It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Gay rights and abortion rights should not affect your vote!

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 12:33 AM
Ok before you all judge me hear me out. I am very much a liberal concerning the running of our country but concerning social issues I am very conservative having been raised in a southern babtist church.

I personally want george bush ousted from his presidency and look forward to seeing him climb on that plane leaving the white house.

Now on to my topic Some people are concerned and will not vote for john kerry because of his stance on abortion and gay marriage and other social issues. Why don't these issues matter. Look at bush's ban on partial birth abortion. Shot down by a single judge. Look at gay marriages being performed in contest to state law and look at how powerless the us goverment is against it. Theres no federal law so they have no power against , yet if a federal law passed it of course too would be deemed unconstitutional. We all know this to be true. One judge can shoot down any presidential desire to regualte morality.

My point is if you are against kerry because of his stance on abortion and gay marriage but hate the way bush is running this country. Then vote kerry. I detest abortion and homosexuals being married. It is demoralizing our society. But no president will ever decide those issues, only your senators and representitives and judges will. Remeber that next time you don't feel like voting for them.

Bush will run our country in the ground with his spending and lack of concern for the common man. Don't let these issues stand in your way of voting for kerry he will make a difference for our country for the better.

[Edited on 11-3-2004 by Hoppinmad1]

posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 11:30 PM
Well, for any good discussion you need two opposing sides right? Well I am Hoppin's complete opposite! I haven't decided who I will vote for in the upcoming election, but I would consider myself a conservative in most government policy with very liberal social views.

That said, I would have to disagree with your conclusion that social issues are not important considerations in choosing a president. If I correctly understand your stance, you are saying that the courts and congress will be deciding these issues. In my opinion you are ignoring the role of the president in the system of checks and balances.

The president could have a very significant impact on the resolution (or perhaps better stated-the evolution) of these issues. He has the veto power, so he can put a halt to any legislation passed by Congress, and he nominates the federal judges. And lets face it, some of those Supreme Court Judges are getting pretty old.

I prefer to say that the president will impact the evolution of these issues, because I really don't think that there is any doubt that gay marriage will be recognized in this country. We already know the end result. It is a simple matter of social evolution, just as there was once heated political debate over mixed race marriage. The only question is how soon, and that is what the President can impact.

posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 12:07 AM
WEll I expected more of a response from people on this but oh well. I agree with the fact that the president can veto bills but I feel if there is overwhelming public demand a bill will pass regardless of what the president personally feels. He would go with the flow and who would give him more votes in the end I belive. The senators and the house are the real power behind the social votes.

As for the president appointing the judges they are never all on his side as shown with the bush partial birth abortion ban and its death in the courts. They generally try to stay unbiased and follow the constitiution anyways,even though most do it very liberally concerning social issues.

I have always found it hard to belive the founders of the country when writing the constitution were even considering legalizing gay marriage and abortion. Those types of things weren't even considered, and were taboo. Which is why I find people arguing it as a constitutional right rediculous.

Well no matter how you feel you gotta see bush is screwing up our country for everyone but the upper class whos getting rich off his tax cuts. Thats why kerry will have my vote.

posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 12:37 AM
I dont understand why people think that what is good for the upper class is automatically bad for the rest of us? I don't see how Bush has hurt our economy in any way. What kills me about Bush is all this marriage stuff and the religious factor. I don't want a president to tell me I should go find a wife, or to tell me to put my faith in God. But I think I would rather just ignore him for a couple more years than have a stiff like Kerry representing the country. I mean the guy is getting better, but i just dont feel any connection with him. Its that face and the voice and his whole presence, I just can't get behind him and say that I want him to be the figurehead for my country.

posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 01:02 AM
Yes, this strange assumption that the upper class is automatically opposed/in competition with the other classes is very unrealistic. I mean, honestly, when the economy sucks, it sucks for all; when its full bore, we all loosen the belts.

Bush vis Economy? Frankly he didn't trash the economy. It was already broken. I live in Silicon Valley, CA and i'm telling you things were insane. People everywhere were riding the crest of a wave, making millions in imaginary money, and not minding that the shoals were approaching. The sheer volume of commercial construction is staggering: imagine all those fields you used to play in when you were 10... gone. Instead Maxtor builds this mammoth production facility and you've got barb wire and slab-walls instead of abandoned rail ties. Repeat times everywhere. It was all unsustainable. The boom was off the bloom or whatever.

As far as the original topic of this thread:
If we arent supposed to select our candidate for president based on social issues, what criterion do you suggest we use? Frankly, selecting your candidate simply on the grounds that he panders to the left instead of the right is ridiculous. In the end, as we all know, both the left and the right pander back to the $. Basically the only difference a president has is on the trivial social issue of the day. To assume otherwise is akin to disregarding common sense in exchange for the propoganda spewed out according to the party-line.

