US Presidential Elections 2004

Mature Discussion
21

Well, technically, there is no difference right now. It’s just that the religious fundamentalists are clamoring that “marriage is a bond between a man and a woman before God.” Nevermind the fact that the government shouldn’t be sanctioning religious bonds or ceremonies…

I propose that all “marriages” be called “legal unions” in the eyes of the government. However they want to hold the ceremony should be up to the person. But there is no such thing as “separate, but equal” as proven by the 1960’s civil rights movement. You cannot have heterosexuals having “marriage” and homosexuals having “civil unions.”

And on a side note, it has started to hail, which is a rare occurance here in sunny California. Perhaps it is a portent of things to come :wink:

22

How can the populous believe that Bush is a good president!? :anjou_angry:

23

“hail”?

I don’t consider myself a religious fundamentalist (im christian btw) and I think I wouldn’t approve a rleigious homossexual marriage…

I really don’t know…In the end it was man who “invented” the christian marriage.It’s procedures were dictated by the first Popes…I think…

24

Pieces of ice falling from the sky.

And, by the way, I hate electricity and magnetism with a burning passion that shall last until the ending of the earth.

25

i’ve taken to betting on elections to treat our democracy like the game it truly is. i honestly don’t even think of it as a form of government anymore, it’s purely a media event like american idol and survivor.

yeah… we’re dead.

26

If you guys think that we’re done with the Bushes in 2008, think again. Jeb Bush has his eyes on the white house next time (Then again, so does Guiliani, so if that happens, the democrats just might stand a chance if they nominate Hilary Clinton) :anjou_sad:

This is indeed a sad day.

27

I have no problems with Christians being against gay Christian marriages.

But, then again, you have to question why Christians are against gay marriages. Because it says so in Leviticus, you say? It also says that a man should be put to death for working on the Sabbath, that a woman is not to stay in the house during her period because it’s unclean, and that daughters may be sold into slavery. It’s a bit arbitrary to select on thing from that book and ignore the rest, don’t you think? (And I’m not attacking here, just offering discourse… My grandma is Christian ;))

However, there is a separation (supposedly) of Church and State in the US. Says so in the Constitution. The wording is somewhere along the lines of “…and Congress shall not support any law that favors any religion” or something. The only reasoning for banning gay marriage is a religious one… which is unconstitutional, plain and simple.

In fact, the government offering special benefits to married couples is actually unconstitutional, if people are to insist it is a religious ceremony. Which is why I suggested changing the name earlier. Civil unions. Legal unions. Whatever. People can get “married” if they want, but all the government should care about is the certificate that the couple turns in as proof of their union.

Problem solved.

As it stands, regardless of how long a gay couple is together, they have no rights as a couple. If the family of either is against the relationship, if one should die or fall deathly ill, the partner has no legal right to even be in their hospital room with them in their final moments. They have no legal right to their estate. The list goes on and on.

28

(Well I basically do that and I don’t mind people calling me hypocrite cause in my heart I think I’m quite the opposite.The bible isn’t something you either believe in or don’t (i mean the bible is a collection of books);for me it’s a series of testaments.People may have good reasons to believe in one and not believe in another.

The period thing you just “quoted” is a good example of my beliefs.I don’t regard such passages as true and I don’t believe the people who wrote had anything that enabled them to know what was right or wrong in God’s eyes.

I do belive in the New Testamente tho.The people who wrote it werne’t guided by God when they wrote it ; they were just either putting on paper what they witnessed (namely Jesus Christ and part of his life) or what their thoughts regarding God were.)

Anyways, what I mean is that I don’t think the Christian God disregards homossexual people as less worthy.Thing is the Church (and im talking about church here not christianhood) has their rituals and traditions and I think they have the right to do what they want…to some extent…

29

That’s very noble of you. However, the Church doesn’t necessarily share the same beliefs as you =\ Still, though… Even the Church selectively enforces certain passages in the Bible, and ignores others. For example, why are divorcees allowed to remarry? When you start to put together the pieces of the puzzle, the only explanation for the prohibition of gay marriage is this: bigotry. Homosexuals are different. They aren’t “normal” by our modern societal standards. Therefore, the kneejerk reaction for a lot of people is “burn them!!!1!”

The other point here, though, is that personal beliefs and what the government should support are completely separate issues. You cannot legislate thought. I cannot force someone to see all races and sexual orientations are being equal. However, the government can force them to treat everyone equally.

Gay marriage is not a voter issue. It’s a civil rights issue that should not be voted on. It is the job of the government to step in and protect the rights of the minorities.

A friend read to me a quote once, though I forget who it originated from: “Do not judge a democracy on how it listens to the majority, but how it protects its dissenters.”

Well, we’ve now seen how well this democracy works.

30

I think the problem with the Church is more tradition than anything.People don’t like to change things that have been like so for hundreds of years…

It’s not that priests (etc) think gay people are abominations or not normal it’s just that Church is based upon tradition and change just makes people uneasy…

At least that’s what I think.

Concerning the US political view on the subject : I thought your system was somewhat involved with christianity myself.I mean : it’s more than common to see God’s name spoken by politicians (namely Presidents;the first people that should be defending the multireligiousness of the US).

Don’t people swear (spelling?) on the Bible in court in the US??

31

sigh
I am horribly dissapointed with the results of the election, as most Californians are.
It is going to be another four long years.

I hear people talking about a potential Draft because of this, although I am not sure about how accurate this information is? Anyone care to explain this to me?

32

Atolm - Bush stated clearly during his campaign that there’d be no draft. However, he is not legally bound by those words or anything. Who knows?

