Urban planning community

+ Reply to thread
Page 1 of 5 1 2 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 117

Thread: Gay Marriage/Civil Unions (Split from Election Issue #2)

  1. #1
    Cyburbian zman's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    9,025
    Blog entries
    2
    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post
    I know how the bible defines marriage and there for, I don’t think that it should be a church wedding, but a civil union or being married by an appointed or elected (non-ordained) official should be acceptable.
    Not a Christian myself, but I agree with you. It seems that the idea of a same-sex Christian marriage really cheeses some people off. If your faith does not wish to recognize it, then so be it. Leave the rest of us out and leave it out of govt.

    I believe all unions should be recognized by the govt.
    You get all squeezed up inside/Like the days were carved in stone/You get all wired up inside/And it's bad to be alone

    You can go out, you can take a ride/And when you get out on your own/You get all smoothed out inside/And it's good to be alone
    -Peart

  2. #2
    Cyburbian Plus PlannerGirl's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Va
    Posts
    4,604
    Bingo! I have long felt the gov and the church needed to stay out of folks bedrooms. Gay "marriage" or "civil union" I dont care honestly what its called but any couple of age should be allowed to marry, gay, bi, whatever. Nor should these things impact the ability to have a family be it natural, IVF or adoption.
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin

    Remember this motto to live by: "Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, martini in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming 'WOO- HOO what a ride!'"

  3. #3
    moderator in moderation Suburb Repairman's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2003
    Location
    at the neighboring pub
    Posts
    5,288
    My stance is that marriage is a religious designation that the government should stay out of. The bedroom is no place for government. For governmental purposes, all life commitments between two people should be recognized (purposes of taxation, beneficiaries, government-sponsored adoption/IVF, etc):

    Man+Woman = civil union (can be performed by ordained or non-ordained)
    Man+Man = civil union (can be performed by ordained or non-ordained)
    Woman+Woman = civil union (can be performed by ordained or non-ordained)

    Whether the church wants to recognize it as a marriage is the church's business. They can also fill out the civil union paperwork, just as they do now for marriage licenses.

    I believe there needs to be a federal decision on it because federal policies depend on it, such as social security death benefits, filing joint tax returns, etc. Can you imagine how screwy this would get if left to the states? It would vary by state whether or not same sex partners could file jointly or receive SS benefits, not to mention state income tax filing variances.

    I'm not getting too excited about prez candidates at this point... I'll wait for the herd to thin a little before I start investing my time in analyzing their positions. There are a few I have already eliminated, unless something crazy happens and I'm forced to pick between two of them, because of my familiarity with them in other governmental positions (McCain and Clinton are the two right now).

    "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

    - Herman Göring at the Nuremburg trials (thoughts on democracy)

  4. #4
    Personally, I think the way marriage is instituted in the country is antiquated. Back in the day when the country was more rural and 'justice' was a day's or more ride away, the local preacher stood for both church and state. I don't think that works anymore. (Personally, I think the State should stay out of the business of marriage alltogether but that's a different thread.)
    In Europe as well as other places around the world, the civil and religious significance of marriage is kept separate. It's rather odd that in this day and age where everyone is screaming about the so-called wall of separation between church and state this is allowed to continue. It would certainly make sense to split it up.
    As a Catholic, I disagree with gay marriage. If two lesbians or two gay men wish to make a permanent arrangement, fine. But it's not marriage.
    I also think that with as things stand now, there could be some coercion of churches into forcing them to perform or somehow endorse gay marriage as long as clergy act as agents of the state in formalizing marriages.
    It makes me think of the hub-bub here in Massachusetts when Catholic Charities put its foot down with respect to adoption to gay couples. The state tried to pull rank and thus Catholic Charities discontinued all adoptions. There is no federal or state support going to this organization - I support it through my parish.
    Yes, CC is technically a separate entity from the Church in financial ways but the responsibility to uphold Catholic doctrine is still in place.

