Quantcast
Romney or Obama and why

Forums - Politics Discussion - Romney or Obama and why

NintendoPie said:
Romney, because Obama needs to go.
Even though I'm not sure I really like any of the Presidents running... still, Obama needs to go.

 

You know, the last time a sitting president faced a flip-flopper from Massachusetts, I felt the same way.  I then felt it is better I have strong reasons for supporting someone.  Exactly what does Romney do different than Obama, you would approve of?  In light of the deficit issue, what programs do you want slashed because there won't be tax increases.  Heck, Romney is likely to even slash taxes further, or try to.

I get a feeling that this is often like the John Jackson vs Jack Johnson candidates from Futurama:



Around the Network

That's it, I am voting Apathy Party!

Well, on another note, since the GOP seems to like to run individuals who lost the primary of the last election, if Romney doesn't get elected, I am looking forward to seeing the GOP roll out Santorum in 2016.  I see the slogan now: "Santorum: Don't google it!"



bluesinG said:
NolSinkler said:
bluesinG said:
Mr Khan said:
killerzX said:

what makes polygamy any more ridiculous than gay marriage. its not slippery slope, when the same principle applies. its no slope it is extension.

you cannot logically  be for gay marriage, while simultaniously being against the other forms of marriage that i mentioned.

you have yet to pose any argument on why gay marriage should be legal while others not. nor have you explained why you are for gay marriage, claim that those who arent are bigots and or behind the times, while also being against other forms of marriage, and not considering yourself a bigot.

if its wrong, discrimintation, and bigotry to be against gay marriage, then it must also be so for people against other forms of marriage.

The claim is that they are not the same. Being related to someone provides the legal framework that marriage in turn provides making the legal framework unnecessary, and thus is not needed. The issues surrounding polygamy are distinct from the issues surrounding gay marriage, polygamy being an artifact of an older era and historically exploitative towards one gender.

With marriage we have an institution which is a legal framework that provides individuals with certain benefits. What we must debate on the matter of gay marriage then is that certain couples are being denied the ability to enter into this contract, who otherwise need to do so.

@killerzX

As I stated above, "Polygamy is not okay because it creates inherently unequal partnerships. For example, situations where multiple women have to share one man." That argument DOES NOT apply to same-sex marriage. Therefore, same-sex marriage and polygamy are logically and ethically different. I can support same-sex marriage without also supporting polygamy.

Here's an affirmative statement of my position: In my view, two people should be allowed to marry as long as (1) they are both consenting adults, (2) their marriage would create an equal partnership, and (3) their marriage would not put their children at substantial risk for a negative outcome that is not shared by the parents.

Same-sex marriage would pass this test. Polygamy would fail, due to criterion (2), and same-family marriage would fail due to criterion (3).


But what if a second woman WANTS to marry the man?  Should we stop them?  There is no liberal principle to which you can appeal.  What if the two women are okay with the "exploitation" that you cite?

The principle is that a polygamous marriage creates a partnership that is unequal *by definition*, whereas a same-sex marriage does not.

That's ridiculous.  Who are we to stop people if they want to enter an unequal relationship?  After all, the U.S. government has political relations with the United Kingdom.  So, what if they want to enter such a relationship?  What if there is a consensual polygamous marriage?  Why should we stand in their way of doing what they want to do in order to be happy?  So what if the man is in charge; is not one man the President of the United States?  And we chose him to be such, even though we gave him great power and authority over us in doing so.  Could not two or more women elect to submit to an unequal relationship under the head of one man?



bluesinG said:
killerzX said:
bluesinG said:
killerzX said:
bluesinG said:
Mr Khan said:
killerzX said:

what makes polygamy any more ridiculous than gay marriage. its not slippery slope, when the same principle applies. its no slope it is extension.

you cannot logically  be for gay marriage, while simultaniously being against the other forms of marriage that i mentioned.

you have yet to pose any argument on why gay marriage should be legal while others not. nor have you explained why you are for gay marriage, claim that those who arent are bigots and or behind the times, while also being against other forms of marriage, and not considering yourself a bigot.

if its wrong, discrimintation, and bigotry to be against gay marriage, then it must also be so for people against other forms of marriage.

The claim is that they are not the same. Being related to someone provides the legal framework that marriage in turn provides making the legal framework unnecessary, and thus is not needed. The issues surrounding polygamy are distinct from the issues surrounding gay marriage, polygamy being an artifact of an older era and historically exploitative towards one gender.

With marriage we have an institution which is a legal framework that provides individuals with certain benefits. What we must debate on the matter of gay marriage then is that certain couples are being denied the ability to enter into this contract, who otherwise need to do so.

