If it comes down to Hillary and Mitt who would you vote for ???

[Kamala]

Okay, well, I can see why you would oppose his politics. I guess I'm not seeing how any of these things makes him a "bigot." To be perfectly honest, I am pretty politically moderate myself. Politics don't interest me a lot, but I think Mitt is a decent human being and, while conservative, not a "bigot" at all.

Sorry, but I think his opinions and politics towards gay people can't be construed as anything other than bigotry.

I think you'd feel the same way if these politics had the potential to effect you like they do many of us.

 

[Katzpur]

Sorry, but I think his opinions and politics towards gay people can't be construed as anything other than bigotry.

I think you'd feel the same way if these politics had the potential to effect you like they do many of us.

To each his own. I don't see opposition to same-sex marriage as being bigoted myself. But I guess I'm just too much of a bigot to be able to see the situation clearly. I just see marriage as a relgious institution that God ordained to be between a man and a woman. I am, however, definitely in favor of same-sex civil unions. I realize that to gays and lesbians, that's not good enough.

 

[Kamala]

To each his own. I don't see opposition to same-sex marriage as being bigoted myself. But I guess I'm just too much of a bigot to be able to see the situation clearly. I just see marriage as a relgious institution that God ordained to be between a man and a woman. I am, however, definitely in favor of same-sex civil unions. I realize that to gays and lesbians, that's not good enough.

No, it's not. Specifically because they don't afford all of the same rights as marriage. I don't really want to be stuck with 2nd-class status just because mine and my girlfriend's genitals aren't the right combination.

Do you see civil marriage as ordained by God? I don't mean religious ceremonies, but the kind you can get from a Justice of the Peace in a courthouse.

 

[Mathematician]

I don't see where either candidate truly has their passion stored away.

It looks to me Hillary just wants to be the first woman president and Romney wants to be the first Mormon president. What exactly do they want to change (or sustain?). No president is equally involved in all issues. LBJ was civil rights, Nixon was foreign affairs, Carter was human rights, Reagan was army and taxes...

If I had to pick between the two and not vote Green, I'd lean towards Clinton strictly because she's a liberal. Although her support of the Iraq War makes me cringe, at least she recognizes the importance of health care, gay marriage, repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, cutting down on capital punishment (DNA would be required) and keeping flag burning a legal practice. What is Romney going to offer me as a liberal? Because honestly, if I was conservative I'd ask Hillary the same question.

 

[Katzpur]

No, it's not. Specifically because they don't afford all of the same rights as marriage. I don't really want to be stuck with 2nd-class status just because mine and my girlfriend's genitals aren't the right combination.

Do you see civil marriage as ordained by God? I don't mean religious ceremonies, but the kind you can get from a Justice of the Peace in a courthouse.

Why don't you tell me specifically what rights you would not be afforded by a same-sex civil union as you would by a marriage. I'd be interested because I really don't know what they are.

 

[lunamoth]

Why don't you tell me specifically what rights you would not be afforded by a same-sex civil union as you would by a marriage. I'd be interested because I really don't know what they are.

Does Mitt support SSCUs?

 

[Kamala]

http://www.yffn.org/admin/spi/marriagevsunion.html

 

[Mathematician]

Why don't you tell me specifically what rights you would not be afforded by a same-sex civil union as you would by a marriage. I'd be interested because I really don't know what they are.

I don't want to take Kamala's question from her, but I'd also like to add in the case of NJ gays are still being cheated out by their civil unions:

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/12/122106unions.htm

The legislature opted for civil unions. The bill passed the New Jersey Legislature last Thursday afternoon.

It offers couples who register most state benefits and protections currently available to opposite-sex couples, including the right to health insurance through a partner’s employer.

But it does not provide any of the benefits of marriage under federal law, and it still could cost same-sex couples more than marriage couples for health insurance. (story)

 

[Katzpur]

Does Mitt support SSCUs?

From what I've heard, no.

 

[Katzpur]

http://www.yffn.org/admin/spi/marriagevsunion.html

Well, I would agree that same-sex civil unions don't take your civil rights as far as I believe they should be taken.

 

[Kamala]

Well, I would agree that same-sex civil unions don't take your civil rights as far as I believe they should be taken.

Then why do you support them?

 

[CaptainXeroid]

I voted Mitt Romney. Truthfully, I would vote just about ANYONE over Hilary. I see her like her husband 'Slick Willy' as political chameleons who would say and do just about anything to get elected. I know many politicians fall into this category, but they seem to moreso.