[Edited on 12-3-2004 by Cascadego]

posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 08:59 AM
Why should any point of interest be of concern, then? All points of interest can be seen as not important, depending upon what you personally find important.

Sure, activist judges can do their own thing, disregarding the intent and language of the constitution and the national foundation, but that certainly does not mean that we should elect presidents that will run headway into the liberal agenda.

I have some serious issues with some things Bush has done during his first, but I see no need in jumping on a bandwagon that will drive the nation furhter into the abyss into which it already seems to be spiraling.

While those two topics are only two topics, they are an insight into his ethics and morals.

posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 11:52 PM
Well I make my judgment about the upper class and bush because he favors them. I am from eastern rural tennesse. Everyone there works in factories or simple jobs such as wal mart or fast food. There are not a lot of high paying college necessary jobs. When you see so many factories pull up and leave or close down because there is no market for their goods it affects you.

If you are poor you can get help such as welfare and free medical care. The middle class if sol. My sister and husband sold an auto garage and had almost 50,000 dollars saved from it. They had to spend it all on medical bills just to pay for their one daughter who's valve in the esphagous didn't work and let fluid go into her lungs. GOvernment help. NOpe She wasn't poor or rich

posted on Mar, 14 2004 @ 09:03 AM
Hoppin, life is hard, and most of the time unfair, but that is the purpose of self preservation.

We all work for our own ends, and should not be seeking government assistance. They are not responcible for every citizens financial wellbeing. Otherwise, we have what we have now, a bloated, overspending gas bag.

There is plenty of help out there, but family, and the distruction of such, is the root of the desolation of many. The distruction of the family has lead to the distruction of community.

This has weakened our country and forced the federal government to have more and more roll in our lives.

Abortion is a huge issue that can not be ignored. People such as myself, believers that this is the American Holocaust, can not ignore this issue, nor support anyone who serves to define life on the side of selfishness and the promotion of not taking responcibility for your actions.

posted on Mar, 14 2004 @ 09:49 AM
So KrazyJethro let me see if I understand what you are saying.....

Its OK for the government to force a woman to have a deformed or mongoliod baby.........

And then.....

Once its born and needs HUGE medical bills......

Tell that same woman, hey its not our problem, everyone has to take care of themselves?

posted on Mar, 14 2004 @ 09:59 AM
I do not believe the destruction of the family is the leading reason to the downfall of community. If so, then there would have been the same amount of badness in America. Back in the day when divorce was taboo, you had serious dysfunction in the family. Spousal abuse, cheating, and bludgeoning kids (not spanking) happened quite a bit back then. Sure, it still happens now, but people do tend to get divorces when things get bad instead of living a lie or covering up the bruises. The problems have always been there, they just never severed the relationship. The only difference now, is that there is only half of the family unit which leaves kids starved for attention and often times are neglected. Does that create a bad kid or influence the community? Of course it does, but not on the scale you think.

I think the death of community is coming by the hands of the death of personal liability. We all do it. We tend to not be responsible for our actions. We have seen people sue McDonalds over making them fat, burning themselves when they spill coffee on themselves, or someone burning themselves with coffee when they realize that "Caution: Hot" did not JUST the cup. Corporations label things to keep we Americans from suing them over the most ridiculous claim. If we fall on someone's yard and bump our heads, we can sue the owner's for money. When a guy goes to a fraternity party and drinks til he dies, his parents view the fraternity as deep pockets and gets their million. Or when a girl drinks to much and regrets sleeping with the guy the next day, she cries rape and gets her money. Whenever the bartender gets sued when a guy drives his car into a ditch and dies, you know we have gone too far. Parents today find it much easier to give kids medicine and a Nintendo than to raise them. (I'm not talking about the kids with actual problems) I believe liability is the issue America has a problem with. But anyway...far off topic.

posted on Mar, 14 2004 @ 10:03 AM

Originally posted by Amuk
So KrazyJethro let me see if I understand what you are saying.....

Its OK for the government to force a woman to have a deformed or mongoliod baby.........

And then.....

Once its born and needs HUGE medical bills......

Tell that same woman, hey its not our problem, everyone has to take care of themselves?

Amuk, there is big difference and you know it. KJ is talking about abortion on demand. I may be pro choice, but I don't even begin to think abortion on demand is good. To support it, you have to support infanticide. There is no difference between a "fetus" one minute before it is born than a baby one minute after it is born aside from the obvious. Besides, I believe most conservative views support abortion for a fetus that is deformed or severly unhealthy baby.

posted on Mar, 14 2004 @ 10:13 AM

Amuk, there is big difference and you know it. KJ is talking about abortion on demand.

No I didnt thats why I asked. I am torn myself on the issue. I dont see how you can call killing anything other than murder but I cannot see how you can force a woman to have a baby, either.

Its choices like these that make me glad I am not in charge

posted on Mar, 14 2004 @ 10:42 AM
I'll take these one at a time.


