Who is winning the election?

[albertGQ]

Originally posted by MrMastodonFarm+Nov 2 2004, 11:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MrMastodonFarm @ Nov 2 2004, 11:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-albertGQ@Nov 3 2004, 12:55 AM

If power plays a role then bosses should never be able to marry their secretaries. CEOs will never be allowed to marry someone from the sanitation department? Principals can't marry teachers? Give me a break

You don't see the difference betwen a father and his daughter and a boss and his underlings?

Those two types of power are the same to you are they? Wow. [/b][/quote]
Of course I do, but his arguement against it was power. He had no other arguement besides power.

[lucid]

Originally posted by RedHot25@Nov 3 2004, 01:01 AM
Is anyone declaring anything yet? the interenet sites have been stuck on the same numbers forever...

I'm not sure they'll be declaring anything tonight.
best to check in the morning and see what has developed.

(Yeah... I write this as I'm still glued in front of the computer, with my CNN, NBC windows open )

[Daradon]

Originally posted by albertGQ+Nov 3 2004, 01:00 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (albertGQ @ Nov 3 2004, 01:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

They are probably doing more hurt in society with those close minds then two men doing it to each other are.

Okay MMF, I will ask you this. A man has been told by many doctors that he can never have kids. His sister has been told by even more doctors she can never have kids. They decide to get married. They are siblings. Everytime they have sex in the comfort of their own home, he uses a condom. There will be no pregancy so no deformed kids.

Would you or would you not be against this incest marriage? They are two individuals that are deeply in love and have been for decades. Their lifestyle does not affect you whatsoever. You are telling me you would vote yes to their marriage?

I wouldn't [/b][/quote]
I wouldn't care. I probably would abstain from voting.

In this actual instance no harm could come from it. But unfortunately, we can't vote on 'instances' only on an overriding law. So as more harm could come from incestual marriages I would vote no. Gay marriages, not the same level of biological harm. So yes.

You can't vote on actual instances so all these what if are a watse of time and dilute the debate.

[Pagal4321]

Originally posted by RedHot25@Nov 3 2004, 01:01 AM
Is anyone declaring anything yet? the interenet sites have been stuck on the same numbers forever...

Nope not yet, seems like Ohio will be too close to call at this point and Kerry winning Minnesota and Illinois...

[HelloHockeyFans]

Ohio has a remaining 250,000 votes which are uncounted.

[Daradon]

Originally posted by albertGQ+Nov 3 2004, 01:01 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (albertGQ @ Nov 3 2004, 01:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Lol, alright. Is it possible to procreate with them to create a human alien hybrid (perhaps a supreme race) or would it just be a sterile union?

Sterile Union [/b][/quote]
Shoot if they were SUPER SEXY and sterile, I might not just vote for it, I might have to try it!

[Moderator]

Can we get back on topic here?

Thanks

[kermitology]

a mom, say age 41, her child say age 12.

First of all they are not both consenting adults, secondly, the impact would socially damage the son, making him a detriment to society. Therefore I would be against it.

So long as it doesn't have any impact on society, why should you care?

[Pagal4321]

With 76% reporting in Michigan Kerry is in the lead there....that's 17 electoral votes.

[moon]

To get back on topic:


GO BUSH GO!!!!!!

[HelloHockeyFans]

Originally posted by Moderator@Nov 3 2004, 07:07 AM
Can we get back on topic here?

Thanks

I forget now what the topic was...

[Daradon]

Ok, getting back on topic... 'Who is wining the election?'

Bush won.

It may be safe to close this topic now.

[albertGQ]

Originally posted by kermitology@Nov 3 2004, 12:07 AM

First of all they are not both consenting adults, secondly, the impact would socially damage the son, making him a detriment to society. Therefore I would be against it.

So long as it doesn't have any impact on society, why should you care?

I don't know where you got that quote. But what about a mom 50 (in menapause) and her son 30 (a very successful CEO of a public company, University graduate with an MBA).

For or against???

[Moderator]

Stop it Albert.

[albertGQ]

Originally posted by Moderator@Nov 3 2004, 12:10 AM
Stop it Albert.

Okay, I will.

[Bingo]

Heading to bed, but my take ...

I'm not homophobic, I have some gay friends. I want them protected as unions under law and would stand up for all of them if they were cast out or discriminated against because of something they were born into (not learned).

But, as I've told said friends many times, if you'd just pick a different word you wouldn't have this issue.

I'm Catholic too, and the term marriage is a sacrament, and not just a piece of paper to file at City Hall.

This whole mess would go away for so many people if they'd just call it something else. It doesn't offend me, and wouldn't be a serious issue to me, but I'd likely vote against the term marriage, but be quick to suggest full protection for gay unions under the law, and in recognition of their relationships.

[browna]

Originally posted by Bingo@Nov 3 2004, 01:17 AM
Heading to bed, but my take ...

I'm not homophobic, I have some gay friends. I want them protected as unions under law and would stand up for all of them if they were cast out or discriminated against because of something they were born into (not learned).

But, as I've told said friends many times, if you'd just pick a different word you wouldn't have this issue.

I'm Catholic too, and the term marriage is a sacrament, and not just a piece of paper to file at City Hall.

This whole mess would go away for so many people if they'd just call it something else. It doesn't offend me, and wouldn't be a serious issue to me, but I'd likely vote against the term marriage, but be quick to suggest full protection for gay unions under the law, and in recognition of their relationships.

Here here.

To add:

I may not have close gay friends, but am Catholic, and the term marrige in the Catholic faith is a sacarment and thus a belief for me and my belief system has a definaition of marriage.

I know of gay couples who could care less if they are considered technically "married", they are happy living together....just like I know hetero couples that are apatheitc, bordering on scared, of the term marriage. Their happiness is all that matters, as lnog as certain rights are afforded to them.

[Daradon]

Originally posted by Bingo@Nov 3 2004, 01:17 AM
Heading to bed, but my take ...

I'm not homophobic, I have some gay friends. I want them protected as unions under law and would stand up for all of them if they were cast out or discriminated against because of something they were born into (not learned).

But, as I've told said friends many times, if you'd just pick a different word you wouldn't have this issue.

I'm Catholic too, and the term marriage is a sacrament, and not just a piece of paper to file at City Hall.

This whole mess would go away for so many people if they'd just call it something else. It doesn't offend me, and wouldn't be a serious issue to me, but I'd likely vote against the term marriage, but be quick to suggest full protection for gay unions under the law, and in recognition of their relationships.

Ack, but see, that's the point. Many gay people believe in the same god, therefore they want the term MARRIAGE. They are not all outside the church or the realm of spirituality. And as we explored earlier, it seems to be the case that people feel ok breaking some rules pertaining to them, but want to enforce other rules over other people. That's just not fair. You could say that being gay and christian is mutually exclusive, and you'd probably be right. But then all other christians would be doing things that would make them 'not christian'. Like the pre-marital sex thing Albert mentioned he can't avoid.

If it's going to be fair, it has to be fair for everyone.

[KevanGuy]

Edwards is making a speech.

EDIT: Well, that was uneventful. Said that every vote counts and that every vote will be counted.

[Daradon]

Yeah, back on topic, it looks like (according to Edwards) that the Dems are prepared to contest Ohio and maybe elsewhere.