religious reasons, not trying to offend anyone!) problem w/ gay marriage is that marriage is a holy union designed by God.

What about civil unions? Would you be opposed to that? It extends the legal rights to gay couples w/o involving religion, so I don't see how that could be offensive.

If you're a Christian, you'll probably still think the gay couples who are joined in a civil union are "living in sin" or whatever, but people do sinful things every day. Technically, sleeping w/ someone before marriage is a sin...so by that reasoning there should be a law making it illegal to have sex before marriage. Just a thought.

Oh, and Rudey, I personally would prefer that Kerry not say he was against gay marriage (if he truly wasn't) just to win the election. If he is against it, but didn't say it, then yes, he made a mistake. But that's just me. :shrug:

[WCUgirl]

Okay, I guess I wasn't clear in what I was trying to ask.

I'll pose my question in the proper thread.

:scurries off to utilize that dreaded "search" button:

Originally posted by KSig RC
Nope, no there weren't.



PS - although my political ideology is (relatively) similar to that held by you and kitso . . . don't you jackmoves see that by acting like hoosier, you reinforce stereotypes about republicans and make us look like fucks? Knock it off, add something constructive beyond "BUSH IS HOTTTTT! 4 MORE YEARS!", and discuss constructively. For the love of God.

Hey jackmove,

I was just trying to have a little fun and inject a little humor into the situation. I didn't stick around to espouse and debate from a closeminded stance, merely made a couple throwaway comments that i figured would make people on BOTH sides chuckle.

But that might be hard to see up on that high horse of yours.



KS 361

[ISUKappa]

Originally posted by AXiD670
What about civil unions? Would you be opposed to that? It extends the legal rights to gay couples w/o involving religion, so I don't see how that could be offensive.

IIRC, Germany only recognizes civil unions. You must be joined in union by a judge and if you want to have a separate, religious ceremony later, you may, but a Preist/Pastor/Rabbi/whathaveyou would have no legal authority to declare a union as they do here. I wouldn't mind if it were implemented in the states, but then you get the argument of "separate but equal" and we all saw how well that worked in the 1900s. I even think that's what Clinton was aiming towards when he signed the Defense of Marriage act.

[AGDee]

Originally posted by Rudey
So were you Democrats upset when Bill Clinton told Kerry to say he was against gay marriage to win this election (Kerry didn't btw and made a mistake)?

It didn't quite seem to upset you.

Were you upset when Democrats voted against gay marriage? No it seems this is simply a Bush/Republican issue.

And where have they rewritten the constitution? Perhaps Dick Cheney is against it and would have something to say about that. Perhaps George Bush is against it and was quoted towards the end of the election saying that states should have the right to decide will mean something.

So when you guys are busy painting fairy-tale land, do you use special brushes or what?

-Rudey

I am absolutely apalled that Clinton told Kerry that, if in fact it occurred. However, what I heard Kerry say numerous times was that although he didn't personally believe in gay marriage, he didn't think there should be a Constitutional amendment restricting it based on the philosophy that the Constitution shouldn't restrict rights.

I noted numerous times that Michigan's proposal was to amend our State Constitution. I am EXTREMELY disappointed that the state I live in voted that way and have voiced that. It passed by a huge margin. It could make some people feel like they can't win and may as well leave. And, not only did it ban same sex marriage, it banned any type of union and effectively eliminated the opportunity for same sex partners to share employement benefits. Yes, I'm hugely disillusioned by the Democrats who voted for this amendment.

Overall though, I'm referring to many more issues than just gay marriage.

Every Democrat I know thinks that both Michael Moore and Al Sharpton are way off base. Just as I recognize that every Republican is not Pat Robertson or Rush Limbaugh. Defining either group by their extremists is not wise nor accurate.

Dee

[Rudey]

Originally posted by AGDee
I am absolutely apalled that Clinton told Kerry that, if in fact it occurred. However, what I heard Kerry say numerous times was that although he didn't personally believe in gay marriage, he didn't think there should be a Constitutional amendment restricting it based on the philosophy that the Constitution shouldn't restrict rights.

I noted numerous times that Michigan's proposal was to amend our State Constitution. I am EXTREMELY disappointed that the state I live in voted that way and have voiced that. It passed by a huge margin. It could make some people feel like they can't win and may as well leave. And, not only did it ban same sex marriage, it banned any type of union and effectively eliminated the opportunity for same sex partners to share employement benefits. Yes, I'm hugely disillusioned by the Democrats who voted for this amendment.

