EPTVote! 2008 and Exit Poll - Page 9
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
NotJumperer
United States1371 Posts
| ||
|
mindspike
Canada1902 Posts
| ||
|
Clutch3
United States1344 Posts
But the real purpose of this post is to link some really interesting (and much more scientifically rigorous) hard statistical work on this problem here (and at linked pages): http://voteview.ucsd.edu/Clinton_and_Obama.htm This stuff seems to jive more with the general impression of the voting records of certain Senators (most people knowledgeable about this subject would agree that Russ Feingold, for instance, is indeed more liberal than Obama/Clinton, as is Bernie Sanders... and this survey seems to bear out those opinions). The graphs are really cool because they show the increasing polarization over time and they show movement of various figures over time. They do show Obama as relatively liberal, something like 10th out of the 50 Senators. Fun stuff though. Anyway, in brief, take the "most liberal" tag with a grain of salt when it's a conservative group assigning the rankings. If the Huffington Post called McCain the most right-wind Senator, I daresay there would be many who would question their methodology. | ||
|
OhThatDang
United States4685 Posts
On November 04 2008 06:45 Hans-Titan wrote: Wow... I could've almost have seen myself vote for McCain 2000. Jesus man, what has happened to him in the last 8 years? that girl looked like such a bitch | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On November 04 2008 12:02 HeadBangaa wrote: You never engaged me on my points at all, you simply offered your own opinion. I'll debunk it for you at the end of this post. =] i engaged your points by pointing out that they were founded on an illogical assumption (that allowing gays to marry automatically grants them the right to raise children) and since the fact(in your opinion) that a gay couple would make worse parents they should not be allowed to marry. since marriage does not necessarily entail raising children all your points are out the window and dont need to be directly responded to. I never said anything prudish, I've been very fact-oriented here. You are taking a wild stab at my feelings about homosexuality. Didn't your mother tell you about making assumptions? + Show Spoiler + I'm bisexual, babe. seems rather closed minded to me to automatically assume that a gay couple would make worse parents than the average heterosexual couple, given alot of them dont really do a bang up job at it. although i have to admit i was being a bit bigoted myself in that assumption. as far as i know you're a christian conservative, which makes it a pretty safe bet that you're a closed minded prude in some way or another. As promised: What are you saying? Why do gay people need to be under close scrutiny around children? Are you a bigot, Idra? Defend this notion, and don't use my post as a premise, because you said I'm wrong. 'it' is a pronoun and in the context ive used it it refers to gay parenting, not gay parents. as my post makes quite clear. i didnt say we need to watch the dangerous queers every second in case they try to molest little timmy, we need to observe the effects being raised by a gay couple has had on children and see if it has any kind of impact on them relative to being raised by a heterosexual couple. You show here that you didn't read my post at all, because this was the EXACT topic of my post. If someone is born gay, presumably they will only court people of the same sex. The consequence is that they will never be able to embody, as a single spousal unit, the complete expression of mankind, that is, our sexes, both man and woman. And consequently, they won't be able to provide the ideal context for raising children. And the ideal merits distinction, even if it's not a necessity. It's just a natural, non-imposed consequence of being gay. Just like the consequence of me being 5'9" means I'll never get to be a basketball player. If the teams are desperate for players (just as babies are desperate for parents) then yeah, having me on the team is better than nobody, but that's it. Just like grass is green, and the sky is blue. Do you see why the concept of fairness isn't applicable, at least from my viewpoint? You are still drawing a line on "gay rights". You're just drawing it somewhere else, ie, you are still saying that gay couples aren't equal to straight couples. The rainbow coalition agenda is agnosticism towards sexuality. You are still a bigot in their eyes. and theres a reason i dont follow their agenda, rationality works far better. if (IF) being raised by a gay couple has a negative affect on the children then it violates the rights of others (the childrens) and that forfeits the gay couples rights to raise children. Ok. I agree that single parents and underaged girls are under-qualified. That doesn't make gay couples more qualified. The comparison is garbage anyways: 'single-parents', and underrage mothers' are inherently negative categories; nobody aspires to be in those situations. Gay partnership is actively sought out. And if a single parent gets married, or the girl grows up and finds a father figure, the situation could be improved. Man, every single-parent female I know is desperately trying to find papa bear. I can't not believe that that's not built in genetically. (triple negative grammar!) the main point, that you have totally ignored, is that GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT THE SAME THING AS GAY PARENTING. you might have a point about gay parenting. but that is, in no way, an argument against allowing gay couples to get married. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
