Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[lkfmdc]

give the man some credit, he says he may find it morally wrong, but he is also equally strong in saying he wouldn't want it regulated in any way. That's fair isn't it? Or are you trying to legislate what he THINKS in his mind?

[jo]

No. My ealrier posts should have made that clear.

Whatever people want to do in their bedrooms with other adults (no matter how disgusting it may be), is their business. But legal marriage should be between a man and a woman.

So what exactly is the difference between a relationship between a man and a woman, or two men. or two women???

If they love, support, cherish and are faithful to each other, WHY should there be any difference in how their relationships are viewed by others?

-jo

[cjurakpt]

individual morality should not be legislated, insofar as it does not impede on anyone else's rights to practice their particular form of sky-god worship;

****sexuality should, by all rights be a complete non-issue, as in who really cares about it, as in what exactly is "bad" about it per se? marriage should be about long-term commitment, because it's the commitment part that is important to the concept of a stable society, not the gender of the two people involved; if two people of the same gender want to make a life-long commitment to each other, then they should be afforded the same legal protections / benefits as people of opposite gender, plain and simple, including the right to be recognized as a married couple under the law;

Palin has no business being a heart-beat (or heart-attack, as the case may be) away from being POTUS; ultimately, I think that history will bear out that choosing Palin was a major flaw on MCain's part - she may have "electrified" the electorate at first, but upon closer scrutiny, it has become glaringly apparent even to conservative pundits that she is woefully uninformed on a range of issues and a liability on all fronts;

Obama is certainly not perfect, but he has two things going for him: he actually appears to think about things in relative depth, and he has the capacity to inspire with his oratory; both are going to be necessary to galvanize the populace in order to claw our way up out of the hole dug by GWB and friends over the past 8 years; we are in deep doo-doo, and major changes are afoot (e.g. - the proposed meeting at Camp Dvaid to re-write int'l finance rules - even a year ago, such a thing would have been unthinkable...); the American Century is over, and the sooner we realize that the rest of the world is tired of being yoked to the vagaries US economy, the better

[1bad65]

So what exactly is the difference between a relationship between a man and a woman, or two men. or two women???

If they love, support, cherish and are faithful to each other, WHY should there be any difference in how their relationships are viewed by others?

-jo

Morality aside, here's why in a 'legal' sense. It's ripe for abuse. We all know that people will use benefits for friends in need. And the Government offers excellent beneifits to it's employess and their families. I don't feel I should be forced to pay for that.

If a private enterprise wants to offer 'domestic partner' benefits, thats their call. It's not uncommon here in and around Austin. I know Apple does it up in Round Rock. But I don't feel the Government should do it as it will cost every taxpayer money.

[cjurakpt]

Morality aside, here's why in a 'legal' sense. It's ripe for abuse. We all know that people will use benefits for friends in need. And the Government offers excellent beneifits to it's employess and their families. I don't feel I should be forced to pay for that.

by that logic, what's to stop a pair of opposite gender friends from doing the same thing, abusing the system to help one another out?

[BoulderDawg]

So what exactly is the difference between a relationship between a man and a woman, or two men. or two women???

If they love, support, cherish and are faithful to each other, WHY should there be any difference in how their relationships are viewed by others?

-jo

Let's take it a step further: Why is the government in the "Marriage" business to begin with? I always felt that was something with religious under pinnings anyway.

There should be no "Marriage" in the eyes of the state. If your church wants to marry you then fine however the government has nothing to do with that. To get the benefits offer by the state the couple should file a "Partnership" application. This should be offered to any two people who want it, Man-woman, man-man, woman-woman, friend-friend, whatever.

[lkfmdc]

by that logic, what's to stop a pair of opposite gender friends from doing the same thing, abusing the system to help one another out?

psssstttttt - hey, over here, in the corner

men and women do it ALL THE TIME

there is also very little sustainable argument for "moral" angle either

[cjurakpt]

Let's take it a step further: Why is the government in the "Marriage" business to begin with? I always felt that was something with religious under pinnings anyway.

There should be no "Marriage" in the eyes of the state. If your church wants to marry you then fine however the government has nothing to do with that. To get the benefits offer by the state the couple should file a "Partnership" application. This should be offered to any two people who want it, Man-woman, man-man, woman-woman, friend-friend, whatever.

a very reasonable suggestion

psssstttttt - hey, over here, in the corner

men and women do it ALL THE TIME

there is also very little sustainable argument for "moral" angle either

they do? but...isn't that...like, dishonest?

[Eric Olson]

Let's take it a step further: Why is the government in the "Marriage" business to begin with? I always felt that was something with religious under pinnings anyway.

There should be no "Marriage" in the eyes of the state. If your church wants to marry you then fine however the government has nothing to do with that. To get the benefits offer by the state the couple should file a "Partnership" application. This should be offered to any two people who want it, Man-woman, man-man, woman-woman, friend-friend, whatever.

And that's essentially what marriage is in the eyes of the state. Its like a business partnership. So I agree, everyone should be granted one domestic partnership with one other person and then let them sort it out if they want to get "married" in a religious sense.

The problem is that with the state issuing "marriage" licenses is it blurs the line between separation of church and state.


EO

[SimonM]

Here is the problem with Libertarianism:

It claims it wants to uphold the individual freedom of every person.

That's fine.

But then it does so by eliminating government and throwing everything into the free market.

This is an environment RIFE for abuse. The "free" market is already a place where the most ruthless, the most brutal and the cruelest are the most likely to succeed.

THESE people are to ensure MY rights?

No thank you.

I'd rather that was handled by a strong, democratically elected governement with a carefully regulated bureaucracy.

[BoulderDawg]

Here is the problem with Libertarianism:

It claims it wants to uphold the individual freedom of every person.

That's fine.

But then it does so by eliminating government and throwing everything into the free market.

This is an environment RIFE for abuse. The "free" market is already a place where the most ruthless, the most brutal and the cruelest are the most likely to succeed.

THESE people are to ensure MY rights?

No thank you.

I'd rather that was handled by a strong, democratically elected governement with a carefully regulated bureaucracy.

A must read: Upton Sinclair's Jungle
This shows what happens when you have no controls in what-so-ever.

[SimonM]

I find Ayn Rand's utopia to be a monstrous and bestial place.

[1bad65]

I think this reeks of dictatorship.

"SHOULD Barack Obama win the presidency and Democrats take full control of Congress, next year will see a real legislative attempt to bring back the Fairness Doctrine - and to diminish conservatives' influence on broadcast radio, the one medium they dominate."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10202008...ght_134399.htm

[1bad65]

A must read: Upton Sinclair's Jungle
This shows what happens when you have no controls in what-so-ever.

It was not so much the Government that fixed the issues raised in that book. Labor unions were a huge part of fixing those problems.

[1bad65]

Here is the problem with Libertarianism:

It claims it wants to uphold the individual freedom of every person.

But then it does so by eliminating government and throwing everything into the free market.

The "free" market is already a place where the most ruthless, the most brutal and the cruelest are the most likely to succeed.

I'd rather that was handled by a strong, democratically elected governement with a carefully regulated bureaucracy.

That's where we differ the most.

Look at it my way for a sec:

Can 'Big Business' put you or I in prison? Can they confiscate our property for breaking drug laws? Can they levy taxes on us? Can they fine us for breaking laws? Can they execute us?

I'd much rather have the market run wild than the Government. When was the last time 'Big Business' put it's opponents in prison or executed them without trails?