Overall though, I'm referring to many more issues than just gay marriage.

Every Democrat I know thinks that both Michael Moore and Al Sharpton are way off base. Just as I recognize that every Republican is not Pat Robertson or Rush Limbaugh. Defining either group by their extremists is not wise nor accurate.

Dee

Really? Perhaps you weren't watching the DNC when Al Sharpton was embraced and gave a speech at the convention. And perhaps you haven't noticed the oh-so-many Michael Moore opened my eyes threads even on Greekchat. Those are just two people and what they've said and done offends me because of my background and religious/cultural identity. That is why I am baffled, over and over, as to why my people identify with this party. But then I remember Republican James Baker saying "Fuck the Jews" and it dawns on me that again, this isn't about right and wrong.

And yes, Clinton did say that but there was no row over it and while you may say you're upset right now about how some Democrats are against gay marriage, you didn't make the biggest issue of it. That is how I see it.

And of course there were more issues than gay marriage (gay marriage is something that Kerry wouldn't touch if he was president IMO), but it's gay marriage that a select few GC'ers are on the rampage about right now.

-Rudey

[AGDee]

If you read my post dated 11-04-2004 11:59 PM, you'll see that I said "other Americans" and didn't refer to a specific party, although I did reference Bush on one issue also. I am more concerned with a broad philosophical difference than any one particular issue.

Sometimes, there are public figures whose points I agree with, but whose methods are questionable. Jack Kervorkian is a good example of this. I am for physician assisted suicide, but his methods were so radical that his ideas got lost in the drama of HOW he did things. That's how I feel about people like Sharpton and Moore. The original idea or intention is good, but the methods of getting out the message turn too many people off.

The DNC is a politically staged event, not your average Joe Democrat on the street. After a vicious primary cycle, they try to bring anybody who ran earlier, to be on board with them, in hopes of getting their supporters to support the presidential candidate. In fact, the whole DNC was a big pep rally (at least the things they showed on TV). Everything at a Convention is orchestrated.

Dee

ETA: It's possible that the Democrats I know (who are Michiganders) are less enamored with Michael Moore because, long before Farenheit 911 or Bowling for Columbine, he did Roger and Me, which ripped on GM. Since GM and other car companies have fed, clothed and educated so many here in Michigan, and that movie was made out to be a bunch of bull, the same assumptions are made about any Moore movie here.

[Rudey]

Perhaps your message was lost in the fact that this was a thread about Bush winning and also so many GC'ers were just on a rampage against anything Bush/Republicans. I don't know.

And yes, a lot of politics is staged, and it's not about right and wrong. If Lyndon Larouche was as big a name as Moore and Sharpton, his bigoted ass would also be embraced by the DNC.

-Rudey

Originally posted by AGDee
If you read my post dated 11-04-2004 11:59 PM, you'll see that I said "other Americans" and didn't refer to a specific party, although I did reference Bush on one issue also. I am more concerned with a broad philosophical difference than any one particular issue.

Sometimes, there are public figures whose points I agree with, but whose methods are questionable. Jack Kervorkian is a good example of this. I am for physician assisted suicide, but his methods were so radical that his ideas got lost in the drama of HOW he did things. That's how I feel about people like Sharpton and Moore. The original idea or intention is good, but the methods of getting out the message turn too many people off.

The DNC is a politically staged event, not your average Joe Democrat on the street. After a vicious primary cycle, they try to bring anybody who ran earlier, to be on board with them, in hopes of getting their supporters to support the presidential candidate. In fact, the whole DNC was a big pep rally (at least the things they showed on TV). Everything at a Convention is orchestrated.

Dee

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by AggieSigmaNu361
Hey jackmove,

I was just trying to have a little fun and inject a little humor into the situation. I didn't stick around to espouse and debate from a closeminded stance, merely made a couple throwaway comments that i figured would make people on BOTH sides chuckle.

But that might be hard to see up on that high horse of yours.



KS 361

Levity is key, and I may have misread your purpose, I'll admit that - but monica has a history of pawning pointed comments off as 'offhand', which is bullshit, and you looked like you were piling on . . . no worries either way, feel free to make me laugh, but also feel free to contribute.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by KSig RC
Levity is key...

So, with the above in mind, I saw a bumper sticker on a car on I-25 a little while ago...

It said:

Oh no, more
BU**SH**

(including the *'s)

OK, so I giggled.

[kddani]

adding some levity to the thread:

http://www.jestmag.com/3-5/banana.html

my boss showed this to me this AM. It's a good laugh