i engaged your points by pointing out that they were founded on an illogical assumption (that allowing gays to marry automatically grants them the right to raise children) You infer me incorrectly. Marriage's serves society in a practical way, that is, providing an ideal socialization context for children. I didn't say it grants them rights to adopt. As far as I know, gay couples are allowed to adopt. I'm talking about preserving the semantics of marriage, because marriage is intrinsically linked to the nuclear family. The rest of your post is rather insulting. Yeah I did used to be Christian, regardless, using it to dismiss my argument is blatant ad hominem. You should be addressing my premises at face-value instead of trying to psychoanalyze me. You simply don't fucking know me, bud. Though I won't hold my breath because you keep assuming this is a civil rights issue, and then making a fairness argument. I've already given a great explanation as to why this is not a rights/fairness issue and you should address that before making your case. Does this make sense to you? On November 04 2008 16:55 IdrA wrote: i dont buy your 'ideal family unit' argument...i dont care. leave that up to sociological studies and whatnot. Ahh, at least your posts make sense now. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
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. | ||
|
Wysp
Canada2299 Posts
I'll look for scientific studies though, peer verified, of course. | ||
|
Tonkerchen
680 Posts
If I am an American, I'd vote Obama ofc.-.- | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
Yes, you can count me as one of the liberals who wants to end marriage, i have nothing against it, but when i see people using "tradition" as the reason to keep gays from having equal civil rights, to me its absurd. Okay, maybe they should not get married in a church with flowers and dresses and etc... but to me that should be up to the institution, not something federal, they have all the right to make a civil union anyway they like. | ||
|
Wysp
Canada2299 Posts
On November 04 2008 18:24 D10 wrote: Being from a family with a history of divorces and etc... Id say, marrige is a bunch of traditional bullocks. Yes, you can count me as one of the liberals who wants to end marriage, i have nothing against it, but when i see people using "tradition" as the reason to keep gays from having equal civil rights, to me its absurd. Okay, maybe they should not get married in a church with flowers and dresses and etc... but to me that should be up to the institution, not something federal, they have all the right to make a civil union anyway they like. but do you think they can raise healthy children? | ||
|
Zzoram
Canada7115 Posts
| ||
|
Zzoram
Canada7115 Posts
She was a huge bitch. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
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 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. | ||
|
Zzoram
Canada7115 Posts
On November 03 2008 10:59 Savio wrote: Do a google search on whether Republicans or Democrats give more to charity. You will find that it is Republicans. Democrats are pretty generous with tax money taken by coercion, while Republicans tend to be more generous with their own money. http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm And a map of the most generous state in the Union with red being "more generous": ![[image loading]](http://www.lawprofessorblogs.com/taxprof/linkimages/generosity0512map.gif) Here is the outcome of the 2004 Presidential race: ![[image loading]](http://www.lawprofessorblogs.com/taxprof/linkimages/election04.gif) Source: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2005/11/generosity_inde.html Isn't donating to their church considered charity? Anyone serious about religion donates to their church. | ||
|
Zzoram
Canada7115 Posts
The respective ceremonies depend on your relgion or preference. In that regard, why should a homosexual couple not be allowed the legal contract? I understand a church not wanting to performa a ceremony for them, but the government contract is about rights for people living together for life, not what any church has to say about anything. If a homosexual couple wants the legal rights for things like hospital visitation, how does it hurt anyone to give them that right? Call it Civil Union if you must, but these rights should be available to homosexual couples. As for homosexual parenting, I have no idea how that might affect a child, but I am pretty sure that it's better than being in an orphanage with 30 other kids that feel abandonned and are going to end up in trouble. | ||
|
Zzoram
Canada7115 Posts
On November 04 2008 04:53 Jumperer wrote: The rich can afford to pay more. It's like playing low eco as a zerg, 1 base Z can't afford to lose a single drone. But if you have 5 bases running, losing 7 drones isn't going to matters much overall. Starcraft analogies are what I like to see. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10508 Posts
On November 03 2008 10:59 Savio wrote: Do a google search on whether Republicans or Democrats give more to charity. You will find that it is Republicans. Democrats are pretty generous with tax money taken by coercion, while Republicans tend to be more generous with their own money. http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm And a map of the most generous state in the Union with red being "more generous": Here is the outcome of the 2004 Presidential race: Source: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2005/11/generosity_inde.html One problem with that index is that it gets its results by taking the "Having Rank" and subtracting the "Giving Rank" to come up with a generosity rank. For the richest state, which is Connecticut, they can give all of their money to charity and spend all their time doing community service and they would receive a rating of "0." The #1 richest state and the #1 richest giver which is 1 - 1 = 0. The 50th rank state, which is mississippi can be ranked 49th in giving, which is 2nd from the bottom, and they will be given a rank of "+1." 50 - 49 = +1. So regardless of the results, we have one state which is incapable of getting a positive generosity rating and another state that is incapable of getting a negative generosity rating. | ||
|
Zzoram
Canada7115 Posts
| ||
|
ProTech_MediC
United States498 Posts
| ||
| ||
