Cain and Paul

I like them both. I believe their economic and foreign policies are sound and can even be meshed together. President Cain and Vice President Paul would be awesome. What do you think?

I thought the same thing at first but then I read up on some of Cain's proposals. They are sound and ultimately the end games on them are very close to those of Paul's. Wouldn't his popularity help Paul? After all America has shown they're willing to elect a quick wit over qualifications, ie Reagan. And like Reagan I believe Cain would prove himself qualified and that running a food chain is far more qualifying then being a community organizer or an old guard career politician who thinks they have all the answers. Like what the repubs usually put up.

The 2000 election proved it's not that dominate of a republican state.

I found his responses concerning the wars refreshing, admitting he's not privy to all the facts and couldn't make an informed proposal at this time.

What about Paul as president and Cain as his vice? That would address any racial concerns like you brought up.

To be honest gay marriage is a non issue for me. The institution is what it is...a legal union between a man and a woman. Period. Since the dawn of time that is what it has been throughout the world. A lot of work went into it generally to make it fair for and protective of women. Especially in this country. To destroy all those strides to satisfy a few just isn't worth it. People earn respect by having respect. Not by changing definitions of institutions for purely politicaly correct reasons. That would be backwards to me. I didn't search anyone's opinion on this issue because sexual preference isn't my concern nor my business.

Anyway, the rest of them just don't have the carisma to pull it off. As much as we don't like it, it is true, carisma is a must on a national election. That is why I knew McCain had no chance even before Palin entered the picture. But this election is still a long way off so nothing is settled yet and there are lots more issues and chances for peoples personalities to shine.

Decius,

As you you know I generally have the up most respect for your opinions. But on this one issue you have seemed to show a very closed and narrow mind. You are correct when you say we are not on the same page on this one. But not for the reasons you gave. If you were to google Herman Cain, Ron Paul and Gary Johnson with the key words "gay marriage" you will find they all have the same opinion on it. It's not something the federal government needs to be involved in and Paul himself said there is no need to change the definition of marriage. It should be up to the states and marriage is a religious institution so it should be handled there, ultimately.
So I do understand Paul's position better then you think. Without me looking it up before hand he expressed the same things I did.

I do support gay rights. They have the right to be protected under the law and they are. They have the right to designate who can act in their behalf in the event they become unable to make decisions by signing the same forms giving authority to whom they choose as anyone else does.

Anyone has the right to add anyone to their insurance policies or take one out on whom they choose. And to designate a part of their estate to anyone in their wills, whether they are gay or not. No one is suggesting gays or any specific group should be excluded from the same legal and economic protections from the law.

Marriage is about sex, anatomically speaking. Women carry to term the children that will run the future. That physical fact put them in many disadvantages when it came to financial and legal standing. And in a myriad of ways that I won't go into. Suffice to say "marriage" has been a tool throughout the ages to correct past wrongs in those regards.

My personal opinion on gay marriage is of no consequence nor is it your business as your preferences are not mine and do not belong in the political arena. They are private matters of the heart.

I never can understand how one issue like this can cause people to stop what's best for the entire country because of misguided passion.

You have me at a disadvantage because I can't post the links I went to anymore. No longer trusted I guess. But...

That is not what he suggested. He suggested that issuing an order to break current laws signed into to law can be treasonous.

Clinton understood that it need not be an issue in the military because it has nothing to do with the reason we have one to begin with. The military suspended the practice of throwing out homosexuals did they not? Does one where on their sleeve their adulteress affairs? Didn't the military used to toss out or discipline men and women who fraternized with each other? You see? It's just not that important in the grand scheme of things and to put so much on this one issue is your bias getting in the way of your usual sound reasoning.

You are blind to the facts concerning this and I didn't intend this thread to go here so we should just agree to disagree, it's ok, no harm done. Good day and if Paul proves his worth at/before the primaries he's got my vote, believe me. Till then we'll just have to wait and see and look at others as well.

The problem is that a supposed secular government is recognizing marriage in the first place. It should only recognize some kind of generic, legal-based civil union that would be acquired directly through the government.

If a couple wants to partake in any extra religious ceremonies then that's their prerogative and they'd have to go by the terms set by that specific institution.

Who said I'm against gays getting married? And how did you get that I'm trying to disown the entire concept of marriage??

Decius,

You have proved nothing except that anyone who doesn't submit to the gay agenda the way you dictate is a bigot in your eyes. You also prove that everything that is important and vital to this country takes a back seat to the gay agenda where you are concerned.

