• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would You Vote Against Your Conscience For A Better Economy?

How Would You Vote?

  • Without money, people have no hope.

    Votes: 18 54.5%
  • Without hope of social justice, money has no use.

    Votes: 13 39.4%
  • I have no idea but I think this is exactly what I'll have to decide.

    Votes: 2 6.1%
  • I don't vote.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    33
  • Poll closed .
Let's say you are (as I am) a fervent supporter of gay rights. You study on the candidates and conclude that while Candidate A will frustrate your social justice goals, he or she will bring the economy back into balance.

Which way will you vote? Economic justice or social justice?

Obama will get you both.
 
Let's say you are (as I am) a fervent supporter of gay rights. You study on the candidates and conclude that while Candidate A will frustrate your social justice goals, he or she will bring the economy back into balance.

Which way will you vote? Economic justice or social justice?

It would really all depend on where their overall stances are. I'm might sacrifice a push for a social issue I believe in for a economic recovery, but I don't think I would vote for a person who would reverse a social issue trend. It's one thing to let a issue stall for a bit to deal with a bigger issue, but it's something else to have the progress destroyed. Now if I thought that the opposite candidate would destroy or make really worse the economic situation, I might have to suck it up and really push for that issue in other area to try to bypass that candidate.
 
Obama will get you both.
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!11!!1!!

You're so cute thinking any of the candidate for president would bring any financial "justice".
 
Let's say you are (as I am) a fervent supporter of gay rights. You study on the candidates and conclude that while Candidate A will frustrate your social justice goals, he or she will bring the economy back into balance.

Which way will you vote? Economic justice or social justice?

two questions to ask:

1. which is more important to you right now. which is less painfully delayed?

2. are you just as sure that Candidate B will be able to deliver your social goals as you are convinced that Candidate A will be able to deliver your economic ones.
 
I just wouldn't vote. I can't vote for someone who is fervent against SSM. Just don't have it in me.

(probably already asked) who did you vote for in 2008?
 
Hm, all the immigrants coming to America obviously have the opposite opinion. ;)

Interestingly enough, I don't believe my Great-Grandparents would have come to THIS America when they left Germany in 1910. I think they would have found somewhere else to go, or stayed in Germany.
 
Let's say you are (as I am) a fervent supporter of gay rights. You study on the candidates and conclude that while Candidate A will frustrate your social justice goals, he or she will bring the economy back into balance.

Which way will you vote? Economic justice or social justice?


Since I am opposed to gay marriage I would not vote for a candidate who supports gay marriage regardless of what campaign promises they made to fix the economy. I have a hard time believing the campaign promises of anyone.
 
There are crimes and sins of commission and ones of omission, Viktyr. We are as guilty of the things we know are wrong that we allow to go on around us as we are of those things that we do ourselves.

I don't believe this to be the case at all. Personal responsibility is just that- responsibility for oneself. I don't believe for a second that (1) I am in the position to allow anyone to do anything, and (2) that I am responsible for the actions of others.
 
There are crimes and sins of commission and ones of omission, Viktyr. We are as guilty of the things we know are wrong that we allow to go on around us as we are of those things that we do ourselves.



If it becomes legal nationally, I will no longer be able to reside in the United States. It's that simple.
It must be difficult for you to travel, having to avoid all those SSM states.
 
There are crimes and sins of commission and ones of omission, Viktyr. We are as guilty of the things we know are wrong that we allow to go on around us as we are of those things that we do ourselves.

We are responsible for the world we live in, but we are only guilty of the things we could have changed.

If it becomes legal nationally, I will no longer be able to reside in the United States. It's that simple.

I understand. I've drawn several of those lines myself. It just strikes me as remarkably petty and intolerant to draw such a line over an issue that does not prevent you from acting morally-- gay marriage doesn't interfere with your marriage and your family, so it seems that you should be perfectly capable of staying in the country and fighting (by lawful means) for the repeal of laws you consider immoral.

It must be difficult for you to travel, having to avoid all those SSM states.

There's only six of them so far. I've got states I can't drive through, either; it isn't that hard if you take your moral values seriously enough.
 
Last edited:
There's only six of them so far. I've got states I can't drive through, either; it isn't that hard if you take your moral values seriously enough.
That was addressed to Tigger, "Location: New England". I believe only Maine and Rhode Island are left as non-SSM states.
 
