I'm jazzed that I doubled the number of registered Independant candidates in the House!
From the Daily Show:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FcZJqqA2AI
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
A site created by eight cousins living 485 miles apart (sniff, sniff!) needing a way to keep in touch.
A few of Cousin Central's favorite things
- Books
- Breaking hearts
- Jailbreak
- Music
- Rhythm and dancing
- Sailing
- Scrubs (both wearing and watching)
- Shopping
- Studying
- Windsurfing
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(150)
-
▼
November
(16)
- Thrusday Musings
- For Julie:
- Speaking of shoes ...
- Funny DUI
- Thursday Musings
- Hope you enjoy!
- Movie Magic
- an excellent procrastination webpage
- guess what?
- A Strange YouTube Video
- Chefs' opinions needed
- travels?
- Paul's take on the midterm elections?
- Monday Musings
- Monday Musings
- To quote Stephanie Judith Tanner ...
-
▼
November
(16)
14 comments:
Disapointing. From the looks of it they're going to nab the senate as well. It will be interesting to watch how things play out (aka Dems pulling out of Iraq early and the repercussions of that). I was never interested in politics prior to the Republican domination. Watching a new party run the show should be intriguing. It's going to be fun to be the minority party....we can constantly bitch at what the Democrats do wrong. The predator becomes the prey.
Politics has indeed entered an interesting place. I really don't know what to expect. Bush is going to have to start working with the other side rather than just rallying the troops. And by troops, I mean the Republicans, not the soldiers in Iraq.
And then there is the death penalty referendum that Wisconsin passed. We apparently have had 1 execution in the history of the state and it was back in the 1800s. Why are we bringing this up again? Have we no other pressing matters to vote on?
And Wisconsin has now ammended its consitution to ban gay marriage or other civil unions. I do not know what the "right" answer to this is, but I cannot help but think this law is teetering awfully close to, if not crossing, into discrimination. If nothing else, more disparities in health care.
The ban against gay marriage was a good thing in my opinion. It preserves tradition and the sanctity of marriage. Having things such things such as civil unions is bad....A rose by any other name is still a rose. This ban against gay marriage does not prevent the legislature & private businesses from passing the benefits that those homosexual couples felt that they'd lose.
Oh wise ones, anybody want to help me on my politics paper???
I agree, Mary. I don't know the right answer either, but the whole issue bothers me for this reason:
Having known a few gay couples who have been in monogamous relationships for several decades, I fail to see how letting them have a civil union (or whatever you want to call it) destroys the sanctity of our marriage in any way.
The only people who can cheapen a relationship are the two people in it, in my opinion.
I have more respect for the loving, committed gay couple than the straight married couple that fights all the time and makes everyone around them miserable. How is a relationship like that better for society than people who actually respect each other?
I realize I'm not making a point that hasn't been made 1,000 times before. This is one tired debate.
Paul, could you possibly be any more narrow minded? You don't even understand the bible, as you so frequently make your "rationals" off of. Listening to Bush's interpretation is not accurate.
*Warning: Incoming Sarcasm* I think we should make incest legal. After all, what right do we have infringe upon say...2 sisters who love eachother deeply with a sexual component from joining in partnership? *End Sarcasm* Is it disgusting or equal rights? Could I call you narrowminded if you weren't pro-incest? As a society we have an obligation to set moral standards and reward those who take the country forward (by procreating). This ban is not even preventing homosexuals from having equal rights, this is stopping them from tainting an institution. In no place did I quote the Bible & nowhere did I mention President Bush. Listening to Kerry's interpretation is not accurate. How did that feel? Just because I may share the views of some people does not mean that I'm some machine without thoughts of my own that spits out someone else's rhetoric.
What does Kerry have to do with anything? I have NEVER been hooked onto a politician, only ideas. And you have referred to Bible/Bush in the past in reference to this subject. Incest is a problem because of the genetics issue. A gay couple can still successfully raise an adopted child. And "tainting"?!? You make it sounds like they have a disease that should be fixed. This is so entirely discriminating I'm disgusted with it. All people are equal, regardless of sex, race, gender, or sexual orientation. And they deserve equal rights. A person can be gay. A person cannot be incest-driven.
Lol...an incestuous couple can raise an adopted child successfully as well..What the heck is your point? If they're partaking in incest and homosexuality at the same time then they don't have worry about the "genetic" issue. As for straight couples of incest...maybe we can legislate that they can only have a partnership if they get neutered. You're sidestepping the question.
All people are not equal. There are those who are on the fringes through superior intellect, mental retardation, disablities, athleticism, or other factors. (Please resist the temptation to say the I belong in the second category)
I have no problem with ALL partnerships having EQUAL legal rights! (hospital visitation, ect.) However, the majority has spoken and they don't want this perceived immorality involved with the institution of marriage. Allowing gay marriage is like letting a girl join the Boy Scouts. If they get equal legal rights one way or another I don't see it as discriminatory.
The tainted defintion I was using: "3. To corrupt morally." I was going to use the phrase "Afflicted by homosexuality" in which case I think you would be justified in saying that I was comparing it to a disease.
"A person can be gay. A person cannot be incest-driven." Explain this please.
You have criticized me in the past for using the bible for justifications...and I'm obviously no expert on it...I would have thought that you would be happy that I didn't include them in my arguements.
Not jumping in between you two. It's pretty fierce in there. It is amazing how your world view changes when you see an issue affect people you actually know or care about, though.
That is why I don't have a position on abortion. Ash and I have never had one. We don't plan on getting one, and it is not my place to inflict my thoughts on someone else for an issue that has no direct affect on my life -- there's the libertarian in me again.
Even not having opinions can have serious consequences. I would pay money for the New York Times to have on their front cover: "Death toll of unborn babies in United States surpasses 45 million" Reading about the 2,500 or so U.S. troop casualties due to George Bush's failed policies seems to pale in comparison.
Paul i mean that someone is born either hetero- or homosexual. They did not make the decision themselves (and I wouldn't believe you'd want someone to pretent they're something they're not for societal purposes). Why should they be punished for something they did not actively pursue. (as opposed to someone in an incestual relationship)
Post a Comment