The Official UD Politics Thread: Election Year Edition

[2099net]

I don't think that's quite right. Clinton, Obama, and Edwards have all taken the same wishy-washy, afraid-to-say-what-they-really-think, middle-of-the-road position on homosexuality. All three oppose gay marriage and all three believe that marriage is a sacred institution reserved exclusively for one man and one woman. However, I believe all three have publicly denounced the notion that homosexuality is immoral. In a weak attempt to rectify those two "positions", all three support some type of civil union, short of marriage.

I'm sorry, but I don't quite see how this is even an issue. Why should they even have to be asked to say if homosexuality is immoral or not? It all comes down to what defines morality - the church or the state. And I'm pretty sure (although not certain being as I'm not in the US) the US state does not define homosexuality as "immoral". Has anyone been arrested for fined for being homosexual recently?

Now, forgive me if I am wrong, but homosexuality can't be that bad, even to Christians, because as far as I know, it's not mentioned in the 10 Commandments. Yet, oddly, several of the actual 10 Commandments are regularly broken, not only by everyday Americans, but those seeking office too. The most obvious being "You shall not commit adultery". But there's others: "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour." (Basically: Do Not Lie). Are you sure the Republicans (or Democrats) have NEVER with intent and forethought lied? Hoo-boy, lying to an entire nation, if not the world (we all know politicians have done it). Wow, that's got to be a big "No-No" on the 10 Commandment scale, hasn't it? Or what about "You shall not murder/Thou shall not kill". How does that relate to the ongoing death and destruction in Iraq? Seems to me both political parties are involved in that – and have been involved in wars in the past. Another big "No-No" on the 10 Commandments front? (I can't see any footnotes on the 10 Commandments about "Just War" or similar).

And although like homosexuality, not mentioned in a Commandment, its clear the Bible condemns divorce how many Americans and or those seeking office are divorced? How special is the institute of marriage if people like Elizabeth Taylor can not only be a serial divorcer but achieve almost as much fame - if not more - from doing it than from her acting career? What do you really believe will sully the name of marriage more? Actual marriages which are basically due to Western society's behaviour to all intents and purposes "worthless" through the acceptance of divorce? (You even have "no fault divorce" on your law books specifically to make it as easy as possible) or have a partnership system not called "Marriage" but which offers both partners the same social and financial benefits and rights as a married couple. Is that really that bad? Isn't civilised society supposed to treat all man as equal – regardless of their political views, skin color, sex or sexuality?

What the democratic candidates are doing is "compromising". I know some people view compromise as a political weakness. But compromise is what civilised societies do all the time. It's how marriages thrive. It's how business grows. It's how fights are averted. It's how unitiy is achieved.

Yes, sometimes it's foolish and wrong to compromise. I can't and won't argue that it isn't. But clearly I don't think Civil Partnerships is a time when it is foolish to compromise.

[AwallaceUNC]

I personally view that as little experience. But I guess that little is a relevant term, and people have different opinions of how much little is.

How do you define experience? I'm curious. Huckabee spent 10 years in office. Your candidate, Ron Paul, has spent 17 years in the U.S. House, correct? Is there some threshold that he crossed between 10 years and 17 years? Even with a few more years behind him, he hasn't had the kind of executive responsibility as a member the lower house of Congress that Huckabee had as a state governor. The governor's office is more akin to the presidency than a seat in Congress.

Or is it military experience you're referring to? In that case, I can see where you're coming from. I do think military experience is very valuable for anyone who wants to be commander in chief of our military. Certainly, Paul has military experience whereas Huckabee (and most of the candidates) does not.

-Aaron

[2099net]

What the candidates view as moral or immoral is important because, whether they look to the state, the church, or some other source to define morality, their view of right and wrong speaks to their values. Those values are going to inform (if not decide) their policies, positions, and actions in office. Gay marriage is at the forefront of issues that are likely to face whoever will be President over the next four years and the President may very well be asked to either sign into law or veto a bill defining marriage. How the candidate views homosexuality will/should at least factor into that decision. If a candidate believes homosexuality is immoral, they're less apt to approve anything that would extend marriage to homosexual relationships.

