Politics, Religion, and Morality

[jschild]

The problem about Romney's tax plan is that there is no way he can do what he claims he will do. He still has yet to name one single deduction that he would eliminate and coupled with his increase in military spending, there is no way he is going to bring down the deficit. Indeed the most likely scenario (looking at history here) is he will increase military spending and get most of his tax cuts, but not cut any spending resulting in a worse situation than we are now in. Spending up and more revenue down. How this is supposed to fix the deficit (other than magical thinking) is beyond me. Nothing Romney has actually proposed actually approaches eliminating the deficit.

That's my problem, I'm supposed to take his hopes (since the facts he's given actually work against him and he won't say what he would actually cut) and just agree that magically it'll work? If his plan was real and actually did what he says it would do, even if I disagreed with the implementation, I could at least respect that. But he's given us nothing more than extremely vague promises and nothing to back it up.

Also to your last paragraph, those automatic cuts you're happy to see? Romney says he will eliminate those cuts. Bush tax cuts expire? He's for keeping all of them permanently in addition to his new cuts that are magically revenue neutral, he just can't tell you yet how that is supposed to work. Call me crazy but saying Romney is better about the deficit is a wild claim with no proof to back it up at all.

TLR - Revenue is already at all time lows - Romney will increase spending (cuts he has named, which are few, are outweighed by his increases in military spending) and reduce revenue more (he has provided zero proof that his tax cut will be revenue neutral, not named one deduction to be eliminated) and thus hasn't show how he actually could reduce the deficit or eliminate it.

[Son of Arathorn]

Word of warning, this is more of a rant than a response to anything.

I personally am disturbed by this idiotic idea that the entire country must play by the rules of your religion. I apologize if I offend anyone, but one of our nation's founding principles is freedom of religion, right? You don't have to abide by the rules of another religion, nor should the government protect one religion over another or be biased against Religion X and favor Religion Y. Government and Religious Institutions do not mix, period, unless the latter is causing harm or oppression to the people of a government, in which case intervention may be in order. And yet, we have Congressmen proclaiming that evolution and climate change are a pack of lies, that gay marriage is an eminent threat to society, while in office, in their proposed legislation, whether it be in federal or state legislatures.

The idea that, because you believe your God to be the one true God, and all other ways are blasphemous, is alright for you to believe, but that does not mean you get to force it onto the next guy. Nor does it mean that you can deny somebody benefits or care or salary or whatever you can think of based on their faith and life choices not matching yours. This means that, yes, I support the right of two people to marry, if they love each other, regardless of their sexual orientation. I respect their right to have kids together, if they're ready to make that commitment to each other. LGBT folks have been living together, getting married, and having kids by either adoption or the occasional surrogate for years. Do you see a thousand years of darkness? Do you see the family values of America collapsing? No, and for that matter, why should you care if people do things in their lives that contradict your faith? Yes, it might upset you, but it doesn't genuinely affect you, and you have no right to tell them who they can and cannot be with.

People have confused the loss of their religious freedom with not getting every single thing you want. Our society has confused equal rights with the end of the world.

The reasons above are only a handful of the reasons why I support the Democratic Party, and fundamental reasons for why I have lost faith in any sort of Republican President. If you have to spend even a year of your first term as President pandering to that kind of political extremism in hopes of keeping your base happy, then you have no place in the Oval Office.

[Anonymous]

Originally Posted by jschild

The problem about Romney's tax plan is that there is no way he can do what he claims he will do. He still has yet to name one single deduction that he would eliminate and coupled with his increase in military spending, there is no way he is going to bring down the deficit. Indeed the most likely scenario (looking at history here) is he will increase military spending and get most of his tax cuts, but not cut any spending resulting in a worse situation than we are now in. Spending up and more revenue down. How this is supposed to fix the deficit (other than magical thinking) is beyond me. Nothing Romney has actually proposed actually approaches eliminating the deficit.

That's my problem, I'm supposed to take his hopes (since the facts he's given actually work against him and he won't say what he would actually cut) and just agree that magically it'll work? If his plan was real and actually did what he says it would do, even if I disagreed with the implementation, I could at least respect that. But he's given us nothing more than extremely vague promises and nothing to back it up.

