Jump to content
270soft Forum

Vice Presidential Debate


Democraticalltheway

Recommended Posts

Ive decided to moderate a VP Debate. I have a few rules to keep this as clean as possible.

1) Questions must be clearly answered and not avoided or dodged around.

2) Please Refrain from any Negative Questions.

3) Stick to the Issues at hand

Ok here we go...

The Issues for this debate are going to be Foreign Polcy, Same-Sex Marriage, Abortion, Racism.

And the First question from me will go out to JoSpiv:

If you were elected today would you support a ban on Same-Sex marriage? Please Explain your stand

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply

First let me thank you for this oppurtunity.

Well, I would absolutly oppose a ban of Same-Sex Marrige. In the simpliest terms I believe it's wrong to take rights away from people, esspecially in the US constitution.

Also, let me use an example of why it's unfair that homosexuals can't marry. In the film Philadephia with Tom Hanks, he is living with AIDS. He has to go to the hospital at one point, and his boyfriend goes with him. The doctor asks who it is, and says since he's not a family member he is not privy to the infomation about Tom Hank's condition, and could be removed from the ward. That is a very important scene because it shows that Marrige, and is not based on God, but based on love, and a connection between two people. I want to know from the candiates who oppose Gay Marrige two things. 1)What would you say to your child, if they came to and told you they were Gay? 2)How would a gay marrige affect your life personally?

Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank-you for this opportunity to be heard. Let me start by saying that I am opposed to gay marriage. Now, before anyone starts shrieking homophobe at me, let me say that my opposition to gay marriage has nothing to do with homophobia. My opposition to gay marriage is rooted in tradition. Far too often our cherished traditions and institutions are eroded and assaulted by those who would champion the trendy-politically correct cause of the day. We need to put a stop to that. We need to hold onto our traditions, including the traditional definition of marriage. We need to promote traditional familty values.

The great American president, Dwight D. Eisenhower once said "A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both." He was right. We need to begin sticking to our guns and not allowing our traditions to be eroded.

Having said that, I would not be opposed to an equal and yet different institution for gays and lesbians. A type of civil union that would not, in any way, alter the definition of a traditional marriage would be acceptable to me.

To answer JoSpiv's questions:

1) I would accept it. Plain and simple. As I clearly stated above, I do not hate gays and lesbians.

2) A gay marriage would not affect my life personally any more than a heterosexual marriage would. Having said that, tinkering with long held traditions in order to satisfy the trendy cause of the day ultimately weakens the nation. We need to hold onto our traditions. Marriage is a tradition that has long been the basis of the traditional familty on this contenant.

Thank-you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
[T]inkering with long held traditions in order to satisfy the trendy cause of the day ultimately weakens the nation. We need to hold onto our traditions.

For which I read: Damn those abolitionists and that civil rights movement...!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mantis it has been stated before and I will state it again. Homosexuality is as old as Heterosexuality. Scientists have proven that whether or not a child will be homosexual or heterosexual is decided by a chromosome at conception. This "Tradition Definition of Marriage" You talk about has been and is described as a religious definition. In fact The True definition of Marriage would be a Union between 2 people who love each other and have decided to become one and live together as one for the rest of their lives. Also we cannot forget Equality. It went against TRADITION to allow women to work, vote, serve in the military and run for federal office, and yet now thanks to the Womens Rights movement Fairness and Equality have been and are continuing to be established. This is a two part question for any candidate but it specifically directed at Mantis.

1)If its because of the "Traditional Definition of Marriage" because of tradition that you would ban gay marriage, would you also seek to reverse other laws that went against Tradition such as the Womens Rights movement?

2)Dont you think it is a dangerous policy to impose a religious standard of marriage as law?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1)If its because of the "Traditional Definition of Marriage" because of tradition that you would ban gay marriage, would you also seek to reverse other laws that went against Tradition such as the Womens Rights movement?

2)Dont you think it is a dangerous policy to impose a religious standard of marriage as law?

Please quote my answer where I said ANYTHING about religion. As far as reversing other legal rights, no, I would not reverse them. Those issues are not even in the same league.

The question is where do we draw the line? Are we not starting down a slippery slope here? Where do we go next? Who will demand the right to marry next? Will polygamists demand the right to marry multiple partners because they truly love them? Will pedophiles demand the right to marry children for the same reason? What would be our basis for denying those demands and others if we give into one group? What is wrong with a different and yet equal institution such as a civil union that does not interfere with the traditional definition of marriage?

Link to post
Share on other sites
so gays can't have equal rights because it crosses the line?

Please quote my post where I said that. Clearly, I said the exact opposite. In fact I have come out in favour of an EQUAL but different institution for gays and lesbians.

