Best quote of Election 2012 so far

RChildress107 said:

If you are talkin about the one where she went around and interviewed RNC delegates about freedom of choice and then asked them about abortion ending with offering part of her uterus to a guy because he "owned" it, then it was hilarious yes but did not show any hypocrisy.

The platform of the convention clearly revolved around individualism, and personal responsibility and freedom from government intervention. That doesn't apply to abortion because in the eyes of republicans abortion is murder.

Click to expand...

The Republican platform clearly denies freedom and individualism for gay people. It calls for the reinstatement of DADT ("You don't have to be straight to shoot straight."- Barry Goldwater). The GOP platform denies gay people the freedom to marry the person they love.

RJKarl said:

The Republican platform clearly denies freedom and individualism for gay people. It calls for the reinstatement of DADT ("You don't have to be straight to shoot straight."- Barry Goldwater). The GOP platform denies gay people the freedom to marry the person they love.

Click to expand...

Individualism doesn't apply when you are ruining the foundation of our society.

so other than women of childbearing age and all gay people, the GOP platform is about personal freedom. Basically that means straight men and old women aren't told what told level of freedom they have.

RJKarl said:

The Republican platform clearly denies freedom and individualism for gay people. It calls for the reinstatement of DADT ("You don't have to be straight to shoot straight."- Barry Goldwater). The GOP platform denies gay people the freedom to marry the person they love.

Click to expand...

Where exactly do I read up on this "platform?" I always hear about it but I never get to read the fine print. But you liberals are always pointing to the social conservative issues when Paul Ryan isn't busy tossing granny over the cliff, so I'm just curious. Because I'm pretty sure most Republicans are making a distinction between marriage, within their church, and civil union as a whole. Yeah, it's semantics, but that is their religious take on it. So, deal with it. And you can fight all the black pastors on this issue if you care to Mr. Goldwater.

And I would add it is the legal rights of civil unions that needs to be addressed in this country. I am 100% in favor of all rights granted to civil unions that are granted to marriages and take the government the hell out of defining the difference between the two. Again, semantics, but there you have it.

DirkTheDeac said:

Where exactly do I read up on this "platform?" I always hear about it but I never get to read the fine print. But you liberals are always pointing to the social conservative issues when Paul Ryan isn't busy tossing granny over the cliff, so I'm just curious. Because I'm pretty sure most Republicans are making a distinction between marriage, within their church, and civil union as a whole. Yeah, it's semantics, but that is their religious take on it. So, deal with it. And you can fight all the black pastors on this issue if you care to Mr. Goldwater.

Click to expand...

More people would take you seriously if you weren't so dense. Try Google next time.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/28/read-the-full-republican-platform/

Thank you for the link professor. I've never really followed the matter. Now that I've skimmed it I stand by my statement. And if I recall, Obama stated some four years ago that marriage was between a man and a woman. Did I hear him wrong? As I said in my post, ill informed as I was before doing my homework, it may be a matter of semantics, but marriage seems to be a matter better left to religious institutions and civil unions left to the government. Then let's redefine issues related to taxation, health care information rights, death benefits and what not.

And screw you with your snarky remark on my so called mental faculties. Shouldn't you be doing some research on actual peer review publication?

I think you mean "in" actual peer reviewed publications. Otherwise, that's a real meta statement and it's not my area anyway.

If you're interested, PM me your e-mail and I can send you a few papers.

bobknightfan said:

Don't get your panties in a wad. You tried to be a cute, smart-ass and PH nailed you on it.

Click to expand...

That is not how I took it at all. I was trying to make a point about the distinction between marriage (a religious function) and civil union (a government function) and the rights thereof. And further, I am in favor of radically changing the rights of same sex couples with regard to medical information rights, tax filing policy, death benefits... you name it.

DirkTheDeac said:

That is not how I took it at all. I was trying to make a point about the distinction between marriage (a religious function) and civil union (a government function) and the rights thereof. And further, I am in favor of radically changing the rights of same sex couples with regard to medical information rights, tax filing policy, death benefits... you name it.

Click to expand...

The view that "marriage" is reserved for heterosexual couples while homosexual couples may participate in "civil unions" is by no means an explicitly religious one.