Also to your last paragraph, those automatic cuts you're happy to see? Romney says he will eliminate those cuts. Bush tax cuts expire? He's for keeping all of them permanently in addition to his new cuts that are magically revenue neutral, he just can't tell you yet how that is supposed to work. Call me crazy but saying Romney is better about the deficit is a wild claim with no proof to back it up at all.

TLR - Revenue is already at all time lows - Romney will increase spending (cuts he has named, which are few, are outweighed by his increases in military spending) and reduce revenue more (he has provided zero proof that his tax cut will be revenue neutral, not named one deduction to be eliminated) and thus hasn't show how he actually could reduce the deficit or eliminate it.

Like I said, I don't like his tax plan. However, the Republicans have a credible plan for reducing Medicare outlays, (the voucher program)/(premium support). Medicare will be the main driver of budget deficits in the future. Democrats have refused to put forth similar proposals to rein in entitlement spending. Instead, they accuse conservatives of trying to gut Medicare. You're pretty smart js. I'm pretty sure you know that the current spending on social programs is unsustainable even if the wealthy paid much higher taxes than they do now.

Instead, the Democrats resort to platitudes about making the wealthy pay a little more. I'm all for an end to the Bush tax cuts across the board, not just for the rich, which is further than Obama or Romney would go. However, you can't tax an economy heavily enough to pay for programs that grow at a much faster rate than GDP. Eventually mandatory entitlement programs have to be addressed. Republicans are willing to address them, Democrats, so far, are not.

I also am banking on the fact that a Democratic Senate will keep Romney from ending the Affordable Care Act, which I support, as well as implementing his tax plan, which I oppose. Its easy to attack Romney's position because he actually has a position. Obama doesn't have any credible proposal about the deficit. His proposal is to end the Bush tax cuts for those making $250,000 or more annually. It's great politics but it doesn't work math-wise. The problem is that the savings are a drop in the bucket compared to our spending.

Like I said originally, I think the deficit would increase more under Obama than it would under Romney. I can't prove that assertion since Romney hasn't been in office, but I can point to a serious Republican proposal on Medicare, coupled with a complete lack of any serious proposal from the Democrats in regard to the deficit as a grounds for that assertion.

I am probably being overly optimistic about the ability of Democrats or Republicans to obstruct whichever candidate is being elected. I don't particularly like either one. However, I think Romney is probably the lesser of two evils when it comes to the deficit.

[Anonymous]

Originally Posted by Son of Arathorn

Word of warning, this is more of a rant than a response to anything.

I personally am disturbed by this idiotic idea that the entire country must play by the rules of your religion. I apologize if I offend anyone, but one of our nation's founding principles is freedom of religion, right? You don't have to abide by the rules of another religion, nor should the government protect one religion over another or be biased against Religion X and favor Religion Y. Government and Religious Institutions do not mix, period, unless the latter is causing harm or oppression to the people of a government, in which case intervention may be in order. And yet, we have Congressmen proclaiming that evolution and climate change are a pack of lies, that gay marriage is an eminent threat to society, while in office, in their proposed legislation, whether it be in federal or state legislatures.

The idea that, because you believe your God to be the one true God, and all other ways are blasphemous, is alright for you to believe, but that does not mean you get to force it onto the next guy. Nor does it mean that you can deny somebody benefits or care or salary or whatever you can think of based on their faith and life choices not matching yours. This means that, yes, I support the right of two people to marry, if they love each other, regardless of their sexual orientation. I respect their right to have kids together, if they're ready to make that commitment to each other. LGBT folks have been living together, getting married, and having kids by either adoption or the occasional surrogate for years. Do you see a thousand years of darkness? Do you see the family values of America collapsing? No, and for that matter, why should you care if people do things in their lives that contradict your faith? Yes, it might upset you, but it doesn't genuinely affect you, and you have no right to tell them who they can and cannot be with.

People have confused the loss of their religious freedom with not getting every single thing you want. Our society has confused equal rights with the end of the world.