I can't help but think had you not known my religious affiliation you would not have been so quick to judge. For my reasons are sound and my beliefs are in line with all three candidates in question.

For the record I agree with ChrisD. As Cain and the others mentioned too, the federal government has no buisness in marriage. And they already recognize civil unions.

Funny how you who said a white man can only defeat Obama throw around the term bigot.

Marriage is a religious ceremony. It has no place in a secular government. The government should develop a civil union with all of the citizen benefits marriage currently provides. No one will be excluded from it.

If a gay couple wants to go through the religious ceremony of marriage after or before they get the generic, government civil union (just like a heterosexual couple would have to do) then they would just need to find a church that has no problem performing it for them.

How is this a bigoted solution?

I think it's stupid that anyone would care who gets married as well... but we're dealing with idiots. I think with the current system of government recognizing marriage, the contention will never end. This would circumvent all that.

Decius,

I did read your wikipedia link. No, I'm not aware of all the plights that homosexuals go through. That was never my assertion. Nor are you aware of my personal experiences so it is wrong to assume you know what "prejudices" I accept.

So, is it your opinion that only a white man can defeat Obama or not? Leave the text book verbiage out and state your opinon, can you do that?

Facts are all three candidates said on record that the states should deal with the marriage issue and there is more important things the federal government needs to focus on.

Fact is you know nothing of what I support.

This issue is your core issue, I get that. But please don't make assumptions concerning me just because it's not important to me. I do not believe it's fair for anyone to be treated unjustly. And, I thought the Feds left it to the states to accept or reject cicvil unions. That sounds like an endorsement to me.

Quote: "Case in point, you believe it is fair that gays do not get the same legal protections as non-gays, and believe that this is fair treatment."

Wrong. I said what I said about the legal institution of marriage as a statement of fact,period. Nothing more, nothing less where that statement is concerned and my personal feelings on the matter are concerned. That fact being it was about unions between men and women.

The law has made concessions toward the rights of gay partners and I pointed that out as well. It's not about equal protection under the law. It's about recognition. And that is why it isn't important to me. Please don't quote out of context. To me, homosexuals can no more be in a marriage ceremony than I can be the first female president. The biology doesn't fit the description. Get it?

And yes I am familiar enough with your opinions on this to characterize them as revealing the importance of this issue to you. Concerning the election that is.

If race never was an issue perhaps it should not have been brought up by you, but you did.

What can I do that they can not?

When someone doesn't get the exact point you're making proper etiquette calls for a more precise explanation, not accusations.

I went back and looked (again) at your site. Yes, though the feds allows states to marry same sex couples and the article actually has some of the same arguments I'v been making, the government itself refuses to pay out on social security benefits. But Decius this is what I've been saying all along. They have the same resources as anyone else does to change the government, Why is it so important to change an age old institution? Why is it so important to you?

No group is completely free of injustice and we all experience infringements on our civil liberties from time to time.Even though the law says otherwise. I'm white and have been barred from a club in the past because of that. Blacks suffer many injustices still to day. Point is the law is in place and it is a continuing effort to exercise them appropriately.

Everyone one fights the government where things bequeathed are concerned. The wife and I are embattled as we speak over some property her late father left. The point of my question above was that anything I can do to change or sway the government so can anyone else. The mechanisms are in place. The government can pay out social security without changing institutions.

The law will never be enacted perfectly so it is a continuing battle that will often times be fought on the local level first. And if their were a proposal on the ballet that would compel the government to pay out social security benefits don't you think I would vote for it?

Anyway it was a purely innocent thread to start with.

Tell me, if homosexuals had all the benefits as traditional couples and they were enforced in all areas of government perfectly like a utopia , would you still want to change the institution because as you inferred, it's just a Christian thing, the book is fictional and gays should have it because you think so? I think your problem is with Christianity at your core. Just an honest assessment your stated opinions.

Quote: "So now, many posts later, you have finally educated yourself on the matter as opposed to what you stated earlier."

As per what's become your norm on this thread, the truth gets lost in lieu of your feigned perceptions of what I mean when I respond. Le t me be clear: Reread my last post and realize your article supports what I've have said all along.

And thanks for confirming my suspicions with your last post.

The problem with Herman Cain is he's a devout Christian who stands for truth and accountability while being unaffected by secularist, textbook psycho-babble. Would that about sum up your position?