  5. #5
    Cyburbian SW MI Planner's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,173
    Quote Originally posted by Suburb Repairman View post
    My stance is that marriage is a religious designation that the government should stay out of. The bedroom is no place for government. For governmental purposes, all life commitments between two people should be recognized (purposes of taxation, beneficiaries, government-sponsored adoption/IVF, etc):

    Man+Woman = civil union (can be performed by ordained or non-ordained)
    Man+Man = civil union (can be performed by ordained or non-ordained)
    Woman+Woman = civil union (can be performed by ordained or non-ordained)

    Whether the church wants to recognize it as a marriage is the church's business. (snip)
    I believe there needs to be a federal decision on it because federal policies depend on it, such as social security death benefits, filing joint tax returns, etc.
    I agree completely! (I know we are supposed to avoid such posts, but you said it all so well!)

  6. #6
    Super Moderator kjel's avatar
    Registered
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Wishing I were in Asia somewhere!
    Posts
    9,752
    Blog entries
    5
    All marriages are civil unions. You have to go to an office to get a "license" to get married whether it be in a religious or non-religious ceremony. Why? Because essentially you are registering that you and your chosen one want to co-habit with each other and have the legal protections/benefits afforded by the government in the matters of taxes, inheritance, benefits sharing, etc. Religion has zero to do with these functions and if a religious organization wants to recognize a union that's up to them.
    "He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?" Jeremiah 22:16

  7. #7
    Cyburbian graciela's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Galactica
    Posts
    298
    I live in the south, buckle of the bible belt. People around here LOVE to legislate their idea of morality. They need to stop legislating their beliefs on everyone else and stay out of people's personal business.

    My brother is gay. He has had a serious partner for over 12 years. They are totally committed to each other and in their minds they are married. It is a shame that they can't be recognized. Relationsip wise, they are a better and happier couple than many of the "breeder" couples I know.

    Here is a funny link:

    http://www.godhatesshrimp.com

  8. #8
    Cyburbian wahday's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    New Town
    Posts
    3,844
    Government should be promoting people entering into committed and healthy relationships, period. Its good for society at large for countless reasons. As kjelsadek said, the issue, in my mind, is a legal one - that is, couples (regardless of the combo) should enjoy the benefits and protections afforded by leaglly-sanctioned unions.

    Personally I fail to understand the arguments against gay marriage from the legal standpoint (well, also from the religious standpoint, but that's another discussion perhaps). Religion can say what it wants and point to this or that "evidence" from books writ long ago, but in the world of contemporary laws, there seems to me no real good reason to oppose this arrangement. The government has no right to say what kind of relationship between two consenting adults is ok ad what is not (ok, cousins getting married isn't cool - but there are negative bioloical implications for children in that case).

    On a related note, I saw that the House passed a hate crime bill that would include sexual orientation. First, I did not know this WASN'T already included. Secondly, Bush has said he would veto such a bill. Why? Its not like one can argue that homosexuality isn't real and therefore shouldn't merit protection. Its not like there aren't idiots out there just as interested in beating up (or worse) gay people as African-Americans (for whom the current hate crime law does apply). What's the deal? Why does Bush oppose this law so strongly that he would veto it?

    Moderator note:
    I understand it's difficult to discuss certain topics without bringing up the current administration. However, this thread is about the 2008 issues, so let's try and leave President Bush and his administration for another thread. Thanks... (Mastiff)
    Last edited by Mastiff; 04 May 2007 at 3:46 PM.
    The purpose of life is a life of purpose

  9. #9
    Cyburbian Jeff's avatar
    Registered
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Mr. Cool Ice
    Posts
    4,161
    I could care less about this. If 2 dogs want to get married, let them (well maybe not dogs but)...

    2 people in love regardless of sex is just so much better than the millions of unhappy "married" couples.

  10. #10
    Cyburbian illinoisplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    The Fox Valley
    Posts
    4,697
    Blog entries
    1
    I think we need to preserve the sanctity of marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman. That's how it's always been. I'm sick and tired of abandoning tradition, religion, and morality in this country in the name of being "progressive".

