NH primary GOP debate

[Indiogene]

Last night's GOP presidential primary debate in New Hampshire, the six candidates opine on GLBT rights issues such as same-sex civil unions and gay marriage. All of them irked me and I sensed they fear the issues relating to homosexuals, and rather dodge the topic. What they said "I won't support it, but I don't dislike them and I known gay people or lesbians personally, etc." I came to realize the Republican party are ignoring and downplaying gay or GLBT rights issues.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhztwUQRzxE&feature=g-logo&context=G2ec8957FOAAAAAAAGAA

[+DieChecker]

I like the Opinion I heard on the radio today at lunch time... With the economy, foreign wars, terrorists, unemployment, and godzilla being what they are, what the hell does it matter what gay people do? If they want to say they are married and live together, how is that more important then fixing the Economy or ending Terrorism? I don't agree with "homosexual" marriage. If anything I think we should have some kind of non-sexual specific marriage, which is a contract of support between two or more rational people. But, really, gay marriage is way down on the list of things that is going to ruin this decade if it does not get fixed.

Edit: I put in Godzilla for fun. Substitute Global Warming/Climate Change, if you want to be overly serious.

Edited January 9, 2012 by DieChecker

[+and-then]

I expect the candidates shy away from the debate because the majority of their perceived constituency is against the GLBT agenda. Since they expect to garner few votes from this group they avoid any stance that would alienate their base.

[Yamato]

Last night's GOP presidential primary debate in New Hampshire, the six candidates opine on GLBT rights issues such as same-sex civil unions and gay marriage. All of them irked me and I sensed they fear the issues relating to homosexuals, and rather dodge the topic. What they said "I won't support it, but I don't dislike them and I known gay people or lesbians personally, etc." I came to realize the Republican party are ignoring and downplaying gay or GLBT rights issues.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhztwUQRzxE&feature=g-logo&context=G2ec8957FOAAAAAAAGAA

That was a sad display of double talk from most of the candidates, with Newt Gingrich trying to jam the gears with the Catholic church as his wrench. The Catholic church can still do whatever it wants after government is no longer redefining what marriage means or picking groups of people out of the population who don't have the right to get it. However the Church handles it is none of government's business so if that's the pretense of Gingrich's policy he's once again a traitor to the spirit of the law. "Is the Catholic Church...?" is simply using the church as the scapegoat to dictate his personal preferences on who he doesn't accept as having equal rights.

Marriage became a license from the state in the 19th century over health concerns. The reason for marriage licenses existing in the first place is now obsolete. Government needs to just get out of it, but married couples with children receive better treatment from the government and that's why people won't initially agree with the idea. They're too familiar with the system: "Do this and we'll give you that." Stop punishing me for not being married. Quit controlling our behavior by dictating our economic freedom. Marriage is a sacrament, it's a commitment made between two loving people before family, friends, and traditionally God. It's none of Washington DC's business to control who can and who can't get married.

It's ridiculous we think that government is going to save marriage from gay people. Another false threat for government to scare us with and acquire more power from. If we really want to defend marriage against something that threatens it, try divorce.

[acidhead]

Religion, sexual preference and race have long been used to divide the people.

It's not just by chance that the mods decided to bring up these issues in every single debate. They are doing it on purpose to enrage the viewing audience so the viewer feels engaged by the debate and feels a sense of purpose thus distracting from more important issues such as the economy, civil liberties(NDAA) and the pre-emptive wars being waged on sovereign lands over seas.

You'll notice whenever Ron Paul gets asked a question on these dividing topics he immediately denounces them as a distraction from the issues we should be talking about(economy, the Fed, wars,civil liberties, NDAA, etc...) and than immediately talks about them instead.

The rest of the candidates are playing right into the hand of the two-party system and each time Ron Paul calls them on it it further discredits both party's and the need for real change.

[Indiogene]

I expect your usual debate about their abhorrance of abortion, "rights" of gun ownership, opposition for amnesty to illegal immigrants and whatever else to stir up emotions on divisive sociopolitical issues. They had to get into the Gay Rights issue, because the GOP continually is under influence of religious fundamentalists and the unfounded fear of legalization of same-sex marriage brings down society, when in fact this hasn't happened where same-sex marriage is legal. Ron Paul hasn't spoke up or called his opponents out on demanding more laws or regulations against people's liberties. He's already scrutinized for his past newsletter filled with racist, anti-semitic or homophobic comments.

Edited January 9, 2012 by Mike the Autist-ic

[acidhead]

I expect your usual debate about their abhorrance of abortion, "rights" of gun ownership, opposition for amnesty to illegal immigrants and whatever else to stir up emotions on divisive sociopolitical issues. They had to get into the Gay Rights issue, because the GOP continually is under influence of religious fundamentalists and the unfounded fear of legalization of same-sex marriage brings down society, when in fact this hasn't happened where same-sex marriage is legal. Ron Paul hasn't spoke up or called his opponents out on demanding more laws or regulations against people's liberties. He's already scrutinized for his past newsletter filled with racist, anti-semitic or homophobic comments.

Just curious..... If that was directed at me:

Take your collectivist attitude and cry to somebody else about those issues. I don't subscribe to them. There is an wise old idea called personal responsibility. Making your own personal choices and living with the consequences. I suggest you try somebody else who will emotionally cling to those issues cause I won't.

I'm an individual. As are you and everybody else on this imperfect planet. The sooner people begin to understand that we all have the exact same rights the better off society will be. It's tiring listening to people cry about the problems in their life like the choices they made are everybody else problem cause they're not.

