Quantcast
Romney or Obama and why

Forums - Politics Discussion - Romney or Obama and why

HappySqurriel said:
Mr Khan said:

This is true, but there's no reason gays can't do that too. Where in there is "monogamous partnership that lasts a lifetime" missing?

I'd also argue the children thing is out. Married couples shouldn't be thinking primarily about having children, nor is a marriage needed to raise children

There are only a limited number of studies, that are several years old, that studied differences between heterosexual and homosexual relationships and found substantial differences between incidence of monogamy and the longevity of relationships. I suspect more haven't been done because the organizations that fund these kinds of studies tend to be highly political, and wouldn't fund studies that work against their interests.

I would personally argue that a marriage is about creating the stable family structure for having children. Monogamy within this relationship is driven to ensure paternity and to protect the children from being abandoned by their father. The life-long vows and social stigma about breaking up this kind of relationship was to ensure that the shared resources of both parents (and their families) are available for the children. The entire arrangement was in preparation of children ...

Being that children raised in single parent households are 9 times as likely as married households to be involved in crime, the poverty rate of single parent households is 6 times as high as married households, incidence of childhood obesity are higher in single parent households (26% vs 22%), and most studies demonstrate negative results of single parent households, while children can be raised outside of marriage it is obvious that they do best in stable dual-parent household; most often represented by married parents.


You're demonstrating correlation, not causation. The fact is people in poverty, involved in crime and generally on the wrong end of social demographics are more likely to be single parents. It's not the fact that they're single parents that are causing the kids to turn out bad, it's all the other factors that are causing them to become single parents.



Around the Network

yea lets talk about gay marriage and racism, that's obviously what is most important right now. Lets not debate over the military industrial complex or the TSA, or the NDAA, internet freedom or the debt. Nevermind the wars that are still going on or the raping of the constitution. Lets talk about gay marriage, yea and lets talk about abortion while we're at it. Maybe we should bring up birth control again, that was a real important one too.



currently playing: Skyward Sword, Mario Sunshine, Xenoblade Chronicles X

Romney, Obama has not kept a single campaign promise, and has stomped on the constitution every chance he gets. He has lied to American people every chance he gets, he has proven that he hates America and everything she stands for. Romney makes be gaga, but I don't believe he is arrogant enough to usurp the constitution for political gain. Plus, we can't afford four more years of Obama.



"with great power, comes great responsibility."

Tony_Stark said:
Romney, Obama has not kept a single campaign promise, and has stomped on the constitution every chance he gets. He has lied to American people every chance he gets, he has proven that he hates America and everything she stands for. Romney makes be gaga, but I don't believe he is arrogant enough to usurp the constitution for political gain. Plus, we can't afford four more years of Obama.


According to politifact, Obama has kept over a third of his promises, with another fourth of them in the works. Compared to 14% broken 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/



TadpoleJackson said:
Tony_Stark said:
Romney, Obama has not kept a single campaign promise, and has stomped on the constitution every chance he gets. He has lied to American people every chance he gets, he has proven that he hates America and everything she stands for. Romney makes be gaga, but I don't believe he is arrogant enough to usurp the constitution for political gain. Plus, we can't afford four more years of Obama.


According to politifact, Obama has kept over a third of his promises, with another fourth of them in the works. Compared to 14% broken 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/


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



"with great power, comes great responsibility."

Around the Network
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 



HappySqurriel said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:

"Just because you want to call your cat a dog doesn't make it a dog."

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Tell me one single difference between marriage with different-sex partners and marriage with same-sex partners other than their biological differences. It is two people who love each other and who wants to be able to officially show it to others.

I posted this on my wall earlier, but I guess it fits ferfectly here as well:

Sex differences are no different than skin-colour differences; They are entirely biological. Just because you are born gay you shouldn't be excluded from the happiness that marriage may bring.


Except there are substantial differences between same sex relationships and heterosexual relationships ...