    Being gay and embracing that lifestyle is a personal choice and not something you are inherently born with. This lifestyle is degrading to our culture and society and we should not allow it.

    If homosexuals want to live together and do as they please, that's fine. But the government should not be recognizing it as anything official or anything even close to the equivalent of the union of a man and a woman. Doing so would embrace this lifestyle and allow for the continual degradation of our society and abandonment of our traditons and principles.

    Right now, I think the number of states electing to establish clauses defining marriage between a man and a woman clearly shows that Americans want to preserve the sanctity of marriage, a special privliege given to a man and a woman truly in love. But it really is a state issue, and I think we should leave it as such for the moment. If Massachussets and San Francisco want to embrace this culture, while the rest of America embraces the culture of family and traditional marriage, that's fine with me. It seems like this issue is already being taken care of in most states.

  11. #11
    Chairman of the bored Maister's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2004
    Location
    on my 15 minute break
    Posts
    17,892
    Quote Originally posted by illinoisplanner View post
    Being gay and embracing that lifestyle is a personal choice and not something you are inherently born with.
    Off-topic:
    You seem quite confident of this. How can you be so sure? considering the amount of abuse and disrespect heaped on homosexuals in this society, I find it difficult to believe that most people would willingly 'choose' to be gay. I admit, however, that I'm not an authority on the topic and would like to hear from someone who is gay before I form my final opinion on this matter. This is a topic probably worthy of its own thread, though.
    People will miss that it once meant something to be Southern or Midwestern. It doesn't mean much now, except for the climate. The question, “Where are you from?” doesn't lead to anything odd or interesting. They live somewhere near a Gap store, and what else do you need to know? - Garrison Keillor

  12. #12
    Cyburbian Plus PlannerGirl's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Va
    Posts
    4,604
    Quote Originally posted by illinoisplanner View post

    Being gay and embracing that lifestyle is a personal choice and not something you are inherently born with. This lifestyle is degrading to our culture and society and we should not allow it.

    Honestly I dont have a problem with how someone belives until such a statement. I know not a single person who 'chooses" to be gay, for many folks its a life long battle trying to have a "normal" life thats now who they are. Numerous studies have come back that gender, sexuality etc are indeed something from birth and that there are gay people *and animals* in all cultures and walks of life.

    I fail to see how any couple, gay or otherwise who has a positive long term relationship is "degrading our culture and society". I have a dear "uncle" whos been with his partner now 20 years, far longer than 90% of the het couples I know but some how hes wrong? Im not buying it.
    Last edited by NHPlanner; 07 May 2007 at 2:29 PM. Reason: fixed quote tags
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin

    Remember this motto to live by: "Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, martini in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming 'WOO- HOO what a ride!'"

  13. #13
    Cyburbian illinoisplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    The Fox Valley
    Posts
    4,697
    Blog entries
    1
    Quote Originally posted by Maister View post
    Off-topic:
    You seem quite confident of this. How can you be so sure? considering the amount of abuse and disrespect heaped on homosexuals in this society, I find it difficult to believe that most people would willingly 'choose' to be gay. I admit, however, that I'm not an authority on the topic and would like to hear from someone who is gay before I form my final opinion on this matter. This is a topic probably worthy of its own thread, though.
    It's nothing I know for fact. It's just a theory.

    Take for instance, the prison sex thing you hear about in the media all the time. People who oridnarily aren't gay in real life, engaging in gay sexual (and even romantic) relations because there are no other options in such an environment.

    I think anyone can be gay and embrace that lifestyle if they really want to.

    They also can be straight and embrace that lifestyle if they really want to.

    I have no problem with anyone doing either. It's none of my concern. However, I don't think the government should legally be recognizing alternative lifestyles as marriage. Marriage is a time-honored tradition of union between a man and a woman and not something we should be altering.

