LOGO Democratic forum tonight

[Reluctant Republican]

AKA the "gay" debate. Should be intresting. At first I was not going to watch, but It seems like its going to be two hours instead of one, so I may tune in. While I am still wary of debates for a specific minority, if it is two hours, I would think they would branch out and talk about more issues then I've previously thought. Plus, if nothing else, I believe Gravel's at this one.

[SPC]

Will this be the debate where Hillary Clinton and John Edwards come out of the closet?

[HappyWarrior]

What channel and what time?  Btw, is it all the Democrats?

[12th Doctor]

What channel and what time?  Btw, is it all the Democrats?

I will venture a guess and say its on Bravo

[Reluctant Republican]

What channel and what time?  Btw, is it all the Democrats?

The channel is LOGO. I'm not sure how many people get that, it's on the prenium cable channels. I believe everyone but Biden's in it. For some reason, I believe he declined. Oh, and to clarify, it's a "forum" not a "debate" just like the thing a few days ago.

Shall be intresting to see if any of the other channels give this coverage later. Since its not on one of the main networks, I doubt it.

[Jaggerjack]

Hm? Didn't we just have a debate?

[Reluctant Republican]

Hm? Didn't we just have a debate?

the Dems had like three this week. It's even giving me fatigue. Anyway, if no one else gets it, I'll try to watch and report if anything interesting happens.[which is doubtful.] I may not be able to catch it all though, as my mom already doubts my sexuality, and I'm not really all that up for anymore ackward convesations, ha ha.

[Speed of Sound]

I sure hope the moderators take it to these cowards and give Gravel and Kucinich the credit they are due. Whoop some ass, LOGO!

[SPC]

Hm? Didn't we just have a debate?

the Dems had like three this week. It's even giving me fatigue. Anyway, if no one else gets it, I'll try to watch and report if anything interesting happens.[which is doubtful.] I may not be able to catch it all though, as my mom already doubts my sexuality, and I'm not really all that up for anymore ackward convesations, ha ha.

I don't think it's worth it. Do you really want to see 90 minutes of gay pandering at the risk of being accused of being gay?

[Reluctant Republican]

Hm? Didn't we just have a debate?

the Dems had like three this week. It's even giving me fatigue. Anyway, if no one else gets it, I'll try to watch and report if anything interesting happens.[which is doubtful.] I may not be able to catch it all though, as my mom already doubts my sexuality, and I'm not really all that up for anymore ackward convesations, ha ha.

I don't think it's worth it. Do you really want to see 90 minutes of gay pandering at the risk of being accused of being gay?

Hmm, valid point. However, I was semi joking before. She knows I'm into all these debates, and she saw me watching the black one, and I don’t think I can be accused of being an African American male, ha. But I'm going to watch like the first ten minutes and see if its interesting. If not, I’ll likely turn it off.

Oh, and forgot to mention the time. It starts at nine Est.

[Reluctant Republican]

Ugh. It's just going to be the moderators one on one with each Candidate. What a missed opportunity. This is SO not worth watching.

Obama's up first though, and says he has alot in common with gays, since "he's a black guy named Barack Obama." So he knows what its like to be discrimnated against.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Technically it wasn' t a Democratic debate, it's just that all of the Republicans are too homophobic, and turned it down. Yes, Ron Paul hates the gays.

[Reluctant Republican]

Technically it wasn' t a Democratic debate, it's just that all of the Republicans are too homophobic, and turned it down. Yes, Ron Paul hates the gays.

Well, I don't really think that's the case. Paul supports leaving gay rights up to each individual state, which is a position I support. While he personally is against Gay marriage, he has no problem with some states deciding to allow it. As I’ve said before, this seems to me to be a perfectly sensible position. Unfortunately, the populace at large is still opposed to gay marriage, and I myself would feel uncomfortable having laws passed requiring them to recognize it. Instead, I am in favor of for now having full rights granted by civil unions[ though I’m not generally a  fan of separate but equal policies, here it might work.] Then, in 30 or 40 years, where the populace will be more willing to accept gay marriage, we should then campaign for that. But shoving gay marriage down the throat of Americans now will only create more resentment towards gay rights, and IMHO, hurt the cause. No, instead, I am in favor not of winning the battle through the intervention of the courts [which I think we all know would be demonized.] but winning by changing people’s minds. But again, I am nothing if not an idealist.

As for the forum, I watched a bit of Obama’s speech and turned it off. Basically, if you knew the candidates positions on gay marriage before, I don’t think they’ve changed at all.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Technically it wasn' t a Democratic debate, it's just that all of the Republicans are too homophobic, and turned it down. Yes, Ron Paul hates the gays.

Well, I don't really think that's the case. Paul supports leaving gay rights up to each individual state, which is a position I support. While he personally is against Gay marriage, he has no problem with some states deciding to allow it. As I’ve said before, this seems to me to be a perfectly sensible position. Unfortunately, the populace at large is still opposed to gay marriage, and I myself would feel uncomfortable having laws passed requiring them to recognize it. Instead, I am in favor of for now having full rights granted by civil unions[ though I’m not generally a  fan of separate but equal policies, here it might work.] Then, in 30 or 40 years, where the populace will be more willing to accept gay marriage, we should then campaign for that. But shoving gay marriage down the throat of Americans now will only create more resentment towards gay rights, and IMHO, hurt the cause. No, instead, I am in favor not of winning the battle through the intervention of the courts [which I think we all know would be demonized.] but winning by changing people’s minds. But again, I am nothing if not an idealist.