The reasons above are only a handful of the reasons why I support the Democratic Party, and fundamental reasons for why I have lost faith in any sort of Republican President. If you have to spend even a year of your first term as President pandering to that kind of political extremism in hopes of keeping your base happy, then you have no place in the Oval Office.

I don't know if we really want to go down this road. It is related to politics but this could quickly become a religious debate which probably isn't the goal of this thread.

That being said, I think it comes down to your view of how government and morality intermingle. Do you believe government should prevent immoral behavior? I know immoral is a loaded word. However, I think there are certain things that most people think the government should prevent on moral grounds. For example murder, rape, pedophilia, theft, the abuse of children, and battering, among other things. I am willing to bet that you probably support government bans on those sorts of things. I could be wrong. You might be opposed to such bans. Some people are.

The root question is whether government should attempt to reduce immoral destructive behavior. If the answer is yes, and if I view homosexuality as immoral or destructive, why shouldn't I support government attempts to prevent it from occurring? I would also bet that a lot of people would argue that changing social mores in regard to sexual activity have contributed to the breakdown of the family structure. The high divorce rate comes to mind.

[jschild]

The problem, Anonymous, is that your reasoning cannot be based only on your religion if you want the government to be involved. There is no serious non-religious reason to deny gay couples for marrying. There are serious non-religious reasons to oppose murder and pedophilia.

That is the distinction. Our system of laws were based on a secular system derived from English Common Law. We are a secular nation. We must have more than religious belief for a law to stand.

And back to taxes, the ACA actually did address and extend medicare's life, first of all, so claiming the democrats have done nothing for it is completely untrue.

Second, I'm not saying that Obama's plan was 1000x better or anything, I was just stating that Romney's plan is essentially magic. And Democrats cannot work on any deficit reduction plan when Republicans refuse to allow ANY tax increases at all (even when coupled with greater spending cuts). How are you supposed to do anything when dealing with that. Even now, they are decrying the automatic spending cuts they agreed to and voted for.

Unless the Republican leadership mans up and accepts some tax increases in exchange for spending cuts (the only realistic method of significantly reducing the deficit), nothing can be done. They literally refuse to negotiate. That's the hypocrisy. They were offered $3 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases and walked away, saying they would not accept any increases at all.

Again, under Romney we will see what happened under Bush almost certainly. Increased military spending, tax cuts that aren't paid for, and no real cuts to spending meaning even faster growth in the deficit. There is zero evidence that he is better on the deficit. I can see supporting him for conservative family values or some such, but the deficit talk is all that it is, talk, with the outright refusal to name even one deduction he'd remove. When you have a plan, but you can't tell anyone until after the election but trust us it works is your best argument, you've got issues.

[Anonymous]

Originally Posted by jschild

The problem, Anonymous, is that your reasoning cannot be based only on your religion if you want the government to be involved. There is no serious non-religious reason to deny gay couples for marrying. There are serious non-religious reasons to oppose murder and pedophilia.

That is the distinction. Our system of laws were based on a secular system derived from English Common Law. We are a secular nation. We must have more than religious belief for a law to stand.

And back to taxes, the ACA actually did address and extend medicare's life, first of all, so claiming the democrats have done nothing for it is completely untrue.

Second, I'm not saying that Obama's plan was 1000x better or anything, I was just stating that Romney's plan is essentially magic. And Democrats cannot work on any deficit reduction plan when Republicans refuse to allow ANY tax increases at all (even when coupled with greater spending cuts). How are you supposed to do anything when dealing with that. Even now, they are decrying the automatic spending cuts they agreed to and voted for.

Unless the Republican leadership mans up and accepts some tax increases in exchange for spending cuts (the only realistic method of significantly reducing the deficit), nothing can be done. They literally refuse to negotiate. That's the hypocrisy. They were offered $3 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases and walked away, saying they would not accept any increases at all.

Again, under Romney we will see what happened under Bush almost certainly. Increased military spending, tax cuts that aren't paid for, and no real cuts to spending meaning even faster growth in the deficit. There is zero evidence that he is better on the deficit. I can see supporting him for conservative family values or some such, but the deficit talk is all that it is, talk, with the outright refusal to name even one deduction he'd remove. When you have a plan, but you can't tell anyone until after the election but trust us it works is your best argument, you've got issues.