  14. #14
    Super Moderator kjel's avatar
    Registered
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Wishing I were in Asia somewhere!
    Posts
    9,752
    Blog entries
    5
    Quote Originally posted by geobandito View post
    Yesterday, my girlfriend and I put down the deposit on the restaurant where we'll be holding our big gay wedding. The old-school Greek owner did not bat an eye. We were not struck by lightning. The institution of marriage did not seem to crumble as we left the premises. Maybe in October, after the ceremony, it will, but for now the world seems to be okay.
    Congratulations!

    Quote Originally posted by illinoisplanner
    I think we need to preserve the sanctity of marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman. That's how it's always been. I'm sick and tired of abandoning tradition, religion, and morality in this country in the name of being "progressive".
    The sanctity of marriage is a farce given our divorce rates IMO. However, use of the word "sanctity" indicates a religious or faithful perspective as marriage is considered a sacrament in the church which is fine, but not all people believe that. Homosexual people aren't telling heterosexual people that they can't get married, the would just like to be afforded equal protection as a right of a human being.

    Abandoning tradition, religion, and morality in the name of being "progressive"? Let me remind you that slavery was considered to be moral and traditional and churches looked the other way. Women not being able to be educated, vote, have inheritance rights was considered to be moral and traditional and religiously sanctioned. The world didn't come to an end when slaves were granted freedom, women began to be educated, women and minorities gained the vote and so called "equal rights", etc.

    The world is not going to come to an end when we grant ALL human beings freedom and ensure equality no matter what color, ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc that one may be. Freedom of the individual as the most basic human right is what it should be about.
    "He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?" Jeremiah 22:16

  15. #15
    Gunfighter Mastiff's avatar
    Registered
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Middle of a Dusty Street
    Posts
    6,379
    Quote Originally posted by illinoisplanner View post
    I think we need to preserve the sanctity of marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman. That's how it's always been. I'm sick and tired of abandoning tradition, religion, and morality in this country in the name of being "progressive".
    Perhaps one might consider doing a full review of the history of marriage before making such a blanket statement. Marriage as far as Greek and Roman societies was to have legitimate offspring and for the transfer of property. They allowed for sexual congress with others, including slaves and prostitutes, and not always heterosexual.

    If you want to keep tradition, perhaps we need to go back to dowries, arranged marriage, and heck, polygamy! I mean, it was done legally in the west as late as the 1860's!

    Quote Originally posted by illinoisplanner View post
    Being gay and embracing that lifestyle is a personal choice and not something you are inherently born with. This lifestyle is degrading to our culture and society and we should not allow it.
    Uh, no... You may believe that, but the science of it is not conclusive either way. And to say it degrades the culture is pure foolishness. It gets pretty old having people think that their morality is the only way, and the country is going down the tubes because everyone won't think like you.

    How's that Ted Haggard thing working out for you?

    Quote Originally posted by illinoisplanner View post
    If homosexuals want to live together and do as they please, that's fine. But the government should not be recognizing it as anything official or anything even close to the equivalent of the union of a man and a woman. Doing so would embrace this lifestyle and allow for the continual degradation of our society and abandonment of our traditons and principles.
    The government should stay the hell out of it, period. Civil unions between consenting adults is nothing new... even here. Blaming the degradation of society on homosexuals who want to have a legal partner for obvious reasons is over the top. And as far as our "traditions" go, what else should we hold dear? Slavery? Sufferage for white men only? Slaughtering native americans? Traditions and principles should change when they are flat out wrong...

    Quote Originally posted by illinoisplanner View post
    Right now, I think the number of states electing to establish clauses defining marriage between a man and a woman clearly shows that Americans want to preserve the sanctity of marriage, a special privliege given to a man and a woman truly in love. But it really is a state issue, and I think we should leave it as such for the moment. If Massachussets and San Francisco want to embrace this culture, while the rest of America embraces the culture of family and traditional marriage, that's fine with me. It seems like this issue is already being taken care of in most states.
    So leave it up to the states... I'm okay with that. I'll take gay over redneck any day. But, it isn't just MA and SF, it's also:

    CA, CT, HI, ME, NJ, VT, WA & DC

    Three Canadian provinces, QC, NS & MB

    And:

