Vote! 2008 and Exit Poll - Page 10

On November 04 2008 16:21 OhThatDang wrote:



that girl looked like such a bitch

On November 04 2008 18:45 IdrA wrote:

no it isnt. the question we clash on is gay marriage. he believes gay couples make less than ideal parents which is a mark against gay marriage(but only because it perverts the concept of heterosexual marriage, not for any meaningful reason). i do not know or care if they make good parents because i believe it is irrelevant to whether or not they should be allowed to marry.

On November 04 2008 17:51 IdrA wrote:
the problem with that is that the sole purpose of marriage is not its role in the nuclear family and child rearing. marriage also has personal, social, and legal significance. those trump the connection marriage has to the nuclear family because it will have absolutely no practical affect on that given that, as you said, gay couples can already adopt. how on earth is the idea of marriage extending to include gay couples going to affect the functioning of the nuclear family in society? its not like all the straight guys are gonna be like 'fuck this we can go marry other guys now!' and abandon their wives and children.

the closed minded and christian conservative comments were off hand remarks that nothing to do with my arguments, i addressed everything you said, i dismissed things because they were wrong, not because of my perception of your general beliefs.

i did address it, i misinterpreted how you were using the argument,i thought you were worried that gay marriage would lead to more gay couples raising children, which may or may not be a bad thing. the fact that you're just worried about the idea of marriage being perverted is significantly more ridiculous and meaningless. but either way it is meaningless. it does come down to a civil rights issue. gay peoples right to equal treatment outweighs your right to think of marriage as a union between a man and a women, given that that whether or not the concept of marriage includes gays or not does not affect the real world in the slightest.

ironically that means you dont understand what i was saying at all. my whole point was that the ideal family unit is entirely irrelevant because this is a wholly seperate issue.

On November 04 2008 21:42 IdrA wrote:
what is wrong with you
being a fundamentalist includes illiteracy now?

you have not responded to this:

you are the one "dodging"

and no it is not a dodge to refuse to debate the quality of gay parenting, neither of us have any factual support for our stances, i refuse to base judgement off of whether or not 2 men having sex makes me feel uncomfortable. that is not a point in your favor. blither on about the nuclear family all you want, its entirely irrelevant to gay marriage. which is what we're discussing.

On November 04 2008 17:15 Not_Computer wrote:
Ah, this is such a touchy topic I don't know how to go about it without being offending to someone out there. But here's my opinion:

Garriage.

It's not "marriage" but it's just as special. In fact, its so special that it's not the same word as marriage! The couple are still entitled to all the nuts and bolts of marriage but adjusted appropriately so that its for the same sex.

There's still that special union, still that special pact, still the same expectations of domestic abuse and divorce (though actually Garriage would probably have statistically lower of these). Now you won't have to worry about uncivilized and uneducated co-workers asking you who your "wife" is if you're married to your husband and vice versa. You won't have to hear all the religious cries about how it's crossing over into the holy matrimony of the pencil being put into the pencil sharpener and how putting the pencil tip on the eraser end is a sin.

Sure it isn't what most homosexuals are after, but why do we have to change the definition for something that's existed for so many centuries and millenia.

(note: not to be confused with "garage".)

On November 04 2008 22:08 HeadBangaa wrote:

bigot.

On November 04 2008 18:12 Wysp wrote:
what is the deciding factor in the decision to disallow gay people to adopt children? This is the question you wish to clash on, but you haven't even clashed on it yet. I want to see some blood spilled by your guys' clashing of generalizations and psychological theories on why this is appropriate or inappropriate.

I'll look for scientific studies though, peer verified, of course.

On November 04 2008 15:30 mindspike wrote:
For CultureMisfits - Yes Palin is that stupid

On November 04 2008 23:12 CultureMisfits wrote:


well.... i did admit she is pretty stupid, and i must admit its hard to defend her haha....

On November 04 2008 22:18 HeadBangaa wrote:
I'm being facetious, relax.

Actually I completely agree with this guy (from some blog):



I thought about it, and my main problem is with the semantic change. I think it's culturally coercive. Give that type of union its own name, and voila, I'm a happy camper.