@killerzX

As I stated above, "Polygamy is not okay because it creates inherently unequal partnerships. For example, situations where multiple women have to share one man." That argument DOES NOT apply to same-sex marriage. Therefore, same-sex marriage and polygamy are logically and ethically different. I can support same-sex marriage without also supporting polygamy.

Here's an affirmative statement of my position: In my view, two people should be allowed to marry as long as (1) they are both consenting adults, (2) their marriage would create an equal partnership, and (3) their marriage would not put their children at substantial risk for a negative outcome that is not shared by the parents.

Same-sex marriage would pass this test. Polygamy would fail, due to criterion (2), and same-family marriage would fail due to criterion (3).

you are assuming its unequal. without any proof. you cant just assume, some one will love one more than another. if that were the case, all marriage should be banned, including gay.

and as kaz said, it could easily be 5 girls, 5 guys.

and for your last point a guess people with with heart disease shouldnt marry, fat people shouldnt marry, people with aids, smokers, shouldnt marry, etc. all those should be banned, right?

1. I'm not assuming it's unequal. Three women and one man is unequal by definition. 3 doesn't equal 1.

2. As I replied to Kaz, the chances of those 10 people all being equally in love with and committed to each other is 0%, which is why it wouldn't be an equal partnership. This also seems like a moot point, since groups of 10 bisexuals are not lining up to get married.

3. As I said in my previous post, then children should not be at risk for a negative outcome *that is not shared by the parents*. So people with heart disease etc. would meet the criterion.

you keep defaulting to multiple women, one guy. that is not the only polygamist relationship. but going along you logic, you would be fine if the law was 5 women and 5 men can get married.

the chances of a homosexual couple completely loving each other and no one esle is very unlikely. so therefore, by your logic they should not be married.

but most of all, you have a completely ridiculous premise that marriage should only be legal if everyone loves each other 100% equally. you cant legislate that, you cant enforce that, there is no way to determine that. its impossible.

you have a very arbitrary definition of marriage, one that is often not met by both gay and heterosexual couples.

Let me clarify my position. My position is not that everyone needs to love each other 100% equally. My position is that the marriage partnership should not be *unequal by definition*.

Multiple women and one man would be *unequal by definition*, because all of the women would be sharing the one man. Multiple men and one woman would also be *unequal by definition*, because all of the men would be sharing the one man.

One man and one man is *not* unequal by definition. One woman and one woman is *not* unequal by definition.

Before moving on, do you accept that multiple men and one woman, or multiple women and one man, is an unequal partnership by definition?


let me debunk your very arbitrary definition. a definition that can not, could not be enforced. can not be measured by any standard. there is no way to say how much someone loves another. what if a married group of 2 men and one women claims that the each one loves each other 50%. man A loves man B 50% and woman 50%, Man B loves Man A 50% and woman 50%, woman loves man A 50% and man B 50%. that would be equal. but how do you measure that, how to you enforce that. how can you possibly legislate that.

i will debunk it using your own words:

Marriage is simply "the state of being united in a consensual or contractual relationship recognized by law."

 i will also quote Kaz

1. 3 doesn't equal 1, however there is a huge flaw in the arguement that 1=1 in regards to "love and time spent."  Unequal level of affection is highly likely, and honestly probably more likely then not.  In most relationships one person tends to give up far more then the other to make the relationship work.  Or, not work for that matter. 

I'm reminded of a short story.  I want to say Ernest Hemmingway... maybe Stephen King I dunno, I read it in a class.  Describing himself as a man who didn't see himself as a cheater because he had an overwhelming love for all women.

To just assume people married share equal levels of love is a bit naive.

2. I'd disagree with your statistics here.  It's unlikey, but is totally possible.  Also, I'm actually pretty sure there are some groups that would like to be communally married.  It's just less popular then gay marriage is.  I mean gay people werent lining up to get married in the 1940's.

Outside of worries of legal fraud, who cares if people are polygamists.  There are some abusive polygamists, but it seems like you should be targeting the abusive people.  The parrelels with the anti-gay marriage stuff is fairly stirking.

3.



richardhutnik said:
NintendoPie said:
Romney, because Obama needs to go.
Even though I'm not sure I really like any of the Presidents running... still, Obama needs to go.

 

You know, the last time a sitting president faced a flip-flopper from Massachusetts, I felt the same way.  I then felt it is better I have strong reasons for supporting someone.  Exactly what does Romney do different than Obama, you would approve of?  In light of the deficit issue, what programs do you want slashed because there won't be tax increases.  Heck, Romney is likely to even slash taxes further, or try to.

