Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Batman

Obama wins election

Recommended Posts

Really? Apart from it being fairly natural to find yourself worrying about whether the president of the so-called most powerful country in the world is going to be the type to declare war at the drop of a hat, when something gets this kind of media coverage, it's difficult to ignore.

'course you probably get ten times the coverage, so it's no wonder you're sick of it.

Kenne, Radhi is more than right. What´s most, many people believe all the planet should vote for the US elections! :cool:

And yes, I would like to see a woman as the President... and I wouldn´t mind if she was a lesbian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah I wonder how long it will be before we have our first gay president?

Considering they're now not even allowed to get married in California, I'm pretty sure we'll be waiting a while for that one. :mad:

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering they're now not even allowed to get married in California, I'm pretty sure we'll be waiting a while for that one. :mad:

oh, so proposition 8 went through? :P

that suks :( :thumbsdown:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sarah Palin is barely equal to women :/ She set feminism back a few decades with her antics.

Really?? Why? Because she doesn't fit the stereotype of a 'feminist'? Wasn't breaking stereotypes what it's supposed to be all about?

Because, I think it would be great if women in general could be more free of the cultural baggage they're burdened with. Men (me) too!

''''''':beatnik:_____

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, because she acts like a ditz. I can't believe 48% of America was willing to have her as a VP. She's completely plastic and fake and a disgrace to humankind in general. Not just women. She's also not intelligent. I just don't like her

Thankfully that video has gone from being terrifyingly scary, to just plain funny :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just sat here and wrote an entire dissertation about the whole "women are afraid of powerful women" thing. Because it P*sses me off - and intriguingly it's typically men who say that sort of stuff.

But, in the interest of not blowing an artery, I erased it and have refrained from all the naughty words I had heretofore in front of me. :angel:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just thought it was great...at first it was all the Democrats attacking the Republicans for being sexist against Clinton, and then months later the Republicans attack Democrats for being sexist against Palin. The media tore her apart because of her lack of intelligence, not her lack of penis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just glad that American voters aren't too different from the rest of the world. Judging by surveys, had the entire world voted, Obama would have got well over 80% of the vote.

For once, in a political sense, I am really looking forward to the next four years. Especially since I like Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd too. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D You are so right! :D

I just sat here and wrote an entire dissertation about the whole "women are afraid of powerful women" thing. Because it P*sses me off - and intriguingly it's typically men who say that sort of stuff.

But, in the interest of not blowing an artery, I erased it and have refrained from all the naughty words I had heretofore in front of me. :angel:

Getting OT a bit here but, maybe that's because men can see women from the point of view of something different. So the weaknesses are all the more apparent. Conversely, women see men from a perspective we can't get to. And loathe the weakness underneath our loud assurances. And both do not understand, the cultural commands, should not always be met.

Edited by Guest
words & marks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering they're now not even allowed to get married in California, I'm pretty sure we'll be waiting a while for that one. :mad:

They're not allowed to marry pretty much throughout the entire world. Homosexual "marriage" is a footnote in the scope of man's recorded history. There's a gay senator, representative, or governor here and there. Remember Larry Craig :beatnik:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're not allowed to marry pretty much throughout the entire world. Homosexual "marriage" is a footnote in the scope of man's recorded history.

you could have said the same about women's right to vote or free speech or racial segregation until a few decades ago

all footnotes too? :shades:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is, if you want to pare "homosexuality" as being the same as "female" or being "black" or "brown." Last I read, natural selection favoured sexual reproduction when it came to humans. By extension, homosexuals are not the means for this. Ergo, they're akin to a mutation. Would you say females and races other than white go against natural selection?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is, if you want to pare "homosexuality" as being the same as "female" or being "black" or "brown." Last I read, natural selection favoured sexual reproduction when it came to humans. By extension, homosexuals are not the means for this. Ergo, they're akin to a mutation. Would you say females and races other than white go against natural selection?

no, I wouldn't say that... :P

actually I would agree with the first sentence :)

would you pare homosexuality with a genetic defect or even a congenital disease?

some reading material :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It hasn't been determined, as the article states, but if everyone was homosexual, then birth rates would be greatly reduced... and that goes against the notion that part of the reason all organisms exist is to propagate themselves; that reads more like a defect than something "beneficial" (much like two parents with the sickle-cell gene will have dead offspring), so I would not pare homosexuality in the same category of gender and race. Furthermore, the institution of marriage has already been defined - and it's between a man and a woman. In California, it's been reiterated twice. This last time, it had to take a constitutional ammendment to drive the point home, which is really a bother. Think of it this way, in order to pass a German class, you have to write essays in German. What if a minority of Arabic speakers wanted to pass the German class by writing essays in Arabic? Would the govt. have to overhaul the meaning of "German" to absorb the entire Arab language?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry, I won't reply to the genetical / biological arguments as I don't have that much knowledge in either department :)

as Dieter Nuhr once famously said "Wenn man keine Ahnung hat, einfach mal Fresse halten!"

(rough translation: "if you have no idea what you're talking about, just keep quiet") :grin:

Furthermore, the institution of marriage has already been defined - and it's between a man and a woman. In California, it's been reiterated twice. This last time, it had to take a constitutional ammendment to drive the point home, which is really a bother.

that's the same argument you already made above: "some people said it should be like that, so it has to be like that forever"

I don't agree with this status quo, and the examples from history I made above (women voting, etc) show that laws can - and should - change over time, the same as societies change over time.

Also I could counter that while California and most other states in the US and countries in the world oppose this, there are also cases, like Canada, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, ... that approve of the equalisation of same-sex marriages with different-sex ones...

are they wrong? is this a case of majority - most governments in the world oppose it, so every other one should too?

Think of it this way, in order to pass a German class, you have to write essays in German. What if a minority of Arabic speakers wanted to pass the German class by writing essays in Arabic? Would the govt. have to overhaul the meaning of "German" to absorb the entire Arab language?

that's an interesting example :)

but there is maybe one flaw in it: if "german" is 'different-sex marriage' and "arabic" is 'same-sex marriage' then the class should actually be something like "language class" or "write an essay" or something similar :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're not allowed to marry pretty much throughout the entire world. Homosexual "marriage" is a footnote in the scope of man's recorded history. There's a gay senator, representative, or governor here and there. Remember Larry Craig :beatnik:

_______________ :couch:__________________

But isn't Larry Craig kind of really only half-a-homosexual? A "Married" (as in between a man and a woman) man who, allegedly, still found time to solicit gay men for sex in public restrooms? What do you do in that case? Should a half-a-homosexual be able to be "married" to a man and a woman at the same time? I have no problems with "civil unions" but agree with the op, the term "Marriage" is, imho, already taken.

As for the 1st Gay President, Miamisammy is probably right, 1861. Read up on the only president never to have been married. He was also the last U.S. President who would ever endorse slavery. He presided over huge deficit spending and conducted a ridiculous "war" upon those he labeled religious "extremists" in Utah, of all places. He is generally considered to have been one the country's all-time worst presidents and was followed by one of our best. :shades:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×