Ron Paul hasn't spoken up about demanding more laws or regulations against people's liberties because he's ONLY concerned with eliminating the ones that are taking away civil liberties.... DUH!...... pay attention!

Rid yourself from your collectivist mindset. Only standing armies are powerful in numbers. In a free society the individual is just as strong, just as powerful as the largest military ever created by a government. You, alone are not powerless. You are an individual. You have free speech. Freedom to engage in commerce. You are alive. Live your life as an individual.

[randym23]

I don't even see why this is an issue. Does it really matter? Why are same-sex relationships viewed any differently anyway. I just don't get it. Also, aren't there more pressing matters?

[Corp]

I like the Opinion I heard on the radio today at lunch time... With the economy, foreign wars, terrorists, unemployment, and godzilla being what they are, what the hell does it matter what gay people do? If they want to say they are married and live together, how is that more important then fixing the Economy or ending Terrorism? I don't agree with "homosexual" marriage. If anything I think we should have some kind of non-sexual specific marriage, which is a contract of support between two or more rational people. But, really, gay marriage is way down on the list of things that is going to ruin this decade if it does not get fixed.

Edit: I put in Godzilla for fun. Substitute Global Warming/Climate Change, if you want to be overly serious.

What if gay, out of work, godzilla economic terrorists wanted to get married? In the middle of a foreign war?

[questionmark]

What if gay, out of work, godzilla economic terrorists wanted to get married? In the middle of a foreign war?

Reverend Bumstead will start praying for the separation of men and women in prayer rooms

[Damrod]

I have always said...call it something different if that is your heartburn....

So marriage is a religious thing between a man and a woman...fine...that's fine...

Let the LGBT crowd have the same rights and legal benefits by calling it a "union"...oh wait...that implies sexual content...call it a "Contract" then....Repubs love them contracts...

The fact that we are supposed to be a society of separation of church and state and yet we have laws based on religious principles that effect the rights and benefits of citizens is hypocrisy at it's finest hour...

Let people do whatever they want to do...until it spills over and does bodily harm to the unwilling....that is the bassis that should direct everything...not religion...

Edit:

Did a little research into this topic....eye opening actually...there are some of the historians on these boards that might correct me and provide actual times and dates...but...I think I have locked this down pretty well...Folks Like Cormac, kmt_sesh, Abremelin, Leonardo....are far better capable of verifying what I think happened...but it makes fundamental sense...

The ancient texts of Leviticus that everyone likes to cite as the reason it is wrong has some practical and and reasonable...but not moral...foundations...

Israel was giving birth to a nation...they needed workers and soldiers....man on man and woman on woman was not creating children....not birthing soldiers and workers....so they made it illegal and tagged it as the "Will of God"...

Actually...at some point...I forget the timeline...Ancient Greece did the same thing...but they didn't attach 'religious" connotations to it...they simply said...'We need soldiers so you cannot participate in homosexual behavior...we need babies"....

From that standpoint...it is understandable...you are recovering from a war and need to re-populate....fine...we have 7 billion + people now...letting homosexuals be what they want to be is not going to reduce the world population anytime soon....seriously...

Edited January 9, 2012 by Damrod

[Corp]

Well God told the people to multiply, which increased the tax base along with the pool of soldiers, thus increasing a nation's power. Can't do that if men and women aren't getting it on. Though the moral element does make sense given that within the religious context God did make two genders. He must have wanted men and women to hook up, otherwise he would have just made one gender. So from a moral stand point homosexuality is against God's will. Of course so is lying and downloading music from the internet. Let thee without sin smash the glass house and all that.

Of course given that Leviticus is perhaps the nuttist of all Bible chapters (a cotton blend shirt? kill them!) it's a rather poor moral compass.

[Fluffybunny]

What if gay, out of work, godzilla economic terrorists wanted to get married? In the middle of a foreign war?

Depends. Is godzilla a republican?

[+DieChecker]

Depends. Is godzilla a republican?

I think he belongs to the Pacific Green Party.

[Indiogene]

Today's Republican party tries to shy away from real divisive or controversial issues, actually at the same time pursue them into receiving the near-majority conservative constituence and the GOP is more to the right side of the political spectrum. Now they are gonna denounce prejudice, bigotry and discrimination against people, but in this case when sexual orientation or preference is concerned, they reject the notion GLBT people have civil rights and should never lose their human dignity. There are lots of people in the USA continue to feel threatened of Gay rights and run away from issues concerning gays by backing themselves with the bible. And start to cry "Moral decline" as well worry about children exposed to the subject (i.e. "corruption of children") and churches forcibly shutting down for alleged promotion of hate speech, an unrealistic reaction. These scare tactics were used in Saturday night's debate by all the Republican candidates.

Edited January 10, 2012 by Mike the Autist-ic

[Indiogene]

Since the Australia same-sex civil unions thread was closed and also related to this topic on the US, the lack of support for gay marriage rights in most of the country is a poor example of conservatism goes against the reality on the true need for progress in the rights of gays put in the backseat due to unfounded fears of moral decline or whatever. Recently, the Canadian government said they will back gay rights and declare all same sex marriages performed with Canadian jurisdiction "legal and valid". Oh Canada!

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/justice-minister-declares-all-same-sex-marriages-legal-and-valid/article2301691/?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=Referrer%3A+Social+Network+%2F+Media&utm_content=2301691&utm_campaign=Shared+Web+Article+Links