Voters set to reject gay marriage, ban on abortion

**Logan13** · 11-08-2006, 03:59 AM

Voters set to reject gay marriage, ban on abortion
Nov. 08, 2006

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Voters appeared to reject gay wedlock in several U.S. states by limiting marriage to unions between a man and woman in one of the few bright spots for conservative Republicans in difficult elections on Tuesday.

But in another highly divisive issue, pro-choice movements were ready to claim victory in South Dakota, where voters favored repealing an abortion law considered the most restrictive in the nation.

An amendment on stem cell research hung in the balance in Missouri, where an appeal by actor and Parkinsons disease patient Michael J. Fox to support the Democratic-backed initiative drew worldwide attention.

With over half of the ballots counted there, the "no" to stem cell research had the lead with 52 percent of the vote.

As Democrats swept the Republicans out of power in the U.S. House of Representatives and made gains in the Senate, conservative voters appeared to have turned out to oppose same-sex marriage and possibly help some Republican races.

Republicans had hoped for a repeat of 2004 when conservative voters flocked to the polls to vote against gay marriage and helped secure U.S. President George W. Bush's second term.

"The marriage amendments are all passing and they may have made the difference in close races," said Tony Perkins, president of the conservative lobby group, the Family Research Council.

Of the eight states where marriage amendments were on the ballot, six -- Virginia, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Tennessee, South Dakota and Colorado -- were headed toward opposing gay marriage. But supporters of gay marriage said they were seeing greater numbers voting in favor of their movement. Continued...

"Two years ago we had 11 of these on the ballot, and in only two of them did we do better than 40 percent," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

"This year there were eight and in at least five of them we did better than 40 percent."

But conservatives will see a big blow in South Dakota where they viewed the law as their best chance to challenge a 33-year-old Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion in the United States.

"This means that there has been a rebellion against social, right-wing wedge politics that have been dominating this country," said Sarah Stoesz, CEO of South Dakota's Planned Parenthood, key backers of the campaign to kill the measure.

Tobacco and smoking taxes, property rights and minimum wage levels were also big issues among the 205 ballot propositions in 37 states, according to the the University of Southern California.

(Additional reporting by Ed Stoddard in Dallas and Ann Grauvogl in Sioux Falls, SD)

© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.

*Logan, I added the rest of the article.*

**Kärnfysikern** · 11-08-2006, 07:08 AM

It always pisses me off when scientific descisions are left to votes. Letting the avarage joe vote about stem cell research is as stupid as it was to let the swedish population vote about the future of nuclear power in sweden.

Moronic.

**Kale** · 11-08-2006, 07:24 AM

Originally Posted by johan

It always pisses me off when scientific descisions are left to votes. Letting the avarage joe vote about stem cell research is as stupid as it was to let the swedish population vote about the future of nuclear power in sweden.

Moronic.

The funny thing is that most of the retards voting probably think Stem Cells have something to do with flowers.

RA · 11-08-2006, 07:53 AM

Originally Posted by johan

It always pisses me off when scientific descisions are left to votes. Letting the avarage joe vote about stem cell research is as stupid as it was to let the swedish population vote about the future of nuclear power in sweden.

Moronic.

So other "scientific" decisions like cloning shouldnt be on the ballot? They should just have some scientist decide for the entire country whats right and wrong?

**biglouie250** · 11-08-2006, 08:08 AM

is not a right and wrong issue. its govt interference in the lives of citizens. for so called conservatives to want to regulate these things it goes against their core beliefs, but thats what happens when religious beliefs enter the brain. only stupidity can follow.

**Kärnfysikern** · 11-08-2006, 08:11 AM

Originally Posted by roidattack

So other "scientific" decisions like cloning shouldnt be on the ballot? They should just have some scientist decide for the entire country whats right and wrong?

When it come to far reaching things like that I wwould rather se politicians appoint a comitte of scientists to make the descision. Let the experts decide of the pros outweight the cons. Who else is competent?

Its stupid to leave the descision to a uneducated mob that can be scared to vote either way by the most vocal group of nutbags around.

Perfect example, nuclear power. The avarage joe is far to ignorant to decide.

Leave science to scientists. They know best what to do with it.

**Kärnfysikern** · 11-08-2006, 08:14 AM

If someone is oposed to it just dont take the treatment. That simple

RA · 11-08-2006, 08:19 AM

Originally Posted by biglouie250

is not a right and wrong issue. its govt interference in the lives of citizens. for so called conservatives to want to regulate these things it goes against their core beliefs, but thats what happens when religious beliefs enter the brain. only stupidity can follow.