As for the forum, I watched a bit of Obama’s speech and turned it off. Basically, if you knew the candidates positions on gay marriage before, I don’t think they’ve changed at all.

http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/07/19/ron-paul-and-gay-rights/

As I said Ron Paul hates the gays.

I assume you would have been really pissed off when the Supreme Court struck down inter-racial marriage bans?

[poughies]

Did Richardson actually say he thought being gay was a choice?

Whoa..... he's lucky the debate was watched by few people, then again if the press gets a hold of it.... jesus christ.....

[SPC]

Technically it wasn' t a Democratic debate, it's just that all of the Republicans are too homophobic, and turned it down. Yes, Ron Paul hates the gays.

Well, I don't really think that's the case. Paul supports leaving gay rights up to each individual state, which is a position I support. While he personally is against Gay marriage, he has no problem with some states deciding to allow it. As I’ve said before, this seems to me to be a perfectly sensible position. Unfortunately, the populace at large is still opposed to gay marriage, and I myself would feel uncomfortable having laws passed requiring them to recognize it. Instead, I am in favor of for now having full rights granted by civil unions[ though I’m not generally a  fan of separate but equal policies, here it might work.] Then, in 30 or 40 years, where the populace will be more willing to accept gay marriage, we should then campaign for that. But shoving gay marriage down the throat of Americans now will only create more resentment towards gay rights, and IMHO, hurt the cause. No, instead, I am in favor not of winning the battle through the intervention of the courts [which I think we all know would be demonized.] but winning by changing people’s minds. But again, I am nothing if not an idealist.

As for the forum, I watched a bit of Obama’s speech and turned it off. Basically, if you knew the candidates positions on gay marriage before, I don’t think they’ve changed at all.

http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/07/19/ron-paul-and-gay-rights/

As I said Ron Paul hates the gays.

I assume you would have been really pissed off when the Supreme Court struck down inter-racial marriage bans?

That author was clearly not an true libertarian. Everybody who's read the Constitution and understands it would understand the principle of states' rights.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Technically it wasn' t a Democratic debate, it's just that all of the Republicans are too homophobic, and turned it down. Yes, Ron Paul hates the gays.

It's nothing new that Ron Paul "hates teh gays," or whatever, but it's simply inaccurate to classify all the Republicans running as "gay haters."  Giuliani has a record on gay rights that's better than most Democrats in this country—it just makes no political sense for him to go to a LOGO debate.  It'd kill him amongst the GOP electorate who are already wondering if he's too socially liberal.

[Reluctant Republican]

Well, he says that he opposes any federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman. This is consistant with his view that states should decide these sort of things. I will grant you that its a bit troubling that he supported the defense of marriage act. I hope he's perhaps come around on that. I see nothing wrong with the rest of the quotes. He's saying that he opposes judges legslating marriage, which is something I agree with. However, as long as he's not in favor of banning gay marriage or forcing it to be legal, I support his position. I’m in favor of letting the people decide most things, honestly.

As for the court striking down inter racial marriage bans, I see your point. Occasionally, the government might have to intervene and correct an unfair law, but I’m not to crazy about that having too much. While we can all agree that interracial marriage should be legal, and I would hope most of us don’t have a problem with gay marriage, we need to decide the best way to pursue legalization of it.  As I have said before, when the courts force the people to abide by an unpopular decision, resentment and hatred towards the targeted group increases. I would like to avoid that, which is why I favor a more slow, cautious approach. I’m not going to say having the courts intervene and force interracial marriage was a bad thing, as of course it led to a desired result that ensured more freedom in the nation. But, if there’s a way to achieve that kind of result without as much of a backlash, I would rather favor that approach, and I think trying to gain the support of the people to overturn an unfair law is better, in every case, then to have the courts step in. Only in the most dire cases should the courts force law upon the people.

Of course, I’m sure you disagree with me, and that’s perfectly alright. We seem to both seem to want the same thing, we just have different opinions on how to best achieve it. For all I know, your way could be better, and I may eventually come over to your way of thinking, wherein we need a law recognizing same sex marriage. But for now, I think it’s better to try to attract public support.

And even if he’s against same sex marriage, I don’t think Ron Paul “hates” gays. “disapproves” maybe. But hate seems a bit harsh. But that’s just me.

[SPC]

Technically it wasn' t a Democratic debate, it's just that all of the Republicans are too homophobic, and turned it down. Yes, Ron Paul hates the gays.

It's nothing new that Ron Paul "hates teh gays," or whatever, but it's simply inaccurate to classify all the Republicans running as "gay haters."  Giuliani has a record on gay rights that's better than most Democrats in this country—it just makes no political sense for him to go to a LOGO debate.  It'd kill him amongst the GOP electorate who are already wondering if he's too socially liberal.

I'm just wondering, and this is a serious question, do you actively support gay marriage, or do you think civil unions with the same rights are sufficient?

[MODU]

Sounds like we didn't miss much last night.

[Mr. Morden]

Richardson seemed to have a Tommy Thompson moment at this forum:

http://www.southernvoice.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=13750

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[poughies]

Richardson seemed to have a Tommy Thompson moment at this forum:

http://www.southernvoice.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=13750

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I already said, DOH!

[Mr. Morden]

Youtube of Richardson's gaffe:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xc4vz7hqE2Q&mode=related&search=

[AkSaber]

Youtube of Richardson's gaffe:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xc4vz7hqE2Q&mode=related&search=

Am I the only one who thinks Governor Richardson looked uncomfortable answering some questions?

I'm not accusing him or anything. I wonder if all candidates are uneasy discussing gay rights.

[Eraserhead]

Richardson is so embarrassing sometimes.