There are serious non-religious reasons for opposing gay marriage. The verdict is still out on whether or not children raised by homosexual parents are as well off as those raised by heterosexual parents. Some studies don't show much difference, while others, most prominently Mark Regnerus's recent study (published in Social Science Research) of children raised by homosexual parents show that those children are worse off. Additionally, homosexual relationships break down at a much higher rate than heterosexual relationships, which provides an unstable environment for the raising of children. I'd say that the well-being of children is a pretty serious non-religious reason.

In regards to the deficit, you're right about the ACA. However, Medicare is still a big issue, and on the issue of reducing its costs, Republicans have a serious plan to further reduce its costs (voucher program) which Democrats refuse to even consider. It wasn't just Republicans who walked away from the bargaining table on the deficit. Obama also walked away from Simpson-Bowles.

I do think that Republicans have the upper hand on the deficit with the voucher program. And I don't think that the current Republican party would allow Romney to expand Medicare like Bush did. It wasn't all defense spending. It was also Medicare Part D that contributed to the deficit.

I don't like Romney's tax plan but it's not like Obama's going to be revenue neutral either. For example, Democrats love to talk about the costs of the wars under Bush, but neglect the fact that Obama wants to take the money saved from ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and use it to pay for infrastructure projects and hiring more teachers. Under Obama's plan the spending from those awful unfunded wars Bush started isn't being reduced now that the wars are over, its just being shifted other places. Plus Obama has run larger annual deficits than Bush did. I'm guessing that if Obama wins we'll see a bigger deficit problem than if Romney got elected and managed to pass his tax plan. Again, that's a supposition on my part. It's hard to judge when the President will give even less specifics about his plans than Romney will. I'm not arguing that Romney's plans are necessarily good. I'm just arguing that they're probably not as bad as the alternative.

[jschild]

There are serious non-religious reasons for opposing gay marriage. The verdict is still out on whether or not children raised by homosexual parents are as well off as those raised by heterosexual parents. Some studies don't show much difference, while others, most prominently Mark Regnerus's recent study (published in Social Science Research) of children raised by homosexual parents show that those children are worse off. Additionally, homosexual relationships break down at a much higher rate than heterosexual relationships, which provides an unstable environment for the raising of children. I'd say that the well-being of children is a pretty serious non-religious reason.

It's interesting you point out a widely discredited study with little academic support that had numerous flaws.

http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolato...it-finds/30255

This quote alone speaks volumes "In reality, only two respondents lived with a lesbian couple for their entire childhoods, and most did not live with lesbian or gay parents for long periods, if at all."

It was a crappy study by any standard.

"In regards to the deficit, you're right about the ACA. However, Medicare is still a big issue, and on the issue of reducing its costs, Republicans have a serious plan to further reduce its costs (voucher program) which Democrats refuse to even consider. It wasn't just Republicans who walked away from the bargaining table on the deficit. Obama also walked away from Simpson-Bowles."

Obama didn't walk away from Simpson-Bowles - let's stick to facts. Simpson-Bowles never left committee because Republicans, including Paul Ryan, voted against it and did not allow it to reach Congress. Congress, not the president, controls the budget (this is also why Gitmo wasn't closed, Congress refused to fund it, though both Republicans and Democrats were at fault in that case).

It was also Medicare Part D that contributed to the deficit.

Yes, because it was unfunded. That has been fixed now. And if you don't think Republicans will do everything in their power to eliminate the ACA, you are smoking some strong stuff. Under a Republican president, it would be dead before the end of next year.

"I don't like Romney's tax plan but it's not like Obama's going to be revenue neutral either. For example, Democrats love to talk about the costs of the wars under Bush, but neglect the fact that Obama wants to take the money saved from ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and use it to pay for infrastructure projects and hiring more teachers. Under Obama's plan the spending from those awful unfunded wars Bush started isn't being reduced now that the wars are over, its just being shifted other places. Plus Obama has run larger annual deficits than Bush did. I'm guessing that if Obama wins we'll see a bigger deficit problem than if Romney got elected and managed to pass his tax plan. Again, that's a supposition on my part. It's hard to judge when the President will give even less specifics about his plans than Romney will. I'm not arguing that Romney's plans are necessarily good. I'm just arguing that they're probably not as bad as the alternative."