Well then let the "citizens" fund it. The whole debate was over govt funding. If its govt funding you damn right I should have a say in how its spent, especially if I disagree with it.

RA · 11-08-2006, 08:22 AM

Originally Posted by johan

When it come to far reaching things like that I wwould rather se politicians appoint a comitte of scientists to make the descision. Let the experts decide of the pros outweight the cons. Who else is competent?

Its stupid to leave the descision to a uneducated mob that can be scared to vote either way by the most vocal group of nutbags around.

Perfect example, nuclear power. The avarage joe is far to ignorant to decide.

Leave science to scientists. They know best what to do with it.

Certainly not a group of self important assholes. If they are spending my money Im going to have a say in it or they will not have the money.

These issues touch on morality. Scientists would have to go find a dictionary to figure out what that means

**biglouie250** · 11-08-2006, 08:32 AM

Originally Posted by roidattack

Well then let the "citizens" fund it. The whole debate was over govt funding. If its govt funding you damn right I should have a say in how its spent, especially if I disagree with it.

i wish it worked where we could vote on where we want our tax dollars to go..... like a long ass questionaire about how you want your federal income tax to go.

over 60% of americans diagree with the war..... can that be on the ballot?

**Mizfit** · 11-08-2006, 08:46 AM

I think the larger issue is that many people do not realize the rqamifications of not having stem cell research.

The problem is that stem cell research isint a simple issue and a lot of those against it make it seem simple and evil to the every day citizen, which in turn affects their opinion on it.

**biglouie250** · 11-08-2006, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by Mizfit

I think the larger issue is that many people do not realize the rqamifications of not having stem cell research.

The problem is that stem cell research isint a simple issue and a lot of those against it make it seem simple and evil to the every day citizen, which in turn affects their opinion on it.

regardless of your opinion on it consider this. If god forbid your mother was stricken with MS, or was paralyzed and stem cells provided a cure would you be against it? If this research is allowed they pretty much KNOW they can cure these diseases with some time and money. But then you have Laura Bush the twat on TV that says its hasnt done anything(FALSE).....yea usually programs with no money solve their own problems. its interesting that Dick Cheney a very conservative guy is also compassionate to the gay community, could it be because his daughter is gay? funny how peoples opinions differ when issues hit close to home.

RA · 11-08-2006, 08:58 AM

There is private stem cell research and the govt funds adult stem cell research. The whole argument is the abortion zealots who want to ingrane it further into our culture.

**Kärnfysikern** · 11-08-2006, 09:04 AM

Originally Posted by roidattack

Certainly not a group of self important assholes. If they are spending my money Im going to have a say in it or they will not have the money.

These issues touch on morality. Scientists would have to go find a dictionary to figure out what that means

Well how often do people have a clue what the money goes to? Was there ever a vote among citizens to if billions should be spent on the manhattan project or not?

Is it higher moral to develop wmd's than it is to develop life saving therapies?
Nuking 100 000 japs are ok while using a embryo to save lifes is a sin

When it comes to spending the goverments sure doesnt use moral as a guide.....

Morality is flimsy, science is absolute

But I would bet most scientists are more moral than the avarage joe(especialy considering how many of them are pacificts).

**Mizfit** · 11-08-2006, 09:04 AM

Originally Posted by biglouie250

regardless of your opinion on it consider this. If god forbid your mother was stricken with MS, or was paralyzed and stem cells provided a cure would you be against it? If this research is allowed they pretty much KNOW they can cure these diseases with some time and money. But then you have Laura Bush the twat on TV that says its hasnt done anything(FALSE).....yea usually programs with no money solve their own problems. its interesting that Dick Cheney a very conservative guy is also compassionate to the gay community, could it be because his daughter is gay? funny how peoples opinions differ when issues hit close to home.

I'm for it

**Logan13** · 11-08-2006, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by biglouie250

is not a right and wrong issue. its govt interference in the lives of citizens. for so called conservatives to want to regulate these things it goes against their core beliefs, but thats what happens when religious beliefs enter the brain. only stupidity can follow.