If the 2008 election comes down to these 2 choices, I think Mitt would win by a good margin. He may have some baggage, but in a nationwide election, I think Hilary would prove to have a lot more.

 

[Katzpur]

Then why do you support them?

Oh, so now you're going to put me on the spot, huh? Maybe it's the terminology that I'm getting hung up over. I honestly do believe that same-sex couples deserve all of the civil rights that heterosex couples do. But, as a deeply religious person, I look at marriage from a religious perspective, and I can't get away from that. It's what I believe. So I guess I just think the law needs to be reformed beyond what I had initially assumed.

 

[Kamala]

Oh, so now you're going to put me on the spot, huh? Maybe it's the terminology that I'm getting hung up over. I honestly do believe that same-sex couples deserve all of the civil rights that heterosex couples do. But, as a deeply religious person, I look at marriage from a religious perspective, and I can't get away from that. It's what I believe. So I guess I just think the law needs to be reformed beyond what I had initially assumed.

So would you support the notion that all civil marriage, even heterosexual ones, should just be called unions, and leave marriage as a religious term?

 

[Katzpur]

So would you support the notion that all civil marriage, even heterosexual ones, should just be called unions, and leave marriage as a religious term?

I guess that would probably be pretty close to how I feel.

 

[jamaesi]

I vote Obama, even if I have to write him in.

Hillary and Mitt both have proven themselves to not care about human rights.

Oh, so now you're going to put me on the spot, huh? Maybe it's the terminology that I'm getting hung up over. I honestly do believe that same-sex couples deserve all of the civil rights that heterosex couples do. But, as a deeply religious person, I look at marriage from a religious perspective, and I can't get away from that. It's what I believe. So I guess I just think the law needs to be reformed beyond what I had initially assumed.

Some of us queers are religious, too. Why aren't we good enough for G-d? (Not that it matters what if any religion anyone is, every human deserves human rights.)

I don't see opposition to same-sex marriage as being bigoted myself.

If someone wants to take away my HUMAN rights, take away my fellow humans' HUMAN rights, pollute my enviroment, prevent cures for horrible diseases- of which a few I suffer from every day and when someone doesn't want a cure... and they try to make this all legal so they can feel warm and fuzzy inside?...

I call a bigot a bigot.

 

[Katzpur]

Some of us queers are religious, too. Why aren't we good enough for G-d? (Not that it matters what if any religion anyone is, every human deserves human rights.)

I'm not even going there. If you really think I was saying you aren't good enough for God, you don't know me very well. And if you really think I was saying you shouldn't have the same civil rights as I do, you didn't read my post very carefully.

 

[gnomon]

I would not vote for either.

Voting in Hillary would be admitting to the world how dumb we are as a nation. Not to mention giving the highest political office to four members of just two families six straight terms. What a sad record that would be.

Actually, Hillary strikes me as corrupt politics for the sake of power as usual.

I would probably vote for Romney if my death was the only other option. How can anyone support a man who has taken Mel Sembler, director of the child torture organization called Straight (now shut down), as a part of his campaign.

I would just write myself in. If I'm going to waste a few seconds of my time voting for President in 2008 it might as well be wasted on stroking my own ego.

 

[PHOTOTAKER]

i would vote for romney for one resign, he was wither it is good or not to get unavecal health care for his state without rasing the taxs, to me that is amazing...

 

[jonny]

I don't see where either candidate truly has their passion stored away.

It looks to me Hillary just wants to be the first woman president and Romney wants to be the first Mormon president. What exactly do they want to change (or sustain?). No president is equally involved in all issues. LBJ was civil rights, Nixon was foreign affairs, Carter was human rights, Reagan was army and taxes...

If I had to pick between the two and not vote Green, I'd lean towards Clinton strictly because she's a liberal. Although her support of the Iraq War makes me cringe, at least she recognizes the importance of health care, gay marriage, repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, cutting down on capital punishment (DNA would be required) and keeping flag burning a legal practice. What is Romney going to offer me as a liberal? Because honestly, if I was conservative I'd ask Hillary the same question.

Mitt Romney was the first to get universal health care in his state. Clinton tried, and completely failed because she took the wrong approach. Both of them recognize the importance of health care.

I think it's ironic that Hillary is trying to repeal a policy (don't ask, don't tell) that her husband put into place.

Anyway, I don't think that Romney is as conservative as he's pretending to be and he's got a little too conservative for my tastes, but I suppose he wouldn't have a chance with the evangelical base if he didn't move far to the right. I think it's disappointing. His views from his senate race with Kennedy are much more appealing to me.