I think there's too much emphasis on "Marriage" in your post. Is Marriage the be-all and end-all? Being as the Christian religion (and others) condemn homosexuality, I can't see many homosexuals wanting a proper Christian acknowledged "marriage" but would be happy with a state acknowledged partnership, the title of their partnership is unimportant against what an officially recognised state relationship would give them.

I know, I know, I'm not in the US and it could be different over there. But in Europe the primary issue was equal rights for homosexual partners. It doesn't have to be a church or state-defined marriage. But equal tax concessions, the ability for a gay partner to be defined as "next of kin" for medical emergencies/treatment decisions (just like a normal husband or wife is) and finally equal rights when distributing the estate of a deceased partner. I guess at the moment in the US, homosexual partners get none of that (but again, I don't know for sure). And this is where the constitution says "All men are created equal".

Remember when the President of Iran visited the US and declared "We have no gays in Iran"? He was rightly mocked and criticised for saying that. It appears the US acknowledges homosexuality, but (sadly) the bulk of its citizens don't think homosexuals deserve the same fundamental human rights as heterosexuals.

Again I say calling it "Civil Union" is a sensible compromise which will hopefully unite the population where divisions remain.

And I still don't think a candidate should declare homosexuality immoral or moral. For every "immoral" homosexual who's in a loving same sex relationship, there's probably one heterosexual who commits one or more "immoral" straight sexual acts in their lifetime too, be it adultery, "non-violent" rape (aided by drugs, even of it's just alcohol), forced rape or worse!

If gay marriages/unions are still one of the biggest talking points of this coming election – despite all the other chaos and instability in the world (really, its slowly crumbling around us day by day… from political chaos in Pakistan and Kenya, to rapidly increasing oil prices and inflation… to banking and credit and potential recession…) –then the conversation is being manipulated and is insulting the US population.

I've already said in this thread several times that I'm not very fond of any candidate currently running for office, yet I get the impression that you think I'm tirelessly defending the virtues of the Republican candidates. I was simply correcting dvdjunkie on Hillary's stance (actually to some degree in defense of her) and explaining why I don't think Hillary will lose the gay vote in spite of the fact that she doesn't support the gay agenda.

Well, I'm with you there. I've officially decided all parties are just as bad as each other over here in the UK, and they're all to similar to cause any change no matter who or what is voted in. That doesn't inspire much faith in the system does it?

[Lazario]

As I don't support gay marriage

Who gives a damn? You're not better than we are.

[MadonnasManOne]

As I don't support Democrats or gay marriage, the issue doesn't directly effect me, but I would think that gay Democrats would be upset with their leading candidates.

Why not support Democrats? At this point in time, the Democratic Party are the most united of any of the parties. The Republican Party appears to be in a state of disarray, and the voting public can sense that. In fact, recent polls have suggested that, even among Republican voters, the American public are not clear on the positions of the Republican candidates. I can tell you, I honestly don't believe we'll see a Republican elected President, this election. George W. Bush, and his administration, have done so much damage to America, that even Republican voters are looking away from their own party.

As far as not supporting gay marriage, well, that's truly sad. Does this mean that you feel gay and lesbian couples do not deserve the same rights as any other American? Are those who are homosexual, not created equal? It is very disheartening to hear this come from you, Aaron. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. And, Lazario is right. Regardless of your beliefs, you are not any better than any homosexual.

[Lazario]

I never said that I'm better than anyone

You sure as hell implied it. Big time. You might not have meant to, but right now- you're giving us The Religious Speech. That was designed to deny us the right to not be sinners. We work our asses off to make people understand we're not bad, and you think you can just wipe that out with this whole "God" thing?