I do not believe that allowing transgender individuals the right to use whatever public bathroom they wish is a scientific decision. This should have been on the ballot, the social impacts that could result from this necessitates it. As far as stem cell research, the fact that it will allow human cloning will effect us all. If not for the human cloning part of these bills, I am sure that it would have passed. You need to read the bills before you can comment intelligently on them. On a social level, abortion is voted on, and this is very much tied to it. People would be allowed to sell their fetuses to stem cell research labs, if you do not think that this would create a huge social issue I do not know what else to tell you. Can you not imagine poor women getting pregnant just so that they could earn money by getting an abortion in order to sell their fetuses?

**biglouie250** · 11-08-2006, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by Logan13

I do not believe that allowing transgender individuals the right to use whatever public bathroom they wish is a scientific decision. This should have been on the ballot, the social impacts that could result from this necessitates it. As far as stem cell research, the fact that it will allow human cloning will effect us all. If not for the human cloning part of these bills, I am sure that it would have passed. You need to read the bills before you can comment intelligently on them. On a social level, abortion is voted on, and this is very much tied to it. People would be allowed to sell their fetuses to stem cell research labs, if you do not think that this would create a huge social issue I do not know what else to tell you. Can you not imagine poor women getting pregnant just so that they could earn money by getting an abortion in order to sell their fetuses?

it is illegal to sell body parts. the transgender thing is just gross.

**Kärnfysikern** · 11-08-2006, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by Logan13

I do not believe that allowing transgender individuals the right to use whatever public bathroom they wish is a scientific decision. This should have been on the ballot, the social impacts that could result from this necessitates it. As far as stem cell research, the fact that it will allow human cloning will effect us all. If not for the human cloning part of these bills, I am sure that it would have passed. You need to read the bills before you can comment intelligently on them. On a social level, abortion is voted on, and this is very much tied to it. People would be allowed to sell their fetuses to stem cell research labs, if you do not think that this would create a huge social issue I do not know what else to tell you. Can you not imagine poor women getting pregnant just so that they could earn money by getting an abortion in order to sell their fetuses?

Make it illegal to buy featus, only allow donations. Problem solved...

I doubt it would be so economicaly benificial that poor women would make a business out of it though.

I dont se whats so horrible about human cloning.

**Logan13** · 11-08-2006, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by johan

Make it illegal to buy featus, only allow donations. Problem solved...

I doubt it would be so economicaly benificial that poor women would make a business out of it though.

I dont se whats so horrible about human cloning.

I am sure that you don't..............

RA · 11-08-2006, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by johan

Well how often do people have a clue what the money goes to? Was there ever a vote among citizens to if billions should be spent on the manhattan project or not?

Is it higher moral to develop wmd's than it is to develop life saving therapies?
Nuking 100 000 japs are ok while using a embryo to save lifes is a sin

When it comes to spending the goverments sure doesnt use moral as a guide.....

Morality is flimsy, science is absolute

But I would bet most scientists are more moral than the avarage joe(especialy considering how many of them are pacificts).

Im not going to answer for every problem in the history of the United States. I certainly know just because someone is educated in a certain area they should not be making all the decisions for everyone else. I know plenty of well educated a-holes. Im certain you do to. Would you want them making your decisions?

Science=absolute

Johan, you have to be kidding with that statement.

**Carlos_E** · 11-08-2006, 02:20 PM

Logan if you're going to post an article post the entire thing. Not just the parts you like.

**Kärnfysikern** · 11-08-2006, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by Logan13

I am sure that you don't..............

Enlighten me on what you feel is the problem with a clone?

Do you mean cloning featus to get stem cells or full blown cloning of a living person?

Originally Posted by roidattack

Im not going to answer for every problem in the history of the United States. I certainly know just because someone is educated in a certain area they should not be making all the decisions for everyone else. I know plenty of well educated a-holes. Im certain you do to. Would you want them making your decisions?

Science=absolute

Johan, you have to be kidding with that statement.

The ammount of assholes usualy seem to be inversly proportional to there level of education

I can say that from the professors and phd's I have meet I would much rather have them make important descisions than the avarage toilet cleaner. The more I study the more I detest how utterly ignorant most people are on the issues they enjoy commenting.

Obviously someone witha phd in biology is more fit than a say police officer to make a descision about stem cell research.

A nuclear engineer or phycisist is much more fit to make a descision about nuclear power.

A cosmologist is more fit to make a descision about the need for a new space telescope. ect ect

Letting avarage joes decide over scientific issues is as stupid as if we would let avarage joes decide military manuvers. There is no sense behind it.

Offcurse Im not kidding

Whats more absolute than science? Its the only truth there is. Everything else is just a matter of opinion. But a scientific truth stays true.

