Vice-Presidential Debate

[cliffdweller]

Originally Posted by diamondsnake

Edwards came off as a jerk and I didn't know what to think of Chaney when he refused to talk about Same Sex relationships and just thanked Edwards for his "Kind words" about his daughter. That whole thing seemed odd. Was Edwards trying to push Chaney's buttons by going on and on about the fact that Chaney's daughter is gay?

And while we are on the topic Edwards says that marriage is between a man and a woman but same sex relationships should have benefits like visitation rights in the hospital and money when a person dies. Okay, so what is the difference between those benefits and the benefits a married couple gets? Isn't a marriage just a relationship with a few legal benefits? So basically, they just don't want to call it a marriage they want to find a new name for unions between two men or two women? So, was that a way for him to please people on both sides of this topic? I didn't really understand what he beleived.

This left a really bad taste in my mouth too. I'm really disapointed that Edwards and Kerry aren't making more of a stand to defend the gay rights ammendment. I cringed when Edwards said, "we believe that marriage is between a man and a woman," ugh, come on, at least Bush has a consistent view on this issue even though it is TOTALLY WRONG.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by cliffdweller

I'm really disapointed that Edwards and Kerry aren't making more of a stand to defend the gay rights ammendment. I cringed when Edwards said, "we believe that marriage is between a man and a woman," ugh, come on, at least Bush has a consistent view on this issue even though it is TOTALLY WRONG.

I agree. But they are smart in one aspect because if they come out as gay rights champions, they'll surely lose. But I agree with you and I think they're selling out their base.

[sparky]

Originally Posted by cliffdweller

This left a really bad taste in my mouth too. I'm really disapointed that Edwards and Kerry aren't making more of a stand to defend the gay rights ammendment. I cringed when Edwards said, "we believe that marriage is between a man and a woman," ugh, come on, at least Bush has a consistent view on this issue even though it is TOTALLY WRONG.

They are clearly playing their cards to win...most of the country is against this issue. Of course the view of the current administration is WRONG. But it is not an uncommon view. People are still squeamish and under the mind control of their religious upbringings. Maybe one of these days, the political battles will shift to things that are really important, unlike who the hell is sticking what in whom. I am uncertain, however. Most political and world history is all about dividing and conquering and making sure there are always people who are an underclass. Seems to be human nature. On the other hand, much of Northern Europe, which is not caught in the stranglehold of the Catholic Church, has moved on and can't be bothered with such archaic, fear mongering politics. I wish I knew more about the cultures so I could say definitively why they aren't caught up in this silliness. Alas, I cannot.

[diamondsnake]

Originally Posted by dissention

And if Edwards came off bad enough for you to support Bush, I'm shocked. You've said you don't like Bush one bit, then you contradict it. Who do you support? I'm curious.

I support Kerry (even though I don't like him... he's the lesser evil I guess). And Edwards didn't come off that bad, but I cringed when he asked the woman what the question was again and then said "Well I'll answer your question even though my opponent talked about education" or something like that. He just seemed sort of full of himself.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by diamondsnake

I support Kerry (even though I don't like him... he's the lesser evil I guess). And Edwards didn't come off that bad, but I cringed when he asked the woman what the question was again and then said "Well I'll answer your question even though my opponent talked about education" or something like that. He just seemed sort of full of himself.

I think if anyone came off badly, it was the guy who didn't want elderly citizens to get their meals and who wanted Nelson Mandela to rot.

[DeeGeMe]

Two things here. This shows you how shrewd Edwards really is. He didn't reply back to Cheney about the "I've never met you before tonight" thing because if he would have, it would have been said and forgotten and the media would have moved on. But by letting the media "discover" that wasn't true, K/E got to control the next day's news cycles as all the networks showed that this was a blatant lie and seemed to take great delight in throwing up the video showing that it was a blatant lie. Crazy like a fox Edwards is!

Okay--point number two. I think that Edwards said the whole thing about the gay daughter because the right has used this gay marriage amendment to beat people over the head and to shore up their right-wing Christian fundie base. I think Edwards was just trying to make sure that these fundies KNEW that Cheney has a gay daughter because there might be a lot out there that don't know that. Not that there's anything wrong with a) being gay or b) having a gay daughter--but I think it was his way of showing 1) what a bunch of hypocrites that these Repugs 2) Backing Cheney up into a corner-which he did--notice Cheney's--no, that's all I have to say on that subject.

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally Posted by DeeGeMe

Two things here. This shows you how shrewd Edwards really is. He didn't reply back to Cheney about the "I've never met you before tonight" thing because if he would have, it would have been said and forgotten and the media would have moved on. But by letting the media "discover" that wasn't true, K/E got to control the next day's news cycles as all the networks showed that this was a blatant lie and seemed to take great delight in throwing up the video showing that it was a blatant lie. Crazy like a fox Edwards is!

Okay--point number two. I think that Edwards said the whole thing about the gay daughter because the right has used this gay marriage amendment to beat people over the head and to shore up their right-wing Christian fundie base. I think Edwards was just trying to make sure that these fundies KNEW that Cheney has a gay daughter because there might be a lot out there that don't know that. Not that there's anything wrong with a) being gay or b) having a gay daughter--but I think it was his way of showing 1) what a bunch of hypocrites that these Repugs 2) Backing Cheney up into a corner-which he did--notice Cheney's--no, that's all I have to say on that subject.

I agree with point #1 and agree partly with #2. I think your reasoning is correct as to why Edwards brought up Cheney's daughter; however, Edwards harped on the "it's a states' rights issue" more than Cheney and he repeated that states would not be forced to recognize marriages in other states. I guess he's reaching out to Midwestern swing voters. Both Cheney and Edwards were hypocritical on the subject.

[DeeGeMe]

Edwards did succeed in saying that the Repugs were using this issue as a wedge issue with voters and that the whole idea of using a constitutional amendment is a red herring and explained that no state in the union has to recognize any other state's marriage (although they certainly will if it was a hetrosexual marriage). Yes, I wish the Democrats would have the balls to just flat out say, "If this is what two people wish to do, fine with me." I have never understood the argument that two gays getting married was somehow going to threaten a hetrosexual marriage and the "family". Then again, I don't understand why anyone would want to get married, straight or gay!

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by DeeGeMe

Edwards did succeed in saying that the Repugs were using this issue as a wedge issue with voters and that the whole idea of using a constitutional amendment is a red herring and explained that no state in the union has to recognize any other state's marriage (although they certainly will if it was a hetrosexual marriage).

Edwards is talking about the DOMA's lang. that one state need not recognize any marriage outside of one man and one woman. I, and many Constitutional Law people far smarter than I am, think the Sup. Ct. will be almost forced to strike down the DOMA as contrary to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Const. and, perhaps to a much lesser extent, the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Const. In other words, the argument that State A must recognize heterosexual marriage from State B pursuant to Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Const., which means essentially that each state gives "full faith and credit" to a sister state's laws, but not same sex marriage is laughable. But, the vast majority of people see this as an attempt by homosexuals, who they tolerate and perhaps on some level even like despite the religious issues, to infiltrate society and then suddenly become pedophiles (essentially a different sexual orientation that is not limited to homosexuals) and molest little children Besides, if the Church quits demonizing gay people, who is left to use to fill their coffers Communism is gone (essentially) and they cannot harp of the sep. but equal stuf anymore. So, gay people it is and shall be until people see through these religious zealots.