Homosexuality is a sin

That's the same thing as saying it's wrong. Do you believe it's wrong? And stop being a jerk about this topic- you cannot compare it to lying, intoxication, gluttony, or anything. You are talking to human beings here. And you are talking to us... You can not "educate" us on something you do not know. You're not going to sell any crap image to us. We actually know the score. You're just telling us your/your religious community's belief, but passing it off as a fact. And it's a damn serious thing you're passing of as a fact, too. Because, you need to know: if people keep believing in what you're saying, things will never be equal between us.

And, wow- you really don't understand homosexuality at all, do you? It is the opposite sexual orientation of some people, those born heterosexual. If homosexuality is a sin, so is heterosexuality. No two-way street, no ifs-ands or buts about it. No "creation" philosophy changes that. No superior "faith," dogma, or "value system" does, either.

God has condemned homosexuality as sinful

You do not know that for a fact. You have not met him/her/them/it. All you have is what you perceive is His word printed in a book he didn't actually write himself, it's just a witness account. Your religion and upbringing made you believe that it's true. But, you forget something - that does not account for how we have grown up gay.

And finally- you will simply stop talking about us in this extraordinarily condescending way. If that's what you believe, your pity isn't worth much. And it is pity - if that's what you choose to believe. Don't fool yourself. You can't look someone in the eye and tell them they're doing something they're not. Especially since you're doing it and then saying, someone else is forcing you to.

[2099net]

I think the difference in our approach to the issue is that I don't view marriage as a fundamental human right. I see it as a privilege, one granted by the government (i.e. the people, collectively), and I see it as the people's collective right to define marriage.

You know, I've never thought of it that way, and I think to a certain extent you are right. Marriage as an "abstract concept" could be seen as a privilege.

You have to have a marriage licence has to be issued by the state in the UK. I don't think any are actually rejected and it's more for tradition, but I'm no legal expert on marriages. It's probably used now as a formal way or simply checking neither of the couple is already married. But it does show that – in theory – the government can stop a marriage from taking place.

The problem comes because marriage confirms upon it certain social benefits which surpass just being called "husband" and "wife". That's when you get discrimination. If an application for a marriage licence was denied solely based on race, religion or a criminal record, then it would be seen as being unacceptable. I would argue stopping one based on sexuality is likewise unacceptable.

If a person's sexuality is irrelevant to the taxes they pay or the contributions that they make to society on the whole, then I don't see why it should stop them from receiving the same social/economical benefits. To stop them from doing so is discrimination.

Civil Unions seem to be the ideal middle of the road answer. I agree they don't particularly show vast moral or political strength to support – I think that they are pretty clear to everybody that they are a compromise. But support probably shows wisdom.

If such a system needs to be done on a state by state basis, then so be it. You obviously know your legal system much better than me! But I must say; if any State votes against Civil Unions then I'd consider it a state mostly populated by class A-1 jerks!

[Lars Vermundsberget]

It could be a question of semantics: I guess it's reasonable to say that the concept of "marriage" the way it's usually understood involves both a man and a woman. So, a modern society could facilitate a "civil union" of a man and a man or of a woman and a woman and let it include the same rights as those of a marriage. But one may choose not to use the word "marriage". Not because it's any "lesser" than a marriage. But because that's not what most people understand by the word "marriage".

[Lazario]

I obviously take this subject very seriously. I think you crossed the line. If you don't like that fact, or the way I chose to respond to you, do not talk about this subject. Ever. You do have that option. You do have options. And more rights than we do. Why isn't that ever enough for you people?

You are responsible for how what you say makes you look. Not me.

[MadonnasManOne]