**Carlos_E** · 11-08-2006, 02:48 PM

I agree with you Johan.

**BigLittleTim** · 11-08-2006, 02:54 PM

As a gay man, one gets a little tired of having everyone vote every six months, or so, on whether or not we have the same civil rights as everyone else.

While we're at it, why don't we have a plebicite (general vote) on what Mr. & Mrs. Middle-America think we should do to the CRIMINAL USERS AND DEALERS OF ILLEGAL STEROIDS ?

When they came for the gays, I didn't say anything because I'm not gay;
When they came for the feminists, I didn't say anything because I'm a man;
And when they came for the playground drug dealers (a.k.a. "steroid users") no-one said anything for me... because there was no-one left.

-BigLittleTim

**Kärnfysikern** · 11-08-2006, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by Carlos_E

I agree with you Johan.

Originally Posted by BigLittleTim

As a gay man, one gets a little tired of having everyone vote every six months, or so, on whether or not we have the same civil rights as everyone else.

While we're at it, why don't we have a plebicite (general vote) on what Mr. & Mrs. Middle-America think we should do to the CRIMINAL USERS AND DEALERS OF ILLEGAL STEROIDS ?

When they came for the gays, I didn't say anything because I'm not gay;
When they came for the feminists, I didn't say anything because I'm a man;
And when they came for the playground drug dealers (a.k.a. "steroid users") no-one said anything for me... because there was no-one left.

-BigLittleTim

Excelent point.

RA · 11-08-2006, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by johan

Enlighten me on what you feel is the problem with a clone?

Do you mean cloning featus to get stem cells or full blown cloning of a living person?

The ammount of assholes usualy seem to be inversly proportional to there level of education

I can say that from the professors and phd's I have meet I would much rather have them make important descisions than the avarage toilet cleaner. The more I study the more I detest how utterly ignorant most people are on the issues they enjoy commenting.

Obviously someone witha phd in biology is more fit than a say police officer to make a descision about stem cell research.

A nuclear engineer or phycisist is much more fit to make a descision about nuclear power.

A cosmologist is more fit to make a descision about the need for a new space telescope. ect ect

Letting avarage joes decide over scientific issues is as stupid as if we would let avarage joes decide military manuvers. There is no sense behind it.

Offcurse Im not kidding

Whats more absolute than science? Its the only truth there is. Everything else is just a matter of opinion. But a scientific truth stays true.

So your saying that the American people who pay the bills should not have anything to say over the money they spend and some person who may have the highest credentials (who also maybe a wacko) makes all the decisions. Sounds like a dictatorship.

The truth about science is that it changes the more we know. Its far from absolute.

I dont disagree that you should have an advisor who is a recognized expert in each particular field but to make the decisions without consulting the people that pay the bills is ludicrous. You a big fan of dictators?

RA · 11-08-2006, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by BigLittleTim

As a gay man, one gets a little tired of having everyone vote every six months, or so, on whether or not we have the same civil rights as everyone else.

While we're at it, why don't we have a plebicite (general vote) on what Mr. & Mrs. Middle-America think we should do to the CRIMINAL USERS AND DEALERS OF ILLEGAL STEROIDS ?

When they came for the gays, I didn't say anything because I'm not gay;
When they came for the feminists, I didn't say anything because I'm a man;
And when they came for the playground drug dealers (a.k.a. "steroid users") no-one said anything for me... because there was no-one left.

-BigLittleTim

Ignorant post IMO

RA · 11-08-2006, 03:56 PM

Thats like saying all gay people are pedophiles

**Phreak101** · 11-08-2006, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by roidattack

Ignorant post IMO

He is using a clever play on words of another quote made by a Jew during WW2 if I'm not mistaken.

**Phreak101** · 11-08-2006, 04:07 PM

I think Johan has a good point. Like it not, time marches on. The information age is the new dawn of mankind. The introduction of the internet in my mind is just as important as the Reneissance (sp?). The scientific and moral decisions we make right now will determine the history of humanity. This is not being dramatic, this is the truth. We have weapons that can detroy the world, we have methods that can cure the world, we have the ability to feed ALL the hungry, right around the corner. These types of decisions cannot be left up to the ignorant masses, especially thsoe with a backwater mindset of what is what. I hate the idea that a bible-thumping baptist can vote against stem cell research, basing his only objection on the Bible and having no real scientific or ethical objection.

Tough issue, hence, PRIVATIZE!

