That's the trouble with the internet for having deep discussions. When what I say is nearly always misinterpreted I can't clear up easily what a person does not understand about what I said. And many always seem to draw the worst conclusions:\
I was basically saying (or at least meaning) they should allow gay marraige, not the other way around. That it was stupid for the Right wing to keep on bringing the issue up, that it is being used to keep us divided, to distract us all from working on solutions to the problems of the economy and the enviroment, etc, and yes believe it or not the enviroment is more important then gay rights, sorry. Though that does not mean for a second that I don't think gays should have rights, don't know how one reads that into it.
The only TRUE reason gay marriage is being attacked is because some see it as ethically wrong, but, what they don't understand I guess is that they can't write a law that will change how people feel and think...So it is Pointless for them to try to do so.
I really don't see where you guys read the opposite in there?
Civil rights are very important to me, I don't know what you thought I meant, but, I hope you understand better now.
Much to my dismay, it seems like whenever I say anything someone always seems to draw conclusions from what I wrote that I did not mean, or think or say. It is annoying. I feel a lot of times that people just breeze through what I wrote, pass over the main context of what I'm saying and latch on to a few sentences that they feel they can attack, or insult, or berate etc. And often times people draw the wrong conclusions from those words to begin with. Maybe I'm just not a great writer, Maybe I'm just not very clear, and so for that I do apologize.
If one really read all that I wrote how the purpose of life is to live and grow and that good is helping life prosper and bad is destroying it, you should understand that everything we do effects this, big or small. Everything we do matters, in some small way everything we do either helps life or hurts it.
Really if you don't understand my veiwpoint I can understand this and I will be more than happy to explain it, but, please don't assume you understand all of how I feel and think from just a few paragraphs. I am not that shallow ;). What I was talking about, all of it, is not small, and is not simplistic, so I understand being somewhat confused. I will do my best to answer your questions and insults in the most civil way I can. I hope I have done this, and if you are still confused about what I said please ask, just know that I feel all should be treated with respect, even those we do not agree with.

Please tell me that woman isn't Palin. And uh, Ron Paul, seriously? That guy's not all there, seriously. He's like a kindly old grandfather who occasionally surprises you with an astute statement before slipping back into his usual state of babbling drivel which has little to do with the real world.

No, not Sarah Palin. Michele Bachmann. She is a House Representative from Minnesota. She is extemely anti-gay rights, but that is all I really know about her platform (other than her being generally Tea-Party-esque, since that is the theme of many Republicans these days).

Fair enough. Sorry, but your post did sound pretty bad. No harm, no foul.

Thank you very much for putting up with me. :D I haven't gotten much sleep at all this week, so I fear my ability to express my thoughts has become more limited every day, to the point of downright haze-filledness. Plan to finally get some sleep tonight, maybe then I'll be able to talk straight again. Hope I didn't offend anyone in the mean time. :(

I am residing in a country that had twin brothers occupying the two top political offices for a time. One was the Prime Minister and the other was the President of Poland. Poland had its own "Attack of the Clones" :P

I think you are giving too much credit to the internet.

In my opinion, It's the other way around... people might be self-conscious about admitting their innermost thoughts face to face, but they'll have less qualms about doing so "anonymously" on the internet.

I didn't see the debate (I'll watch a recording on Youtube) and I just saw this thread so forgive me for the late post but I can understand what you are saying (this directed at the topic creator).

I view my politics as conservative with libertarian leanings and I tend not to care at all about social matters like gay marriage. That being said, I would be willing to vote for a candidate who is against gay marriage as long as they truly believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution and fiscal responsibility but I can easily understand your point. Some people in politics (this applies to people in both parties) that Americans are more worried about jobs, economy, and federal debt and deficit than the definition of marriage.

I am feeling a little disappointed in the choices of current GOP candidates since some of the current Republican politicians who I would easily vote for are not running. I am leaning towards Gary Johnson and Michelle Bachmann but I would really like to see Paul Ryan, Allen West, Mitch Daniels, and Tom Ridge run.