    Denmark
    Norway
    Israel
    Sweden
    Greenland
    Hungary
    Iceland
    France
    Germany
    Portugal
    Finland
    Croatia
    Austria
    Luxembourg
    New Zealand
    United Kingdom
    Andorra
    Czech Republic
    Slovenia
    Switzerland
    Colombia

    And many parts of other countries... Now I ask you, who is behind the times here?
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    C'mon and get me you twist of fate
    I'm standing right here Mr. Destiny
    If you want to talk well then I'll relate
    If you don't so what cause you don't scare me

  16. #16
    Cyburbian illinoisplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    The Fox Valley
    Posts
    4,697
    Blog entries
    1
    If homosexuals want to live together and what not, that is perfectly fine. Nobody's stopping them. It's not the behavior I have a problem with.

    Nobody's denying homosexuals jobs, education, the right to vote, social security, etc. And if they do, that's wrong. So was slavery. So was denying women's rights.

    However, marriage is a union between a man and a woman, recognized in pretty much every religion. I'm also tired of Vegas wedding chapels, people marrying when they really shouldn't (and thus skyrocketing divorce rates and the problems that come with it), and handing out marriage licences like candy. It's not just the homosexual unions.

    Marriage should be a privilege reserved strictly for a man and a woman in love in this country.

    Government-recognized marriages are not rights guaranteed to anyone. Nor should they be. Leave it up to the states as far as I'm concerned.

    If Europe and the liberal coasts want to go down the drain, that's their own damn fault.

  17. #17
    Cyburbian Planderella's avatar
    Registered
    Dec 1998
    Location
    NOLA
    Posts
    4,468
    Quote Originally posted by illinoisplanner View post
    It's nothing I know for fact. It's just a theory.

    Take for instance, the prison sex thing you hear about in the media all the time. People who oridnarily aren't gay in real life, engaging in gay sexual (and even romantic) relations because there are no other options in such an environment.
    You really have to be careful about what you say...sometimes it can come back to haunt you.

    Personally, I don't have a problem with same sex marriages, civil unions, or whatever it's called.
    "A witty woman is a treasure, a witty beauty is a power!"

  18. #18
    Cyburbian illinoisplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    The Fox Valley
    Posts
    4,697
    Blog entries
    1
    Quote Originally posted by Planderella View post
    You really have to be careful about what you say...sometimes it can come back to haunt you.

    Personally, I don't have a problem with same sex marriages, civil unions, or whatever it's called.
    Okay, bashing a political figure without reason is one thing.

    Having a well-formed opinion or belief on a controversial social issue you follow is something completely different.

  19. #19
    Unfrozen Caveman Planner mendelman's avatar
    Registered
    May 2003
    Location
    Staff meeting
    Posts
    8,208
    It doesn't really matter what it's called. The important thing is that the rights and privileges afforded to the couple must not be different in any way from those given to another couple.

    Fine. The churches can still call it "marriage" and not perform them, but the government agency recognizing the couple should call it a "civil union" no matter the combination of sexes within the couple.

    Is this really such a founational issue that so much hot air has to be expended over it? Just give the rights and be done with it. Let's get to the truely important issues - economy, deficit, education, healthcare, foreign poilcy.
    I'm sorry. Is my bias showing?

    Let's not be didactic in this profession, because that is a path to disillusion and irrelevancy.

    Six seasons and a movie!

  20. #20
    Cyburbian Brocktoon's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Promoting synergies...
    Posts
    3,558
    With the separation of church and state the how a church defines marriage should have no bearing on how the government recognizes an institution that conveys powers of wealth transfer, medical decision making, favorable tax treatment, property rights and other similar rights and privileges.

    Currently two friends want these benefits of opposite sex can enter into such an agreement but to friends of the same sex cannot.