First of all, the deficit Obama has is almost all a product of Bush. The deficit jump in 2009 wasn't caused by Obama - even the right wing Cato Institute agrees on that.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/dont-...-2009-deficit/

That, coupled with modern historic low tax rates and revenue (also caused by the recession) have caused the jump in the deficit (plus Obama included Iraq and Afghanistan in the budget, instead of hiding it in supplements as Bush did). Spending under Obama has actually increased at a slower rate than under Bush 2, Bush 1, and Reagan.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-has-lowest-s/

[Dysole]

I'm appreciating hearing two people from both sides of the issue weigh in on things. It's helping me get a clearer understanding on the ways that the two sides see things.

~Dysole, who will add that he is wary about mixing religion and politics. Past history has shown they tend to poison each other.

[dok]

Originally Posted by Anonymous

There are serious non-religious reasons for opposing gay marriage. The verdict is still out on whether or not children raised by homosexual parents are as well off as those raised by heterosexual parents. Some studies don't show much difference, while others...

Setting aside the merits of that study, you are confusing two issues: gay marriage and gay adoption. We can argue about whether homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children if you like, but this has fairly little to do with the question of whether homosexual couples should have access to the dozens of legal and financial benefits that civil law associates with marriage.

[Anonymous]

Originally Posted by dok

Setting aside the merits of that study, you are confusing two issues: gay marriage and gay adoption. We can argue about whether homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children if you like, but this has fairly little to do with the question of whether homosexual couples should have access to the dozens of legal and financial benefits that civil law associates with marriage.

The merits are a whole different issue. I do know that the Journal was ordered to conduct an internal audit of their peer-review process and found that it had not been contaminated and that it worked correctly. Secondly, while Regnerus did receive some funding from groups that have members on their boards that are also members of boards of traditional marriage groups these groups did not have a say in the methods or samplings of the group or the eventual conclusions.

The reason I bring up the children's wellbeing is because I would argue that the primary reason government provides marital tax breaks and benefits is as a means of "subsidizing" and maintaining the more stable and healthy home environment for children found in marriage as opposed to other forms of family structure. If, and there is definitely debate about this if, homosexual households are inferior to heterosexual households in this regard, I do not think that the government needs to spend tax money to subsidize an inferior family structure. Homosexual couples can still get religious ceremonies if they can find a clergy member willing to marry them. They just don't receive the legal and financial benefits.

Here's the University of Austin Texas internal investigation news release that found no evidence of academic disconduct. The article you cited quoted one sociologist's view of the research
http://www.utexas.edu/news/2012/08/2...iry_completed/

You can find plenty of debate about the sampling size and whether or not it is an accurate representation. The fact is that it is pretty hard to find long-term stable homosexual relationships in general. It's even harder to find them when you are evaluating kids who grew up in the 80s.

Here's an interview with Regnerus from an admittedly conservative Christian website Christianity Today:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/...ing-study.html

[Anonymous]

Originally Posted by jschild

It's interesting you point out a widely discredited study with little academic support that had numerous flaws.

http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolato...it-finds/30255

This quote alone speaks volumes "In reality, only two respondents lived with a lesbian couple for their entire childhoods, and most did not live with lesbian or gay parents for long periods, if at all."

It was a crappy study by any standard.

"In regards to the deficit, you're right about the ACA. However, Medicare is still a big issue, and on the issue of reducing its costs, Republicans have a serious plan to further reduce its costs (voucher program) which Democrats refuse to even consider. It wasn't just Republicans who walked away from the bargaining table on the deficit. Obama also walked away from Simpson-Bowles."

Obama didn't walk away from Simpson-Bowles - let's stick to facts. Simpson-Bowles never left committee because Republicans, including Paul Ryan, voted against it and did not allow it to reach Congress. Congress, not the president, controls the budget (this is also why Gitmo wasn't closed, Congress refused to fund it, though both Republicans and Democrats were at fault in that case).