I don't know much about her platform either, but the stuff I do know about her is disturbing. She is very Christian; like scary Christian. She helped found a charter school that included creationism and "12 Christian Principles" in the curriculum and refused to allow the Disney movie Aladdin to be shown in the school, since it apparently promotes witchcraft and paganism. Did I mention this was a public school? She has even proposed state legislation requiring creationism/intelligent design to be included in the science curriculum in all Minnesota public schools, which, thankfully, received no support whatsoever.

Her ironically anti-gay stance is completely over the top (ironic because her sister is gay). She believes that "gay" is a curable psychological condition: "We need to have profound compassion for people who are dealing with the very real issue of sexual dysfunction in their life and sexual identity disorders". She and her staffers were once caught spying on a gay rights rally; they were apparently spotted and photographed hiding behind some bushes during the rally. Bachmann claimed they were just researching "the opposition". Once, she even claimed she was "held against her will" by a pair lesbians in a public restroom and that she "feared for her life". The pair of lesbians tell a much different story; they decided to simply talk to their Congresswoman while waiting in line for the restroom, nothing more. Charges were dropped in the case.

Her fiscal/domestic policies are kind of confusing. She seems to be for fiscal frugality and lower taxes, but at the same time, she also seems to be for strict government control of the financial system, rather than allowing the system to manage itself, as most conservatives prefer. She is part of the "drill baby drill" crowd, but also supports wind, solar and nuclear power. She opposes minimum wage hikes and also wants to eliminate Social Security and Medicare. So I guess in a perfect Bachmann world, we'd all work till we die on the job for very little money, but at least our taxes are low and we'd have plenty energy options.

I guess I do know more than I thought. It was probably more accurate to say I have little context for her stance on certain topics; I've just read many of her quotes and heard a few of the talking points, but that was enough for me to know that I want to hear and see as little as possible from this woman in the future.

Without too much detail information and from far, far away, it looks like the right in america has kind of replaced reasoning with belief recently. Also republican policy seems to solely focus on 1% top earners, not anymore on the middle class. All the recent GOP ideas, including privatizing medicare by handing out insufficient vouchers while the calculations are based on less than 3% unemployment or further tax cuts or spending cuts (but not in the military) to ridiculous low levels but never ever raise taxes not even moderately, seems so extremist, illusionary, that you could get the idea, either americans think completely different... or the GOP really doesn't want to provide the next president. Thanks to the tea party, even considerate republicans seem to must have one or two really crazy, quasi-religious, non-sense arguments where you get the impression, it's not the party anymore it once was. How could this all happen?

Compared to this, Obama looks like he's not even left of center but more or less directly at the center, sometimes a little left (yes he wants health care for everybody, which is not such a bad thing) or sometimes even moderately right (prolonged the tax cuts) and most of the times perfectly center (intelligent saving of GM, AIC, financial regulations, killing Osama). Maybe it's really hard to be more right than Obama already is, but in my eyes the GOP does everything possible go really down. If the electoral system wouldn't be so contructed as to favor only the two biggest parties... the GOP would be in serious trouble by now already. I guess.

It's the elephant mascot that keeps voters coming back for more my friend, I've been saying it for years. Nobody can resist an animal with a large trunk =P
Also in jest: We do not vote for what people say or do, we vote for how they sound saying it, and look doing it.."ooooo thats purtyyy smart soundin/lookin!". Sometimes I fear my jokes are too close to the truth for some.

On a serious note, did you know most of our founding fathers didn't want a party system? But, since there hadn't been a republic for like nearly 2 thousand years or what not (that I can think of) I guess we couldn't copy someone elses model and change the stuff that didn't work quite so great....ehhh, maybe next revolution when we get around to it , you know, whenvever. ;-)

She is right that it is a disorder. Not necessarily curable or psychological in nature.
Aladdin and creationism stuff is nonsense though.

Another republican extremist lunatic by the looks of things. It's kind of sad that such people can be taken seriously in first world counties.

No.

Yes. How many generations would a homosexual society last?
Anyway - I said what I think. I won't be continuing this conversation since it has a potential of going bad.