I see what you mean, and understand that, but the distruction of the family did not cause what you speak of. Rather I was speaking to the distruction of community caused by rampant divorce.

The divorce rate is directly attributable to the lowering of personal responcibilites and they feed off of each other.

This is one of the slippery slopes that I speak of. The community and the family unit, allowed people to take care of many of the problems covered by government payroll now, on the lowest possible level.


While I understand that forcing a woman to have a mangled baby sounds wrong, trust that it is not. This is not a common occurance. I am not saying everyone fend for themselves and screw your peers.

I am saying that the federal government is not responcible for those types of things. This is the very reason charities and churches are tax exempt. They are the support along with a strong community that kept it off the governments back for the first 150 years.

But you can not just allow someone to kill the baby because it will be a drain. All kids are drains, on energy, money, time, sanity. There are accidents which cause kids to become vegtables. Should we kill them too? Eliminate the weak and let the strong survive?

It is the responcibility of the government soley to preserve life in all forms when possible, not support it, but rather to encourage it and foster help through private orginazations.

posted on Mar, 14 2004 @ 10:52 AM
So that IS what you are saying?

That it is ok for the government to force a woman to have a deformed baby and once its born wash there hands of the sitution?

Screw the deformed kid, the parents, other kids, etc?

Dont you think thats kinda harsh?

posted on Mar, 14 2004 @ 10:56 AM

Originally posted by Hoppinmad1
I detest abortion and homosexuals being married. It is demoralizing our society.

Wow. You just left yourself wide open with this comment.

Abortion is an issue that's better left to the individual. No person on this planet should ever have a say in what you want to do with your own reproduction system. If you detest it, then don't do it. It's not harming you in any way. Do I like abortion? No, it actually makes me very sad, but not in the cases where it's medically neccessary. (rape, health problems, life threatening deformities, etc.)
As for the case of homosexuals wanting to get married...where do I begin? Homosexuals exist. They have been around as long as mankind. They are your brothers and sisters, your mothers and fathers, your aunts and uncles, your sons and daughters. To deny them the same treatment as any other human being on earth is detestable, and will be looked down upon by generations years from now. It reminds me of making negroes sit in the back of the bus, or drink from a seperate fountain. The demoralization of this counrty will be the result of an equal share of immoral deeds done by people of all walks of life.....white, black, heterosexual, and homosexual. To pin the downfall of a country on a specific race or creed, or sexual preference is beyond ignorant. Please, deny ignorance on this matter. Thanks. Have a terrific day.

posted on Mar, 14 2004 @ 10:57 AM
No, I don't think it's harsh at all.

-It is not the government's fault that medical costs are high.

-It is not the government's fault that the baby is deformed.

-It is not the governments JOB to make sure you have your little cell phones and food.

Their job is to:

1) protect life
2) protect the US internally and externally
3) promote equality
4) enable people to succeed (not do it for them)

It is not harsh because I speak of the federal government.

If you want socail programs, let them come from local resources, not the federal government.

posted on Mar, 14 2004 @ 11:11 AM
I am on your side up till the point of where to federal government FORCES the woman to have the baby I dont see that as any of there business either.

To me you cant have it both ways.

If the Government can FORCE you to have the child the should at least help with the expenses.

And by the way is it the parents fault that the baby is deformed? How are they more responsable for the deformity than the government?

posted on Mar, 14 2004 @ 11:31 AM
It is the parents responcibility no matter what kind of child is born.

Should we eliminate retarded people? No.

So where do we draw the line? How mangled is too mangled?

This arguement is fallacious because there is no adequite place to draw a line between heathy and damaged.

You either are for killing babies because they aren't what you ordered, or you are against it.

As to the "forcing" everyone is talking about. There is no forcing. The parents chose to have a baby and are resticted from killing it.

No one forced them to get pregnant. The government is only "forcing" people to do what are supposed to do. Take care of their kids.

posted on Mar, 14 2004 @ 11:58 AM

No one forced them to get pregnant. The government is only "forcing" people to do what are supposed to do. Take care of their kids.

And if my choice is that abortion is the best way to "take care of" that kid? How about a child that would live in great pain because of its deformites?

Where do you draw the line there? Can the government step in if they think that your feeding the kid to much junk food?

I guess to me its just the Government interfering in your life one way or another.

The only difference is you just want the government to enforce YOUR veiws on everyone else. I dont want the government to enforce much of ANY veiws on anyone else. I am willing to let them live with their choices.

posted on Mar, 14 2004 @ 12:16 PM
And just for the record 17 years ago me and my wife were faced with this same choice.

The doctor said our baby would be born deformed or retarded. The Doctor was wrong.

We kept the baby and know he is over six feet tall a Karate champion and on the honor role at school.

It was the hardest choice we have ever made and could have easily went the other way.

I can not say that I or any one else should make that choice for another couple.

[Edited on 14-3-2004 by Amuk]

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in