Ah… politics :smiley:

Gehn: The Church changes its policy when it feels it necessary. I’ve heard too many people state that they either thing being gay is “wrong” or that gay people “choose to live in sin.” I’ve also heard the argument (many times) that it’s not wrong to love someone of the same sex; it’s just wrong to act on those feelings. Guh?

[quote=“Gehn”]I thought your system was somewhat involved with christianity myself.I mean : it’s more than common to see God’s name spoken by politicians (namely Presidents;the first people that should be defending the multireligiousness of the US).

Don’t people swear (spelling?) on the Bible in court in the US??[/quote]

Therein lies part of the problem. It’s not supposed to be that way, but we’ve gotten so used to it. And frankly, the vast majority of people in the US are Christian. For instance, we have something called the Pledge of Allegiance that we’re made to say with our hand over our heart while looking at the flag when we’re in elementary school (pretty scary). In the 50’s or so, since it was believed that Communism only took root in “God-less countries,” they added Christianity into the mix. It used to say:

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
and to the republic for which it stands, one nation,
with liberty and justice for all.”

However, now after “one nation,” there’s a little blurb that says, “under God.” Someone in California sued the government for forcing his daughter to pledge to God. The case was thrown out of court, but technically, it is unconstitutional. Religion does not belong in any government function.

While we cannot deny the Christian heritage of our country, we must also defend the rights of people not Christian to equal treatment and freedom from religion.

Of course, I’m in the vast minority when I say that =\

33

Actually, there was one thing I forgot to add.

If you notice, in that pledge thing there, it says “and to the republic for which it stands…”

Most people don’t really pay attention to that part, but yeah. It says “republic.” Newsflash: America isn’t a democracy :slight_smile: It’s a republic… which means we don’t have direct representation when choosing our leaders. We have the oh-so-wonderful electoral system.

34

Nobody forced her to say anything.

I do agree that having “under God” in there is pretty stupid.

Oh, and the fact that we’re a republic has nothing to do with how we elect our representatives, it has to do with the fact that we elect representatives at all. In a direct democracy everyone votes on everything. There are no representatives. Athens back in the day was a direct democracy. Obviously with the size of our country, this would never work, so we have a republic instead.

35

feudal system! who’s with me!?

36

[quote=“Abadd”]Actually, there was one thing I forgot to add.

If you notice, in that pledge thing there, it says “and to the republic for which it stands…”

Most people don’t really pay attention to that part, but yeah. It says “republic.” Newsflash: America isn’t a democracy :slight_smile: It’s a republic… which means we don’t have direct representation when choosing our leaders. We have the oh-so-wonderful electoral system.[/quote]

Portugal is a republic and here elections are pretty different…

I was knocked out to see how non linear the elections were in the US : I still dunno what’s the “popular vote”

37

Not me. Do you know what a feudal system is, man!? Lords ruling knights/armoured troops who rule over everyone else!

If all these “god-fearing christians” had any brain cells, they would have voted for the man NOT responsible for mass-murder (i.e. Bush). But, as Vladmir someone-or-other once said:

[quote]"If you kill one man, you are murderer.

If you kill ten men, you are monster.

If you kill one hundred men, you are hero.

If you kill ten thousand, you are conqueror!"[/quote]

Incidently, I had a vision last night of a large riot in the US. Like, across at least 3 states. It’s gonna happen soon, usually my visions are 2 years before it (and before you ask, no, I haven’t won the lottery). Not in California…I’m thinking East Coast, Carolinas.

38

[quote=“Bluefoot”]Nobody forced her to say anything.

I do agree that having “under God” in there is pretty stupid.

Oh, and the fact that we’re a republic has nothing to do with how we elect our representatives, it has to do with the fact that we elect representatives at all. In a direct democracy everyone votes on everything. There are no representatives. Athens back in the day was a direct democracy. Obviously with the size of our country, this would never work, so we have a republic instead.[/quote]

First, the point isn’t that “nobody forced her.” Religion has no place in the government and children that young do not have the ability to filter out that kind of stuff. There’s simply no reason for stuff like that to be in there. As I mentioned, the “under God” portion wasn’t even added until 1950-something (54, I think), and people claim it’s “tradition.”

As for the republic thing… really? My civics teacher told me that in a democracy, the people vote directly on any law passed, but directly elected officials handle all the bureaucratic junk. But, then again, I have learned over the years that many of my teachers were wrong about many things =\

39

Oh, and one more thing for Gehn.

The popular vote just means how many people actually voted for you. Sad thing is, it carries absolutely no weight whatsoever.

The majority of the time, the electoral college (the groups that actually do vote for the president) vote in line with the popular vote, but there is no law requiring them to.

Each state has a certain number of appointed electoral voters (they aren’t even voted in), depending on the population of the state. However, these numbers haven’t been accurately adjusted for shifts in population in a very, very long time, meaning that despite the fact that California has the most electoral votes, it is still vastly underrepresented.

40

Well, you said “Someone in California sued the government for forcing his daughter to pledge to God.” Guess I misinterpreted. I do agree with you on the main point.

Your civics teacher was right. I don’t see how that has anything to do with the electoral college though. Like Gehn said, Portugal is a republic as well, and they elect their representatives in a completely different way.

Interestingly enough, my friend had a dream last night that basically consisted of him, me, and another of our friends walking through a city that looked like a war zone, talking to everyone we met in rhyme.

All right, everyone. Better get ready for the great rhyming riots. Time to brush up on your poetry skills.