I get a feeling that this is often like the John Jackson vs Jack Johnson candidates from Futurama:

It's not that there is really anything either offer that is better, I just think that Obama needs to go. I think he sucked, even if Romney might suck, hey, at least we got a different sucky president in there other than the first one. Change is good sometimes.



Carl is a Piplup hater and deserves to be punished eternally.

Around the Network
NolSinkler said:
bluesinG said:
NolSinkler said:
bluesinG said:

@killerzX

As I stated above, "Polygamy is not okay because it creates inherently unequal partnerships. For example, situations where multiple women have to share one man." That argument DOES NOT apply to same-sex marriage. Therefore, same-sex marriage and polygamy are logically and ethically different. I can support same-sex marriage without also supporting polygamy.

Here's an affirmative statement of my position: In my view, two people should be allowed to marry as long as (1) they are both consenting adults, (2) their marriage would create an equal partnership, and (3) their marriage would not put their children at substantial risk for a negative outcome that is not shared by the parents.

Same-sex marriage would pass this test. Polygamy would fail, due to criterion (2), and same-family marriage would fail due to criterion (3).


But what if a second woman WANTS to marry the man?  Should we stop them?  There is no liberal principle to which you can appeal.  What if the two women are okay with the "exploitation" that you cite?

The principle is that a polygamous marriage creates a partnership that is unequal *by definition*, whereas a same-sex marriage does not.

That's ridiculous.  Who are we to stop people if they want to enter an unequal relationship?  After all, the U.S. government has political relations with the United Kingdom.  So, what if they want to enter such a relationship?  What if there is a consensual polygamous marriage?  Why should we stand in their way of doing what they want to do in order to be happy?  So what if the man is in charge; is not one man the President of the United States?  And we chose him to be such, even though we gave him great power and authority over us in doing so.  Could not two or more women elect to submit to an unequal relationship under the head of one man?

Just to clarify: Do you support or oppose a right to polygamous marriage? And do you support or oppose a right to same-sex marriage?





bluesinG said:
Kasz216 said:
bluesinG said:
killerzX said:
bluesinG said:
Mr Khan said:
killerzX said:

what makes polygamy any more ridiculous than gay marriage. its not slippery slope, when the same principle applies. its no slope it is extension.

you cannot logically  be for gay marriage, while simultaniously being against the other forms of marriage that i mentioned.

you have yet to pose any argument on why gay marriage should be legal while others not. nor have you explained why you are for gay marriage, claim that those who arent are bigots and or behind the times, while also being against other forms of marriage, and not considering yourself a bigot.

if its wrong, discrimintation, and bigotry to be against gay marriage, then it must also be so for people against other forms of marriage.

The claim is that they are not the same. Being related to someone provides the legal framework that marriage in turn provides making the legal framework unnecessary, and thus is not needed. The issues surrounding polygamy are distinct from the issues surrounding gay marriage, polygamy being an artifact of an older era and historically exploitative towards one gender.

With marriage we have an institution which is a legal framework that provides individuals with certain benefits. What we must debate on the matter of gay marriage then is that certain couples are being denied the ability to enter into this contract, who otherwise need to do so.

@killerzX

As I stated above, "Polygamy is not okay because it creates inherently unequal partnerships. For example, situations where multiple women have to share one man." That argument DOES NOT apply to same-sex marriage. Therefore, same-sex marriage and polygamy are logically and ethically different. I can support same-sex marriage without also supporting polygamy.

Here's an affirmative statement of my position: In my view, two people should be allowed to marry as long as (1) they are both consenting adults, (2) their marriage would create an equal partnership, and (3) their marriage would not put their children at substantial risk for a negative outcome that is not shared by the parents.

Same-sex marriage would pass this test. Polygamy would fail, due to criterion (2), and same-family marriage would fail due to criterion (3).

you are assuming its unequal. without any proof. you cant just assume, some one will love one more than another. if that were the case, all marriage should be banned, including gay.

and as kaz said, it could easily be 5 girls, 5 guys.

and for your last point a guess people with with heart disease shouldnt marry, fat people shouldnt marry, people with aids, smokers, shouldnt marry, etc. all those should be banned, right?

1. I'm not assuming it's unequal. Three women and one man is unequal by definition. 3 doesn't equal 1.

2. As I replied to Kaz, the chances of those 10 people all being equally in love with and committed to each other is 0%, which is why it wouldn't be an equal partnership. This also seems like a moot point, since groups of 10 bisexuals are not lining up to get married.

3. As I said in my previous post, then children should not be at risk for a negative outcome *that is not shared by the parents*. So people with heart disease etc. would meet the criterion.