Yes, because it was unfunded. That has been fixed now. And if you don't think Republicans will do everything in their power to eliminate the ACA, you are smoking some strong stuff. Under a Republican president, it would be dead before the end of next year.

"I don't like Romney's tax plan but it's not like Obama's going to be revenue neutral either. For example, Democrats love to talk about the costs of the wars under Bush, but neglect the fact that Obama wants to take the money saved from ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and use it to pay for infrastructure projects and hiring more teachers. Under Obama's plan the spending from those awful unfunded wars Bush started isn't being reduced now that the wars are over, its just being shifted other places. Plus Obama has run larger annual deficits than Bush did. I'm guessing that if Obama wins we'll see a bigger deficit problem than if Romney got elected and managed to pass his tax plan. Again, that's a supposition on my part. It's hard to judge when the President will give even less specifics about his plans than Romney will. I'm not arguing that Romney's plans are necessarily good. I'm just arguing that they're probably not as bad as the alternative."

First of all, the deficit Obama has is almost all a product of Bush. The deficit jump in 2009 wasn't caused by Obama - even the right wing Cato Institute agrees on that.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/dont-...-2009-deficit/

That, coupled with modern historic low tax rates and revenue (also caused by the recession) have caused the jump in the deficit (plus Obama included Iraq and Afghanistan in the budget, instead of hiding it in supplements as Bush did). Spending under Obama has actually increased at a slower rate than under Bush 2, Bush 1, and Reagan.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-has-lowest-s/

That last post just means that the amount he increased spending was only slightly more than Bush. If you think Bush did a bad job on the deficit, it means that Obama was only slightly worse, or depending on how you evaluate the numbers, slightly better. Slightly better or slightly worse than the Bushes or Reagan (who I'm not a big fan of, by the way, I know most conservatives view him as a modern demigod) does not mean he's done a good job on the deficit. It just means he did a slightly less horrible job on the deficit. Revenue is at its lowest rate as a percentage rate of GDP. That's a shame. However, in 2009, with the multiple bailouts, both Bush's and Obama's spending was at its highest level as a percentage of GDP since the 1950s. That's the real measure that matters.

Also, according to the Congressional Budget Office, "Federal debt held by the public will reach 73 percent of GDP by the end of this fiscal year—the highest level since 1950 and about twice the share that it measured at the end of 2007, before the financial crisis and recent recession."
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43539

Additionally, how would Democrats further reduce the unsustainable cost of Medicare? Republicans have a plan, Democrats don't.

[Ranior]

First off...glad to see this thread getting some attention finally. This sort of stuff is more what I was hoping for when I started it. For the record this:

I'm appreciating hearing two people from both sides of the issue weigh in on things. It's helping me get a clearer understanding on the ways that the two sides see things.

~Dysole, who will add that he is wary about mixing religion and politics. Past history has shown they tend to poison each other.

I largely agree with. I'm glad everyone is keeping civil thus far too. No yelling at each other or calling each other stupid really yet. Let's keep it like that.

Originally Posted by Son of Arathorn

Word of warning, this is more of a rant than a response to anything.

I personally am disturbed by this idiotic idea that the entire country must play by the rules of your religion. And yet, we have Congressmen proclaiming that evolution and climate change are a pack of lies, that gay marriage is an eminent threat to society, while in office, in their proposed legislation, whether it be in federal or state legislatures.

People have confused the loss of their religious freedom with not getting every single thing you want. Our society has confused equal rights with the end of the world.

I think this sort of discussion has perfect place in this thread. Anonymous is correct, we should avoid turning this into a discussion on religion (not that I'd be opposed to wading into that some time), but that would need another thread.

Still, religion does currently play a part in our political scene, whether it should or not. It is fair and right that we should talk about it.

I agree we should keep religion out of our politics. The religion our political leaders have really shouldn't matter. Their religious thoughts, whether it be about abortion, or gay rights, or science, need to be left on the side. You need to be able to articulate your point based on secular facts and ideas I think. Your religion can shape you, but if you can't explain why women shouldn't be able to have abortions because you think your religion tells you they can't, or that gay's don't deserve equal treatment because the bible says so, that sort of discussion has no place in our society.

