Quantcast
Romney or Obama and why

Forums - Politics Discussion - Romney or Obama and why

By the way i actually agree that no legal definition of marriage is the best option.

HOWEVER, if i were King for a day I would pass two bills.

One legalizing gay marriage, then a second abolishing marriage as a symbolic gesture to the homosexual community.



Around the Network
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
NolSinkler said:
Romney, because at least he isn't for same-sex 'marriage'.


Feel free to check out my signature whenever you've got some time to spare.


XD, your sig is simply the most ignorant reflection of what gay people believe those who are against same sex marriage believe. Not one of those 10 is actually aplicable in most cases. In any case, the social,and  economic drawbacks to gay marriage are enough that anybody who is the least bit objective cannot be for it. But I digress, if you wish to discuss this further, please, start a thread for it, I will, as time permits (ask Yo_john117, I'm extremely busy these days) reply to it. 

 

Back on topic:

 

TadpoleJackson said:
Tony_Stark said:


Politifact is hardly a good source. Give me three promises he's kept. 

Yes, the pulitzer prize winning website isn't a reliable source... I was going to copy and paste 3 promises from that page, but I don't care that much 


No, it really isn't, it's a pretty biased source, since you don't care to post anything meaningful in retort, it is safe to assume you have nothing. 



"with great power, comes great responsibility."

Moonhero said:
Obama. Hands down. Romney would be almost the same damn thing as Bush, and there is no way I want that back. Bush was one of the worst things to happen to this nation. Obama 2012.


Romney is Obama is Bush.



Ron Paul should be your president he's the only one that makes any sense, the others all say the same things, Obama just carried on the bush administration for another four years



 

SamuelRSmith said:
Moonhero said:
Obama. Hands down. Romney would be almost the same damn thing as Bush, and there is no way I want that back. Bush was one of the worst things to happen to this nation. Obama 2012.


Romney is Obama is Bush.


Romney is Bush. There, fixed it for you. Obama is a good man, nothing like those two.



Ask stefl1504 for a sig, even if you don't need one.

Around the Network
MegaDrive08 said:
Ron Paul should be your president he's the only one that makes any sense, the others all say the same things, Obama just carried on the bush administration for another four years

Holy crap! Somebody who gets it. Ron Paul is down right dangerouse on foreighn policy though, and for that reason, I did not vote for him in the caucus. 



"with great power, comes great responsibility."

Moonhero said:
SamuelRSmith said:
Moonhero said:
Obama. Hands down. Romney would be almost the same damn thing as Bush, and there is no way I want that back. Bush was one of the worst things to happen to this nation. Obama 2012.


Romney is Obama is Bush.


Romney is Bush. There, fixed it for you. Obama is a good man, nothing like those two.


http://ronpaulflix.com/2012/04/grassroots-video-obomney/

Seriously, watch it.



Tony_Stark said:
MegaDrive08 said:
Ron Paul should be your president he's the only one that makes any sense, the others all say the same things, Obama just carried on the bush administration for another four years

Holy crap! Somebody who gets it. Ron Paul is down right dangerouse on foreighn policy though, and for that reason, I did not vote for him in the caucus. 


Howso? Looking back, had we remained neutral, both attacks on American soil would have been prevented. 



bluesinG said:
HappySqurriel said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
NolSinkler said:
Romney, because at least he isn't for same-sex 'marriage'.


Feel free to check out my signature whenever you've got some time to spare.


Not that I care much anymore (gay marriage has been legal in Canada for several years now) but your signature, and most pro-gay marriage stances, fails to address the underlying question of "What is marriage?"

We live in a society where the institution of marriage has been under assault for over 60 years, and today it has been so watered down that the average person's definition would be something along the lines of "What happens after a wedding". There is far more to it than that, and one of the reasons the divorce rate is already so high is most people have forgotten what a marriage is supposed to be; and simply want a wedding with their partner because they lust for them. I don't fear a "slippery slope" argument with gay marriage, but I have never seen anyone explain how two people of the same sex can be married ... Being in love is not enough, having a ceremony is not enough, having a stable monogamous partnership which lasts a lifetime for the purpose of raising children is required.

This isn't about "good vs. evil" or about "tolerance" this is purely about definitions ... Just because you want to call your cat a dog doesn't make it a dog

Well, I guess we disagree about the definition of marriage. Or at least part of it. Committing to a stable, monogomous partnership is enough for me. Children are certainly not required (and I say that as the happily married father of one child, and hopefully more in the future).

Also, two follow-up questions: First, should opposite-sex couples be allowed to marry if they do not intend to have children? Second, internationally, there are far more children in need of adoptive parents than there are opposite-sex couples looking to adopt; do you think that these "extra" children would be better off raised by married same-sex couples or in group homes?


Marriage is an institution that is designed to create the ideal environment for raising children, you do not require children to be married.

Personally, I'm against international adoption (in general) at the moment because it is not particularly ethical; essentially, a large portion of children that are available for international adoption are being sold to wealthy westerners, and I have heard it suggested that this is against their parents will. I believe the correct approach to deal with "unwanted" children in developing nations is to increase the standard of living, and to encourage the use of birth control; whether it is artificial birth control (the pill/condoms) or more natural methods (the rhythm method). I don't necessarily have a problem with homosexual adoption, but with there being a massive shortage of children available for adoption I think we should be able to place them in the "best" environment possible; which could potentially discriminate against people for countless reasons. As an example, you might want to place a baby with a family that most closely matches their ethnic background and, since there are far more black babies than white babies available for adoption, the waiting list for black adoptive parents might be shorter than white parents. Of course, this would not preclude white parents from being given a black baby; after all, any loving parents (including parents of different ethnic backgrounds, or homosexual parents) are better than being a ward of the state.



Kasz216 said:
By the way i actually agree that no legal definition of marriage is the best option.

HOWEVER, if i were King for a day I would pass two bills.

One legalizing gay marriage, then a second abolishing marriage as a symbolic gesture to the homosexual community.


I generally agree you but I would priorities solutions as follows:

  1. State out of marriage
  2. Civil unions for all
  3. Heterosexual marriage / Homosexual civil union
  4. Marriage for all
  5. Heterosexual Marriage / no gay unions