1. 3 doesn't equal 1, however there is a huge flaw in the arguement that 1=1 in regards to "love and time spent."  Unequal level of affection is highly likely, and honestly probably more likely then not.  In most relationships one person tends to give up far more then the other to make the relationship work.  Or, not work for that matter. 

I'm reminded of a short story.  I want to say Ernest Hemmingway... maybe Stephen King I dunno, I read it in a class.  Describing himself as a man who didn't see himself as a cheater because he had an overwhelming love for all women.

To just assume people married share equal levels of love is a bit naive.

2. I'd disagree with your statistics here.  It's unlikey, but is totally possible.  Also, I'm actually pretty sure there are some groups that would like to be communally married.  It's just less popular then gay marriage is.  I mean gay people werent lining up to get married in the 1940's.

Outside of worries of legal fraud, who cares if people are polygamists.  There are some abusive polygamists, but it seems like you should be targeting the abusive people.  The parrelels with the anti-gay marriage stuff is fairly stirking.

3.

1. It was a mistake on my part to say that the partners should be equally in love with each other. Of course that's almost never going to be 100% true. But almost all polygamous relationships are *unequal by definition* (e.g., 1 woman and 3 men, or vice versa). Same-sex marriages are not unequal by definition.

2. That may be possible, but can we agree that it's beyond the scope of this thread? As far as I know, neither Obama nor Romney supports 10-way bisexual marriage. :)

Except that's COMPLETELY untrue.

It's not unequal by definition anymore then gay marriage is unequal by definition because gay marriage is a 2-0 ratio.

I know more then one bisexual group of three people that live together as if they were married and would get married if they had the option.

Your just drawing a really unreal definition on the basis of gender which is ridiculious for someone who supports gay marriage.



killerzX said:
bluesinG said:
killerzX said:
bluesinG said:
killerzX said:
bluesinG said:

@killerzX

As I stated above, "Polygamy is not okay because it creates inherently unequal partnerships. For example, situations where multiple women have to share one man." That argument DOES NOT apply to same-sex marriage. Therefore, same-sex marriage and polygamy are logically and ethically different. I can support same-sex marriage without also supporting polygamy.

Here's an affirmative statement of my position: In my view, two people should be allowed to marry as long as (1) they are both consenting adults, (2) their marriage would create an equal partnership, and (3) their marriage would not put their children at substantial risk for a negative outcome that is not shared by the parents.

Same-sex marriage would pass this test. Polygamy would fail, due to criterion (2), and same-family marriage would fail due to criterion (3).

you are assuming its unequal. without any proof. you cant just assume, some one will love one more than another. if that were the case, all marriage should be banned, including gay.

and as kaz said, it could easily be 5 girls, 5 guys.

and for your last point a guess people with with heart disease shouldnt marry, fat people shouldnt marry, people with aids, smokers, shouldnt marry, etc. all those should be banned, right?

1. I'm not assuming it's unequal. Three women and one man is unequal by definition. 3 doesn't equal 1.

2. As I replied to Kaz, the chances of those 10 people all being equally in love with and committed to each other is 0%, which is why it wouldn't be an equal partnership. This also seems like a moot point, since groups of 10 bisexuals are not lining up to get married.

3. As I said in my previous post, then children should not be at risk for a negative outcome *that is not shared by the parents*. So people with heart disease etc. would meet the criterion.

you keep defaulting to multiple women, one guy. that is not the only polygamist relationship. but going along you logic, you would be fine if the law was 5 women and 5 men can get married.

the chances of a homosexual couple completely loving each other and no one esle is very unlikely. so therefore, by your logic they should not be married.

but most of all, you have a completely ridiculous premise that marriage should only be legal if everyone loves each other 100% equally. you cant legislate that, you cant enforce that, there is no way to determine that. its impossible.

you have a very arbitrary definition of marriage, one that is often not met by both gay and heterosexual couples.

Let me clarify my position. My position is not that everyone needs to love each other 100% equally. My position is that the marriage partnership should not be *unequal by definition*.

Multiple women and one man would be *unequal by definition*, because all of the women would be sharing the one man. Multiple men and one woman would also be *unequal by definition*, because all of the men would be sharing the one man.

One man and one man is *not* unequal by definition. One woman and one woman is *not* unequal by definition.

