I understand what he is saying, but it doesn't make any sense. Whether they are allowed to get married or not, if they love each other, they will show affection towards one another. How does the fact that they are married, change whether or not they show affection towards one another. They obviously love each other if they want to get married. The fact that they arent allowed this privlage, isn't going to discourage them from loving each other. That is ludacris. The concept of homosexuality, as you put it, will not go away because they are not allowed to be married.

And, had I been able to vote, I dont think that I would have. Neither of them are good canidates. Through Bush's actions as the President, and through Kerry's actions on the Senate, neither of them deserve to run the country. But, like most elections, it was biased according to political party. Republicans, for the most part, vote for the republican candidate, and the democrats, for the most part, vote for the democratic candidate.

that last statement was totally off the wall. why do you think there are political parties? because thats the way we vote.

and i know they concept of homosexuality wont go away because they are not allowed to be married. and i dont particularly care all that much, people should be able to make their own decisions based on their sexuality, and the government should have nothing to do with it.

Abstaining from the vote is a powerful political tool. If you do not vote, then one of the parties will be seeking your vote and change their policies to appeal to you. Furthermore, I'd rather not have a hand in voting in a moron.

Also, he's speaking against the two party system: "first past the post" means that you often end up with only two main political parties, and again neither of which have particularly apealing policies but people vote for them because it's a name they like to be associated with. Destroying partisanry would mean that parties and independents are able to construct their views based on what they want and be voted for on their own merits. For this reason the direct democracy of Switzerland is FAR more representative than the American system. As it stands "representative" democracy ends up being highly corruptible and biased.

yeah..thats our problem.

Well, what you are saying is that you would vote for a person simply because they have labeled themselves DEMOCRAT. That is pretty stupid, vote for someone based on their stance on issues that affect and concern you. Not their party association. That is probably the reason that kids who haven't had a chance to develop their arguments, aren't allowed to vote in the first place! Because if they did, we would have kids who vote based on political affiliation, and not based off the candidates stances on pressing issues.

We don`t have parties governing Guernsey it`s all independents.

Sounds a good idea in theory but the truth is it takes AGES for anyone to agree on anything & debates just drag on & on & on.

They`ve been discussing plans to build a casino , they`ve been doing that at least 20 years & are still no closer to making a decision. I imagine in a bigger country it would be much much worse.

i never said that i would vote for someone because they are a democrat. the reason i would vote kerry is because his views have more in common with mine. the label "democrat" has nothing to do with it. although, democrats usually do seem to have views that are more parallel to mine. as i stated earlier, i dont think either of them were very good candidates, but the a vote for the candidate who i would have chosen (ralph nader) would have been like a vote for bush. this is because bush had the upper hand in the last election so if you didnt vote against him....you were voting for him, even if you didnt physically vote for him.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I truly lol-ed. Not that I agree, but funny all the same.

again, HAHAHAHAHAHA. I also lol-ed. and called my dad in here. and he chuckled. word.

kerry