People can believe what they want about homosexuality, but, unless you are homosexual, you do not have a clue about it. That's not the fault of those who are heterosexual. However, do not pretend to think you know if homosexuality is right or wrong. As a homosexual, I can tell you, I didn't make that decision. I didn't wake up one day, and say, "Well, I think it's a great day to be gay!" I have always been homosexual. I was born that way. There was no external influence on me, that made me be this way. People LOVE to throw the Bible in the faces of those who are gay, but, the Bible is only a book of words. If you believe in God, as I do, then you are brought up to believe that the Bible is the BE ALL, END ALL authority on life. However, as Lazario pointed out, the Bible was not written by God. It was written by witnesses. Humans. Humans aren't perfect, and trust me, we all know that. In my opinion, the Bible is a guide, to how we should try to live our lives. However, I don't think it is intended to be the black and white authority that so many people believe it to be. Think of it like this: You buy a new digital camera, but, you don't have the slightest clue how to use it. You open the guide (the bible), and read it, to guide you on how to use it. Once you feel confident that you've learned what you can, you may no longer need that guide. You may begin to experiment with the settings on the camera, and learn the remaining functions without looking at the manual at all. You might have a question every once in a while, that will require you to consult that guide, but, basically, you can function without it. So many people throw the Bible out as their authority, but, in truth, they rarely consult it. They rarely follow the directions as set forth. They've figured out that they can achieve the same objective, but, they do it in a way that may not follow what was written in the guide (the Bible). If they reach the objective in a way that is different from what is written in the Bible, does that make them a sinner, doomed to hell? I don't think so. The Bible is extremely open to interpretation, and many religions interpret the Bible to mean completely different things than what other religions glean from it. Who is right? Is any ONE right? Are they all wrong? Who knows? I can tell you, no human does.

As far as the institution of marriage is concerned, I personally think it's a joke! I mean, how many people who are married in this world actually uphold the institution that is considered to be so precious? With the divorce rate in America at an average of 50%, I think that age old institution, that so many people feel will be threatened if gays are allowed to be married, is at an end. What does it mean to be married, anymore, if it can be so easily desolved?

I can tell you, I don't need a piece of paper to tell me that I am committed to the person I love. I believe that love transcends anything that a piece of paper, or recognition, can offer me. Would it be nice if gay couples were allowed to be legally married, so that they can have all of the benefits as a married couple do? Sure. Does it have to be called marriage? No. I don't care what they call it. All I do care about is that gay people are allowed to be with each other, in a committed relationship, that it's not considered illegal, and that it is recognized as a legal partnership with all of the benefits that married couples are entitled to.

[Lazario]

And you saw how Aaron ignored every single thing I said, and reduced it all to, basically, "don't call me a jerk," which isn't even what I said.

I'm not being an egomaniac about this- but I stumped him. There's nothing he can say to defend his view. It's ignorant and seriously misinformed. But the reason I even bring it up is, he's a Moderator. There really should be some kind of code of conduct for people given Moderator status. The guy just does whatever he wants, but he's too biased. He wants to believe so desperately that his religion is right about us because for him, it's been right about everything else. Why would they be wrong about this?

Anyway, we'll just have to wait until we're all dead and on the other side to find out how God actually felt about us. That can't be argued. And I don't feel bad for saying, since God does not understand what life down here is like, that I think people should actually live their own lives uninterrupted by other people's judgmental b.s. It would be different if what we did actually killed people.

But our love can't kill. In fact- it heels. And it does something else too, something I think people like Aaron are threatened by - it doesn't blind us. It doesn't make us judgmental freaks that walk around telling other people we know everything about everyone. No book can does that. Nor does any book make that kind of thing okay. EVER.

[2099net]

But the reason I even bring it up is, he's a Moderator. There really should be some kind of code of conduct for people given Moderator status. The guy just does whatever he wants, but he's too biased.

I don't think this is the case at all. Have any of your, mine or MM1s posts been edited or deleted? They're all there for everybody to read for for everybody to digest and come to their own conclusions.

I'm pretty proud UD is this open with poltical and religious topics. Most forums aren't. Any threads that have been locked or moderated in the past have been done so because they have decended into constant abuse or have been requested to be locked by the original poster.

Yes, I'm still technically a moderator here. But thankfully there's been little call for my interventions over the past few months.