    Marriage is a contract that is sanctioned by the state, no more and no less. Denying the access to this contract to adults of sound mind and body is discrimination.
    "If you don't like change, you're going to like irrelevance even less" General Eric Shinseki

  21. #21
    Cyburbian Plus dandy_warhol's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2005
    Location
    meh.
    Posts
    8,339
    Quote Originally posted by illinoisplanner View post
    If Europe and the liberal coasts want to go down the drain, that's their own damn fault.

    so allowing for people who are in love to publicly commit to their union is going down the drain? embracing a culture of tolerance and diversity is going down the drain? supporting the creation of families is going down the drain?

    if so, then flush away.
    In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends. -Martin Luther King Jr.

  22. #22
    Cyburbian Brocktoon's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Promoting synergies...
    Posts
    3,558
    Quote Originally posted by illinoisplanner View post

    If Europe and the liberal coasts want to go down the drain, that's their own damn fault.
    So do would you also support Anti-Miscegenation legislation?

    Many religous and consevertative groups saw this as another example of progessives ruining the country.

    How is your position and their position any different?
    "If you don't like change, you're going to like irrelevance even less" General Eric Shinseki

  23. #23
    Cyburbian Plus PlannerGirl's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Va
    Posts
    4,604

    Please help me understand...

    I'm rather curious how gay couples having the same relationship rights as any other couple is "degrading to our culture and society", care to expand upon this?
    Last edited by PlannerGirl; 07 May 2007 at 3:36 PM. Reason: typo
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin

    Remember this motto to live by: "Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, martini in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming 'WOO- HOO what a ride!'"

  24. #24
    Cyburbian illinoisplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    The Fox Valley
    Posts
    4,697
    Blog entries
    1
    Quote Originally posted by Brocktoon View post
    So do would you also support Anti-Miscegenation legislation?

    Many religous and consevertative groups saw this as another example of progessives ruining the country.

    How is your position and their position any different?
    No, I wouldn't support anti-Miscegenation legislation. You don't deny someone anything based upon their race. That is something that science clearly proves you cannot control.

    There is not enough sceintific conclusive evidence to determine that homosexuality is something you cannot control.

    It's about "man and woman" people. Not man and rock. Not woman and child. Not man and man. Not woman and woman. Not man and eight women.

    Quote Originally posted by dandy_warhol View post
    so allowing for people who are in love to publicly commit to their union is going down the drain? embracing a culture of tolerance and diversity is going down the drain? supporting the creation of families is going down the drain?

    if so, then flush away.
    Supporting the creation of families? OK, how do homosexual relationships promote the creation of family? Man+woman = child. Man+man or woman+woman = no child. No child=no biological offspring and no future generation of said family.

    What if everyone were to have same-sex marriages. Then human civilization would be history.
    Last edited by NHPlanner; 11 May 2007 at 4:06 PM. Reason: double reply

  25. #25
    Cyburbian Brocktoon's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Promoting synergies...
    Posts
    3,558
    Quote Originally posted by illinoisplanner View post
    No, I wouldn't support anti-Miscegenation legislation. You don't deny someone anything based upon their race. That is something that science clearly proves you cannot control.

    There is not enough sceintific conclusive evidence to determine that homosexuality is something you cannot control.

    It's about "man and woman" people. Not man and rock. Not woman and child. Not man and man. Not woman and woman. Not man and eight women.
    So if science can conclusively prove that there is a biological difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals then you would change your views? What should that standard be?

    Also to bring this thread back on topic would a candidate’s view on this issue be a major factor in determining whether or not you would vote for them?
    "If you don't like change, you're going to like irrelevance even less" General Eric Shinseki

+ Reply to thread
Page 1 of 5 1 2 ... LastLast

More at Cyburbia

  1. Replies: 12
    Last post: 09 Oct 2007, 11:07 AM
  2. Replies: 38
    Last post: 03 Jul 2007, 10:02 PM
  3. Replies: 8
    Last post: 10 May 2007, 11:04 AM
  4. 2008 Election Issue #2 Gay Marriage
    Friday Afternoon Club
    Replies: 15
    Last post: 09 May 2007, 7:54 AM
  5. Gay Civil Unions
    Friday Afternoon Club
    Replies: 29
    Last post: 05 Aug 2003, 4:34 PM