There are serious non-religious reasons for opposing gay marriage. The verdict is still out on whether or not children raised by homosexual parents are as well off as those raised by heterosexual parents. Some studies don't show much difference, while others, most prominently Mark Regnerus's recent study (published in Social Science Research) of children raised by homosexual parents show that those children are worse off. Additionally, homosexual relationships break down at a much higher rate than heterosexual relationships, which provides an unstable environment for the raising of children. I'd say that the well-being of children is a pretty serious non-religious reason.

Huh. Let's just change this quote a bit and see how it reads:

There are serious non-religious reasons for opposing interracial marriage. The verdict is still out on whether or not children raised by black parents are as well off as those raised by white parents. Some studies don't show much difference, while others, show children raised by black show that those children are worse off. I'd say that the well-being of children is a pretty serious non-religious reason.

Interestingly enough too I can pull up the statistics to help detail out how black children have poorer education, are more likely to wind up in jail, and are poorer than their white counterparts, so it's not like I'm truly changing your statement all that much.

I wasn't even around for it (as I'm 21), but just go research some of the Interracial marriage debate stuff. It's so identical it's not funny. In fact, here is about a 3 minute video I think which summarizes your position well, up until the "surprise" occurs. It's a good share I think. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...03&ir=Politics


Furthermore for gay marriage, have you ever thought that perhaps the reason for children of gay couples doing worse is due to the social sigma and social issues that a child must face from his gay parents? Might the gay parents have a more difficult time finding help and aid from the community due to bias? I'm not necessarily saying it is the whole thing, but surely this could be part of the issue too.

Next off, I'd like to see some citing of MUCH higher divorce rates for gay individuals. In most European nations the rates are very nearly identical. Even after some searching on google, I cannot find any date to support the idea that homosexual relationships deteriorate at a higher rate.

Finally, if you think that groups with higher divorce rates shouldn't be allowed to marry (and assuming LGBT individuals have higher divorce rates), then I suppose you also are for enacting laws against poor people from getting married, and for less educated people to get married? Since both of those groups have higher divorce rates, we probably shouldn't let them be married.



Next off, I don't fully understand economics, or deficit cutting, or that stuff. But I have a few simple questions. Even with reforming medicare and stuff, is it going to make up for the (unnecessary) increased military spending, and the proposed tax cuts from the Romney/Ryan plan. From my research, it simply seems like this is impossible.

On the other hand, the budget Obama is proposing, through raising taxes, a continuing to grow economy, it would seem to me this plan will do a better job of cutting the budget.


But even ignoring all of that, things come down to an even simpler level for me: Romney simply sounds too good to be true from what he says. He seems like a con man, trying to fool America. Simply, can anyone tell me what Romney and Ryan have said they will cut? Obamacare, sure. After that?

Basically Romney is telling us that he will lower taxes, fix schools, raise military spending and security, and cut the deficit. He can't tell us exactly how he will do this, in fact he can't provide any specific loopholes he is fixing, or things he will cut. He just assures us he has balanced budgets and can do it again.

I don't believe it. It doesn't make sense. Romney is promising everything I'd like to have, but telling me I don't have to pay for it, nobody has to pay for it! Everyone will have it better.


On the other hand, Obama sounds pretty good too. But at least I know a few things he will do. Raise taxes on the rich a bit. Raise taxes on capital gains, corporations, other interest, and the richest "small" businesses. I understand he is going to limit military spending, by working with the military.

I would prefer if he did work on fixing entitlement spending as well. But simply, I believe Obama may actually be able to lower the deficit with his plan.

As long as Romney will not tell us how he is going to do it, but telling me magically EVERYTHING is going to get better, I don't buy it. Especially not with the Republican's continuing to honor the absurd Norquist pledge and refusing to raise taxes or revenue at all. I'm no economist, but I can think well enough to realize we're not going to fix things through sheer spending cuts, without a lot of nice programs and things seeing massive cut backs, which I don't support. If we're going to work on seriously fixing this thing, it is going to take at least some level of revenue increase. While the Republicans continue to refuse this as an option, I cannot see myself voting for them with the idea that they shall fix the deficit.