[Simba3]

People can believe what they want about homosexuality, but, unless you are homosexual, you do not have a clue about it. That's not the fault of those who are heterosexual. However, do not pretend to think you know if homosexuality is right or wrong. As a homosexual, I can tell you, I didn't make that decision. I didn't wake up one day, and say, "Well, I think it's a great day to be gay!" I have always been homosexual. I was born that way. There was no external influence on me, that made me be this way. People LOVE to throw the Bible in the faces of those who are gay, but, the Bible is only a book of words. If you believe in God, as I do, then you are brought up to believe that the Bible is the BE ALL, END ALL authority on life. However, as Lazario pointed out, the Bible was not written by God. It was written by witnesses. Humans. Humans aren't perfect, and trust me, we all know that. In my opinion, the Bible is a guide, to how we should try to live our lives. However, I don't think it is intended to be the black and white authority that so many people believe it to be. Think of it like this: You buy a new digital camera, but, you don't have the slightest clue how to use it. You open the guide (the bible), and read it, to guide you on how to use it. Once you feel confident that you've learned what you can, you may no longer need that guide. You may begin to experiment with the settings on the camera, and learn the remaining functions without looking at the manual at all. You might have a question every once in a while, that will require you to consult that guide, but, basically, you can function without it. So many people throw the Bible out as their authority, but, in truth, they rarely consult it. They rarely follow the directions as set forth. They've figured out that they can achieve the same objective, but, they do it in a way that may not follow what was written in the guide (the Bible). If they reach the objective in a way that is different from what is written in the Bible, does that make them a sinner, doomed to hell? I don't think so. The Bible is extremely open to interpretation, and many religions interpret the Bible to mean completely different things than what other religions glean from it. Who is right? Is any ONE right? Are they all wrong? Who knows? I can tell you, no human does.

As far as the institution of marriage is concerned, I personally think it's a joke! I mean, how many people who are married in this world actually uphold the institution that is considered to be so precious? With the divorce rate in America at an average of 50%, I think that age old institution, that so many people feel will be threatened if gays are allowed to be married, is at an end. What does it mean to be married, anymore, if it can be so easily desolved?

I can tell you, I don't need a piece of paper to tell me that I am committed to the person I love. I believe that love transcends anything that a piece of paper, or recognition, can offer me. Would it be nice if gay couples were allowed to be legally married, so that they can have all of the benefits as a married couple do? Sure. Does it have to be called marriage? No. I don't care what they call it. All I do care about is that gay people are allowed to be with each other, in a committed relationship, that it's not considered illegal, and that it is recognized as a legal partnership with all of the benefits that married couples are entitled to.

I've been waiting and thinking of what I should say in this thread. It is often hard for me to express my feeling on gay marriage, the Bible, and homosexuality in general. MadonnasManOne I'd say you hit the nail right on the head. I agree with you completely!

Like you said, I don't care if they call it marriage or blargleflarg, as long as the end result gives homosexual couples the same rights and protections awarded to married heterosexual couples. However, I still think that the "sanctity of marriage" defense is absolute crap, because like you said, an overwhelming amount of marriages end in divorce. And when Britney Spears can get married (while most likely under the influence of something) for 55 hours, just for sh!ts and giggles then how sacred is the institution of marriage after all.

As for the Bible, to me it all boils down to the simple fact that it is just a book - written a long, long time ago and edited many times to this day! I think today people just use it as an easy way to justify their prejudices and/or ignorance.

[PatrickvD]

You do not know that for a fact. You have not met him/her/them/it. All you have is what you perceive is His word printed in a book he didn't actually write himself, it's just a witness account. Your religion and upbringing made you believe that it's true. But, you forget something - that does not account for how we have grown up gay.

agree 100%.

I usually avoid this topic, because I feel it's a lost cause debating with people that follow the Bible. Not that is wrong. I'm not saying that. There are wonderful stories in there. But there's pure hatred in there as well. And fact is that that was thousands of years ago.

this is now. And we've got to get real. There is no evidence of God's existence. But it's all fine to believe in him/her whatever. And I think that's totally fine as well.... whatever floats your boat.

but there is evidence that homosexuality is inherited. You're born that way. But something you can't do anything about is... not fine? How is that fair?