Perhaps you would like to present your own position and answer the question as opposed to standing on the sidelines and sniping at those of us who would endeavour to answer this quesiton on this highly divisive subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites

mantis. Not so long ago, interracial marrige was not allowed, and was definetly out of sync with tradition. That Changed. What you are saying simply is that because YOU THINK it's not right, human beings should have fewer rights than you.

If you want to talk about tradition, homosexuality was accepted in greek, and roman times. It wasn't until christianity that it became "evil". So, don't tell me your claims of tradition have nothing to do with religon.

I don't understand you claims of it hurting tradition. Who cares? You said it won't affect you at all. So why is it a problem? If it won't affect hetroseuxal marriges who cares? I mean if you want everything according to tradition, who's tradition to we pick? Eastern cultures have a very different tradition then Western. You would be imposing your tradition on them.

You claim you are not a homophobe. I don't know what to think about that, since you still think they don't deserve the same rights you do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But your RM the man who would be president has opposed those same type of unions. In fact he has come out and basically said gays can be treated for a condition. How can you run with a man when your views on issues like this are so opposite of each other?

That is the beauty of our party. We allow people to hold their own views. Hardright and I are on the same page on virtually every issue. We are on the same page (for the most part) on this issue as well. Personally I would support the notion of a civil union as a way to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. If Hardright has other ideas then more power to him - he is free do make up his own mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You claim you are not a homophobe. I don't know what to think about that, since you still think they don't deserve the same rights you do.

Now JoSpiv, that is a blatant lie and you know it. I have very clearly come out in favour of a DIFFERENT AND YET EQUAL civil union for gays and lesbians. I am still waiting to hear your answer to my questions. Quit dodging the issue and lets see your answer.

Where would you draw the line? People in the groups that I mentioned could and potentially would use all of the same arguments promoting their right to marry that gays and lesbians have used. Why are you so opposed to a different and yet equal institution? Why do you insist on using distortions of my position to further your argument as opposed to sticking to the facts?

Link to post
Share on other sites
But your differences here are not small.  If you believe in Civil Unions, and HRC belives it's some kind of mental condition that can be treated you have serious problems.  He would be the Pres, not you.

I think there are far more serious issues and problems to deal with than this divisive issue. Clearly our differences are small - we both opposed same sex marriage. Now either quit dodging and answer my questions or lets move onto the next issue. I fail to see how your use of distortions of my position and attempts to distract people from the real issue are helpful or constructive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how old you are mantis, but the term "Different but equal" reminds me of another phrase. "Seperate but Equal". It was usedto defenc segregation in the south for many years. Do you thus support segregation? Maybe we should have Gay and Straight Churches too eh?

I believe there are more important issues than Gay Marrige. But some of the things being said by your campaign are scary. You're from Canada I think, but in the United States many people get worreid when certain phrases are used, because they have been used to do great evil. Most of those evi deeds began with intentions that were thought to be right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know how old you are mantis, but the term "Different but equal" reminds me of another phrase. "Seperate but Equal". It was usedto defenc segregation in the south for many years. Do you thus support segregation? Maybe we should have Gay and Straight Churches too eh?

I believe there are more important issues than Gay Marrige. But some of the things being said by your campaign are scary. You're from Canada I think, but in the United States many people get worreid when certain phrases are used, because they have been used to do great evil. Most of those evi deeds began with intentions that were thought to be right.

There you go again with more distortions. Why not stick to the facts, JoSpiv. Why won't you answer my questions? What are you afraid of?

I am from Canada. We didn't have segregation and I am proud of that. I am not even going to dignify your other distortions with a response.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What was your question? I've looked through your posts and don't see a real question.

I doubt this is your question sicne it dones't make sense, but if you're asking me"what am I afraid of?". Obvously nothing. That's why I want people to have rights they deserve as humans. You are afraid of something. That tradition that you value so much?

Yeah, you didn't have segregation. We did. And racial issues still are a problem here. I'm trying to explain "seperate but equal" doesn't work. Niether will "Different but equal"(which is an oxy moron. Things cannot be equal, and different).

I have used facts. Like all conservatives, you use buzz words, and attack slogans. I use, facts, and logical connections. Whatever your question was, ask it again. If you think it will change anything, by all means.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For your benefit, JoSpiv, here are the questions that I asked:

The question is where do we draw the line?  Are we not starting down a slippery slope here?  Where do we go next?  Who will demand the right to marry next?  Will polygamists demand the right to marry multiple partners because they truly love them?  Will pedophiles demand the right to marry children for the same reason?  What would be our basis for denying those demands and others if we give into one group?  What is wrong with a different and yet equal institution such as a civil union that does not interfere with the traditional definition of marriage?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Like all conservatives, you use buzz words, and attack slogans.

Clearly you have shown that, like all Liberals, you would rather wallow in distortions of your oponents positions as opposed to dealing with the real issues. Like all Liberals, you use labels to try to marginalize you opponents and try to distract people from your own positions by launching dishonest attacks on everyone elses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...