**Logan13** · 11-08-2006, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by BigLittleTim

As a gay man, one gets a little tired of having everyone vote every six months, or so, on whether or not we have the same civil rights as everyone else.

While we're at it, why don't we have a plebicite (general vote) on what Mr. & Mrs. Middle-America think we should do to the CRIMINAL USERS AND DEALERS OF ILLEGAL STEROIDS ?

When they came for the gays, I didn't say anything because I'm not gay;
When they came for the feminists, I didn't say anything because I'm a man;
And when they came for the playground drug dealers (a.k.a. "steroid users") no-one said anything for me... because there was no-one left.

-BigLittleTim

No one has the Constitutional right to marry gay or otherwise.......

**biglouie250** · 11-08-2006, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by Logan13

No one has the Constitutional right to marry gay or otherwise.......

correct, its not a constitutional issue its a civil right issue. actually it doesnt matter what each state decides to do for tax purposes the federal govt will not recognize same sex marriages. i wonder if that extends to life insurance...IE if your gay and "married" is your spouse entitled to death benefits?

**Phreak101** · 11-08-2006, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by biglouie250

correct, its not a constitutional issue its a civil right issue. actually it doesnt matter what each state decides to do for tax purposes the federal govt will not recognize same sex marriages. i wonder if that extends to life insurance...IE if your gay and "married" is your spouse entitled to death benefits?

Civil unions would take care of that, there is no matter that "marriage" would cover that civil unions would not.

**biglouie250** · 11-08-2006, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by Phreak101

Civil unions would take care of that, there is no matter that "marriage" would cover that civil unions would not.

i dont see a big deal with gay marriage it doesnt affect me. i want to see a prominant gay couple get divorced and see who ends up with the alimony.....let them be miserable like us straight people lol.

**Carlos_E** · 11-08-2006, 06:36 PM

Originally Posted by biglouie250

let them be miserable like us straight people lol.

I bet straight people are afraid of gay marriage because we may do a better job of it than straights.

**Logan13** · 11-08-2006, 06:44 PM

Originally Posted by Carlos_E

I bet straight people are afraid of gay marriage because we may do a better job of it than straights.

I wish you nothing but happiness.

**Carlos_E** · 11-08-2006, 06:49 PM

Originally Posted by Logan13

I wish you nothing but happiness.

And I you.

**biglouie250** · 11-08-2006, 09:06 PM

Originally Posted by Carlos_E

I bet straight people are afraid of gay marriage because we may do a better job of it than straights.

lol this could be very true hahaha

RA · 11-08-2006, 09:42 PM

Originally Posted by Phreak101

I think Johan has a good point. Like it not, time marches on. The information age is the new dawn of mankind. The introduction of the internet in my mind is just as important as the Reneissance (sp?). The scientific and moral decisions we make right now will determine the history of humanity. This is not being dramatic, this is the truth. We have weapons that can detroy the world, we have methods that can cure the world, we have the ability to feed ALL the hungry, right around the corner. These types of decisions cannot be left up to the ignorant masses, especially thsoe with a backwater mindset of what is what. I hate the idea that a bible-thumping baptist can vote against stem cell research, basing his only objection on the Bible and having no real scientific or ethical objection.

Tough issue, hence, PRIVATIZE!

I vote against ripping up babies to find a cure because it makes sense to me. Period. Call me ignorant? I dont care.

**Kärnfysikern** · 11-09-2006, 12:59 AM

Originally Posted by roidattack

So your saying that the American people who pay the bills should not have anything to say over the money they spend and some person who may have the highest credentials (who also maybe a wacko) makes all the decisions. Sounds like a dictatorship.

So why dont the generals ask the people before making a big manuver in war? What is the difference? We are living in representative democracies so lets trust our representatives to make the descisions. Offcourse politicians should listen to people. But to decide single things on votes seems far fetched. In that case we should strive for complete direct democracie.

Originally Posted by roidattack

The truth about science is that it changes the more we know. Its far from absolute.

Realy? How much has newtons laws changed since he formulated them in the 17th century? Has maxwells equations changed since the 19th century?

Originally Posted by roidattack

I dont disagree that you should have an advisor who is a recognized expert in each particular field but to make the decisions without consulting the people that pay the bills is ludicrous. You a big fan of dictators?

Where do you draw the line? Should people vote for every descision? Vote for every submarine and aircraft carrier built? Vote if money should go to the f22 raptor or to education? Vote if the next probe to mars should be sent or not?

Direct democracy would be splendid if people cared about the things they voted on and bothered to educate themself.