[PatrickvD]

But the reason I even bring it up is, he's a Moderator. There really should be some kind of code of conduct for people given Moderator status. The guy just does whatever he wants, but he's too biased.

I don't think this is the case at all. Have any of your, mine or MM1s posts been edited or deleted? They're all there for everybody to read for for everybody to digest and come to their own conclusions.

I'm pretty proud UD is this open with poltical and religious topics. Most forums aren't. Any threads that have been locked or moderated in the past have been done so because they have decended into constant abuse or have been requested to be locked by the original poster.

Yes, I'm still technically a moderator here. But thankfully there's been little call for my interventions over the past few months.

yes. I'd like to make that clear as well. UD is very open to topics like this. I can't say that about most forums.

[castleinthesky]

The Republican Party appears to be in a state of disarray, and the voting public can sense that. In fact, recent polls have suggested that, even among Republican voters, the American public are not clear on the positions of the Republican candidates.

This is so very true. The Republican party is falling apart, as we can see in just the recent months.

The Republican Party has three major rifts breaking it apart.

1) The true conservatives/libertarians/constitutionalists. This used to be the largest section of the Republican party, now probably the smallest. This rift has been taking place the last 15 years or so, and is continuing. With the rise of the Libertarian and Constitution parties, many long-time Republicans have left the party. These voters are angry that the Republican party does no longer follow conservative economics, such as the abolition of many big government programs, while instead creating more. Many people who have this idealogy are also angry with the government social policies towards equality, and want the government to follow a strick constitutionalist approach. Many of this group are even against the Iraq War for its economic problems primarily. The current politican running for president that fosters these views are Ron Paul and to a lesser extent Fred Thompson.

2)Christian evangelical wing of the Republican Party. This group is the newest group to the Republican Party, and it seems to be taking control. The group wants to put morality back into the nation, sometimes through laws. This group is currently represented by Mike Huckabee, and to a lesser extent Mitt Romney.

3)Liberal wing of the Republican Party. This wing has became the largest. The party is moving away from many long-held conservative principles, such as a small government and no war, and instead is embracing pre-emptive war and a larger government. The current representative of this group are Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney.

We could very well see the first group, the far right conservatives (or could we say "classical liberals"?) break away from the Republican party. Or we could see the Christian evangelical group possibly get the nomination, and the liberal Republican group backing an independent (Bloomberg) for president. The Republican party is fracturing, and it needs to be held together, some how, to make it to 2008.

However, I wouldn't say the Democratic Party is not fractured. It has one large group which is more of the tradition Democratic Party (such as Hilary and Obama) which favors government programs to help all people achieve equality, and historically supports forms of war. The other group favors government equality, but also is against all war (such as Kucinich).

[castleinthesky]

I personally view that as little experience. But I guess that little is a relevant term, and people have different opinions of how much little is.

How do you define experience? I'm curious. Huckabee spent 10 years in office. Your candidate, Ron Paul, has spent 17 years in the U.S. House, correct? Is there some threshold that he crossed between 10 years and 17 years? Even with a few more years behind him, he hasn't had the kind of executive responsibility as a member the lower house of Congress that Huckabee had as a state governor. The governor's office is more akin to the presidency than a seat in Congress.

Or is it military experience you're referring to? In that case, I can see where you're coming from. I do think military experience is very valuable for anyone who wants to be commander in chief of our military. Certainly, Paul has military experience whereas Huckabee (and most of the candidates) does not.

-Aaron

I almost missed your post between all the other talk.

I also take into consideration that Paul was still in the realm of politics between his two times of political office (he began and ran a think tank). He did not hold a seat in Congress from 1985 to 1997. He also ran for president in 1988.

[Lazario]

But the reason I even bring it up is, he's a Moderator. There really should be some kind of code of conduct for people given Moderator status. The guy just does whatever he wants, but he's too biased.

I don't think this is the case at all. Have any of your, mine or MM1s posts been edited or deleted? They're all there for everybody to read for for everybody to digest and come to their own conclusions.