Before moving on, do you accept that multiple men and one woman, or multiple women and one man, is an unequal partnership by definition?


let me debunk your very arbitrary definition. a definition that can not, could not be enforced. can not be measured by any standard. there is no way to say how much someone loves another. what if a married group of 2 men and one women claims that the each one loves each other 50%. man A loves man B 50% and woman 50%, Man B loves Man A 50% and woman 50%, woman loves man A 50% and man B 50%. that would be equal. but how do you measure that, how to you enforce that. how can you possibly legislate that.

i will debunk it using your own words:

Marriage is simply "the state of being united in a consensual or contractual relationship recognized by law."

 i will also quote Kaz

1. 3 doesn't equal 1, however there is a huge flaw in the arguement that 1=1 in regards to "love and time spent."  Unequal level of affection is highly likely, and honestly probably more likely then not.  In most relationships one person tends to give up far more then the other to make the relationship work.  Or, not work for that matter. 

I'm reminded of a short story.  I want to say Ernest Hemmingway... maybe Stephen King I dunno, I read it in a class.  Describing himself as a man who didn't see himself as a cheater because he had an overwhelming love for all women.

To just assume people married share equal levels of love is a bit naive.

2. I'd disagree with your statistics here.  It's unlikey, but is totally possible.  Also, I'm actually pretty sure there are some groups that would like to be communally married.  It's just less popular then gay marriage is.  I mean gay people werent lining up to get married in the 1940's.

Outside of worries of legal fraud, who cares if people are polygamists.  There are some abusive polygamists, but it seems like you should be targeting the abusive people.  The parrelels with the anti-gay marriage stuff is fairly stirking.

3.

 

Perhaps you didn't read my reply the Kasz post that you quoted. Here it is again:

"It was a mistake on my part to say that the partners should be equally in love with each other. Of course that's almost never going to be 100% true. But almost all polygamous relationships are *unequal by definition* (e.g., 1 woman and 3 men, or vice versa). Same-sex marriages are not unequal by definition."

That is why I oppose polygamous marriages that are unequal by definition (e.g., 1 woman and 3 men, or vice versa).

But let's take a step back here: What exactly are you arguing? That there is no difference between a monogomous same-sex marriage and polygamy?



Kasz216 said:
bluesinG said:
Kasz216 said:
bluesinG said:

1. I'm not assuming it's unequal. Three women and one man is unequal by definition. 3 doesn't equal 1.

2. As I replied to Kaz, the chances of those 10 people all being equally in love with and committed to each other is 0%, which is why it wouldn't be an equal partnership. This also seems like a moot point, since groups of 10 bisexuals are not lining up to get married.

3. As I said in my previous post, then children should not be at risk for a negative outcome *that is not shared by the parents*. So people with heart disease etc. would meet the criterion.

1. 3 doesn't equal 1, however there is a huge flaw in the arguement that 1=1 in regards to "love and time spent."  Unequal level of affection is highly likely, and honestly probably more likely then not.  In most relationships one person tends to give up far more then the other to make the relationship work.  Or, not work for that matter. 

I'm reminded of a short story.  I want to say Ernest Hemmingway... maybe Stephen King I dunno, I read it in a class.  Describing himself as a man who didn't see himself as a cheater because he had an overwhelming love for all women.

To just assume people married share equal levels of love is a bit naive.

2. I'd disagree with your statistics here.  It's unlikey, but is totally possible.  Also, I'm actually pretty sure there are some groups that would like to be communally married.  It's just less popular then gay marriage is.  I mean gay people werent lining up to get married in the 1940's.

Outside of worries of legal fraud, who cares if people are polygamists.  There are some abusive polygamists, but it seems like you should be targeting the abusive people.  The parrelels with the anti-gay marriage stuff is fairly stirking.

3.

1. It was a mistake on my part to say that the partners should be equally in love with each other. Of course that's almost never going to be 100% true. But almost all polygamous relationships are *unequal by definition* (e.g., 1 woman and 3 men, or vice versa). Same-sex marriages are not unequal by definition.

2. That may be possible, but can we agree that it's beyond the scope of this thread? As far as I know, neither Obama nor Romney supports 10-way bisexual marriage. :)

Except that's COMPLETELY untrue.

It's not unequal by definition anymore then gay marriage is unequal by definition because gay marriage is a 2-0 ratio.

I know more then one bisexual group of three people that live together as if they were married and would get married if they had the option.

Your just drawing a really unreal definition on the basis of gender which is ridiculious for someone who supports gay marriage.

Ok, you've convinced me somewhat. We were clearly thinking and talking about different forms of polygamy. I was thinking of polygamy as several heterosexual women marrying one heterosexual man (or vice versa), which *does* create a partnership that is unequal by definition. But I acknowledge that a group marriage between bisexual adults (or, for that matter, a same-sex group marriage) *does not* necessarily create a partnership that is unequal by definition.