With the debate over gay marriage in Canada there were lots of statistics that demonstrated that there are substantial differences between same sex relationships and heterosexual relationships. For example, lesbians are far more likely to be involved in domestic abuse (which seems counter-intuitive) and their relationships are far less stable and more likely to break up; gay male relationships also tend not to be monogamous, and long lasting gay male relationships tend to more closely resemble open marriages or swingers.

You still haven't defined what a marriage is or how a homosexual relationship can meet that definition. All you have done is resorted to ad-hominem attacks, which demonstrates that you don't have an intelligent logical argument.


What is your point?

A black person is more likely to commit crimes during his entire lifetime, so should we not give them the same rights as white people because of that?

I define marriage as something that makes people happy to some extend, and you want to exclude a huge amount of people from that happiness.



Tony_Stark said:
Romney, Obama has not kept a single campaign promise, and has stomped on the constitution every chance he gets. He has lied to American people every chance he gets, he has proven that he hates America and everything she stands for. Romney makes be gaga, but I don't believe he is arrogant enough to usurp the constitution for political gain. Plus, we can't afford four more years of Obama.


Romney has already said that he'd vote for unconstitutional law. He said he would sign the NDAA and the Patriot Act, they're unconstitutional. He supports the Federal Reserve, that's unconstitutional. He supports the undeclared wars... guess what? They're unconstitutional.

You can't pick and choose which parts of the constitution you want to follow, that's not the rule of law. If there's something you don't like about the constitution, you go through the proper means of amending the constitution.

As for the "we can't afford four more years of Obama" - the only difference between the two is that Romney promises to repeal Obamacare (in reality, this is almost impossible politically... some of it will go, but unless there's a major shift in the Congress, a lot will stay - our only real hope is the Supreme Court ruling). Most of the cost of Obamacare is in the long run, and its costs are not the problem we have today. Without Obamacare, there's already $1.7 trillion in deficit which Romney has no meaningful plans for.



IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
HappySqurriel said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:

"Just because you want to call your cat a dog doesn't make it a dog."

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Tell me one single difference between marriage with different-sex partners and marriage with same-sex partners other than their biological differences. It is two people who love each other and who wants to be able to officially show it to others.

I posted this on my wall earlier, but I guess it fits ferfectly here as well:

Sex differences are no different than skin-colour differences; They are entirely biological. Just because you are born gay you shouldn't be excluded from the happiness that marriage may bring.


Except there are substantial differences between same sex relationships and heterosexual relationships ...

With the debate over gay marriage in Canada there were lots of statistics that demonstrated that there are substantial differences between same sex relationships and heterosexual relationships. For example, lesbians are far more likely to be involved in domestic abuse (which seems counter-intuitive) and their relationships are far less stable and more likely to break up; gay male relationships also tend not to be monogamous, and long lasting gay male relationships tend to more closely resemble open marriages or swingers.

You still haven't defined what a marriage is or how a homosexual relationship can meet that definition. All you have done is resorted to ad-hominem attacks, which demonstrates that you don't have an intelligent logical argument.


What is your point?

A black person is more likely to commit crimes during his entire lifetime, so should we not give them the same rights as white people because of that?

I define marriage as something that makes people happy to some extend, and you want to exclude a huge amount of people from that happiness.

So, tens of thousands of years of it being a formalized family unit for having and raising children should be abandoned because you feel that it has "something" to do with happiness ...

Personally, I believe it is fair to argue that the same laws and protections granted by the government should be granted to same sex couples by providing civil unions (or the government getting out of Marriage all together), it is another to say that cultural traditions that started at the beginning of human history should be abandoned because people feel left out.



Rath said:


You're demonstrating correlation, not causation. The fact is people in poverty, involved in crime and generally on the wrong end of social demographics are more likely to be single parents. It's not the fact that they're single parents that are causing the kids to turn out bad, it's all the other factors that are causing them to become single parents


Even when you control for the socioeconomic status prior to having children, children of single mothers tend to be poorer and worse off based on most metrics. The reason for this is not controversial, it takes a lot of time and money to raise healthy well-adjusted children and single parents are at a huge disadvantage on both counts compared to a married couple. This doesn't mean that the children are doomed to failure, but it does mean that they're at a significant disadvantage.