I'm pretty proud UD is this open with poltical and religious topics. Most forums aren't. Any threads that have been locked or moderated in the past have been done so because they have decended into constant abuse or have been requested to be locked by the original poster.

That's not what I meant. What I meant was, he basically attacked me for defending my point of view. And the way that he did so was with his Moderator status. He ignored everything I said, any point I was making, to say I was breaking the rules, because he couldn't handle it. Now he can use any excuse he wants to for ignoring me. He has every right to do that. Nothing says he has to reply. And everyone here knows, I don't put pressure on people to respond to me. I don't do a victory dance (like some members) when I think I've said something that puts a member in their place. I would in fact, seriously prefer that people like him ignore me anyway.

But nothing gives him the right to threaten me for his own personal hang-ups. He damn well knows what I actually said, how I said it, and he doesn't like it, so he claims I was attacking him. Which is not what I was doing. He knows that's not what I was doing. And that's why I raised the flag. Because he went too far, not me.


And- I know this topic has kind of moved on from this moment. I don't want to upset anyone, but I sure as heck meant what I said and I'll stand behind it.

And again, I want to deeply thank PatrickvD (who I know I've not always been the nicest to in the Family Guy discussions, if memory serves) and MadonnasMan1 for your support. It means a lot to me.

[dvdjunkie]

Lazario wrote:

But nothing gives him the right to threaten me for his own personal hang-ups. He damn well knows what I actually said, how I said it, and he doesn't like it, so he claims I was attacking him. Which is not what I was doing. He knows that's not what I was doing. And that's why I raised the flag. Because he went too far, not me.

This is not a personal attack in any way shape or form, but it will be interesting to see what you read into it.

I think that you need to put your Homosexuality on the back burner and act like a man about your choices in life and your choices for President. You have not once expressed who you think will be best suited to lead this country, but have chosen rather to voice your displeasure at others who don't think the same as you.

I have privately discussed with you my thoughts, about my brother, who is gay, and my sister who took her own life because she couldn't stand the pressures of not being able to express who she was. I also told you that my brother has a college degree (and I don't believe you have completed high school) and he has a six-figure-a-year-job and you won't hear him go around blaming everything that is happening on the present administration or expousing his lifestyle beliefs to make a point.

But, that being said, you ask my brother a question and he will give you a direct answer without using his lifestyle as a reason for it. I happen to know he is a registered Independent, as I am, and he has taught me a lot about politics and life, and though he is seven years younger than me, I look up to him in many ways.

This thread is supposed to be about your choices for candidate for President of the United States, not who is gayer than who. I would like you, for once, to explain why you make the choices you do or criticize the people, me included, you do, without using your gay lifestyle as an excuse.

Life is what you make of it, and you apparently are satisfied with not having a better education, and working in a video store, or wherever it is you work, when you could have completed your education and maybe, just maybe, done something with your life. It is not too late, and today would be a good day to take that step forward.

Everyone here knows you are gay, so put it down as a defense, and stand up for what you truly believe in. We are tired of hearing your 'oh, woe is me, I am gay and I hate George Bush' diatribe.

[Lazario]

You're right- we did speak about that already, and you got my response there already, as well. I'm not going to repeat myself.

And - no offense taken. I know what you mean. But I don't agree. Like I said before, you can't expect every person in the gay community to act just like your brother. And if you insist that's wrong- that's offensive. You can't tell everyone they should deal with things the same way. Not that if you did, it wouldn't fit in with your whole Life Philosophy for every single thing. One rule for how everyone should deal with and do everything they do. Everyone who is this is always like this and should be, or they're not a man, or they're not a good person.

So, if you don't like that - tough. You are not me. Nor does having one gay brother make you qualified to tell me or gay people what they should do and how they should be. Though, again, it's just like you.


I guess I did repeat myself to some degree. So, here's something that may be new - as a gay man, there's nothing more important to me than freedom. So that's why my two primary issues are those dealing with freedom to people who have earned it. If you don't like it, I don't think we have anything else to say to each other (about this).