I don't believe this to be the case at all. Personal responsibility is just that- responsibility for oneself. I don't believe for a second that (1) I am in the position to allow anyone to do anything, and (2) that I am responsible for the actions of others.

When you continue to allow for the election of people who cannot or will not act and legislate in a moral manner, you are responsible for their actions and legislation. When you fail to call the cops every time you see a drug deal going down or other crime being committed, you become responsible for those actions. I could go on, but I won't waste either of our time.


It must be difficult for you to travel, having to avoid all those SSM states.

Unfortunately I live in one, though thankfully in an area of the Communistwealth where it is not terribly prevailant. I do go out of my way to try and avoid places where morality and values are not strongly enforced; but in this area of the country it's not very easy.


We are responsible for the world we live in, but we are only guilty of the things we could have changed.

Only true to a certain degree Viktyr. We're guilty of not changing a lot of things that we should, because doing so would not be easy, pretty, or polite.

I understand. I've drawn several of those lines myself. It just strikes me as remarkably petty and intolerant to draw such a line over an issue that does not prevent you from acting morally-- gay marriage doesn't interfere with your marriage and your family, so it seems that you should be perfectly capable of staying in the country and fighting (by lawful means) for the repeal of laws you consider immoral.

Well, I can be a very petty and intolerant guy. When the State of New York imposed their Same Sex Marriage Right last year, I canceled a trip that would probably have put $500-600 in the pocket of their hotel and restaurant industry, nevermind the secondary markets. I actually sent a letter to the heads of their legislative bodies informing them of the reason I was canceling my stay. Instead I drove out for the one day I needed to be there and drove back that night (about an 18-20 hour day overall) instead of going out a couple days early and staying at least one day later.

There's only six of them so far. I've got states I can't drive through, either; it isn't that hard if you take your moral values seriously enough.

I've got more than a few which I can't drive through for LEGAL reasons, nevermind the morals and values issues.
 
That was addressed to Tigger, "Location: New England". I believe only Maine and Rhode Island are left as non-SSM states.

Yep, and that's why I'm working on getting the hell out of here ASAP.
 
Let's say you are (as I am) a fervent supporter of gay rights. You study on the candidates and conclude that while Candidate A will frustrate your social justice goals, he or she will bring the economy back into balance.

Which way will you vote? Economic justice or social justice?
Without equal rights for all, a nations economy will suffer, IMO.
The wealthy may not even feel this inequality and may not even care, but in today's Internet age, this cannot last.
We need to stress rights for all, not just homosexuals.
And, again, no vote, strange options...
 
Last edited:
Since I am opposed to gay marriage I would not vote for a candidate who supports gay marriage regardless of what campaign promises they made to fix the economy. I have a hard time believing the campaign promises of anyone.

Campaign "promises" = pandering to stupid/hateful voters.
I'm not happy with so-called "gay" marriage; but ones rights are much more important.
Thankfully I am (more or less normal); but, if we really do have a "great society", then individual rights must be respected...
And, I have no respect for those who think that people who are less fortunate should have their opportunities limited by some religious nut case..
I find this thinking to be despicable !
 
I would vote for the economic guys. The gay marriage thing is, at this point, pretty much going to be legal everywhere in the next 10-15 years anyway, given current momentum.

Thanks for turning this thread into another SSM thread.
 
Thankfully I am (more or less normal); but, if we really do have a "great society", then individual rights must be respected...
And, I have no respect for those who think that people who are less fortunate should have their opportunities limited by some religious nut case..
I find this thinking to be despicable !

Some of us don't buy into that "Great Society" nonsense, earthworm. At least not in the way that it was proposed and implemented here in the United States during the Great Depression. It's not about taking Opportunities away from people. It's simply about ensuring that people are forced to endure the consequences of their poor decisions in life.
 
Aren't things such as Gay Rights reserved powers in the United States? It wouldn't be up to the president...
 
Gay marriage is such a non-issue. It amazes me how many worry less about a mediocre paycheck-to-paycheck existence and the potential of living in squalor and more about a topic that concerns a VERY select few people.

Schadenfraude, thy name is politics.
 
Gay marriage is such a non-issue. It amazes me how many worry less about a mediocre paycheck-to-paycheck existence and the potential of living in squalor and more about a topic that concerns a VERY select few people.

Better to live a subsistance life in a Moral third-world nation than to live a life of splendor in an Immoral first-world nation, Gipper.
 
Ironic that you post this while living in the United States.
 
Back
Top Bottom