Officials along the gulf coast are preparing for Tropical Storm Gustav 
. The storm is likely to hit New Orleans, and may become a hurricane as strong as Level 3. New Orleans officials have made preparations to evacuate the city rather than use the Superdome and Convention Center as makeshift shelters. Oil prices are up due to the refinery infrastructure in the area.
Russia is looking to create an organization to counterbalance NATO . President Medvedev wants Russia to join the SCO, an alliance with China and four other former SSRs.
The results are in 
from Tuesday's Alaskan Primary. Sen. Ted Stevens was renominated by the GOP, receiving over 63% of the vote. The Alaskan Republican House race is much closer. Rep. Don Young is very slightly ahead (135 votes) of Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell with one precinct left to count. The margin of victory is just over .1%, so an automatic recount may occur, depending on Alaska law. Alaskan voters also turned down a ballot initiative to partially fund elections.
Comments :
George Will with a preview to Obama's speech
Hat tip to Reason
.
George Will
link.
Will, is, of course, critical of Obama on virtually all the big issues from NAFTA and Trade to Teacher Pay and Taxes. But the part Reason highlights is that Will is critical on Obama's communication quality when moves from the abstract to the concrete:
What Will misses is that the people listening to Obama fall into two groups:
1. Partisans who don't care what he says at this point. Their minds are made up.
2. Undecided people who may or may not value intent and themes as real objectives.
This second group is more likely to not think through the real steps and thus defer to Obama and Co. that they will "do it"....somehow.
Then again, others may just dislike McCain and that's that.
On the second quote from the article, Will delves into NATO and Russia and feels Obama's speech will speak volumes about the future of NATO and the West in decades to come. A little dramatic for my tastes.
But that does raise the questions: Once the rhetoric evaporates and a President Obama is office, will he be a hawk like Bush or even Bill Clinton or a dove like most of his base?
Of course alternative fuels will quickly become
real alternatives. There has been rapid progress in efficiency of many different methods -- there have been significant
advances claimed 
in solar energy within the last two months alone!
Will sounds like somebody saying in 1960 that computers will never amount to anything because they are too heavy.
I guarantee you that once it becomes obvious that oil is becoming expensive to extract and new fields are not being discovered, alternative fuels will receive increased attention and the technology will be mainstream in a handful of years after that. There's nothing pie-in-the-sky about these proposals, it's just a matter of money and motivation.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Well, Im not really sure how Will meant that but
I also agree that changes will come.
The thing is though that the changes are happening and will continue to progress outside the realm of partisan campaign politics.
I think Will probably rolls his eyes, and perhaps justifiably so, when candidates make it seem as though this is all happening as the result of some concerted and wise policy that is driving the move toward these alternatives like a conductor leading an orchestra.
Good stuff John, thx...
This has been the problem since day 1 in Iowa.
People like this give the American people in general a bad name with all of Obama friends around the world. No wonder he wants us to speak other languages?
I think they fall into one group and would word it a little differently...
1. People who live in lala land and are just predisposed to anything liberal, they want to hear the lies and have;
a) no capacity for discernment of the political and realities.
or b) no desire for discernment of the political and realities.
It is frustrating because virtually everything he talks about is in that category, taxes, Iraq, energy, etc.
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
Bill Clinton on Republicans
It is the economy, stupid.
Short term memory loss?
We lived in the most prosperous times in US history 2 1/2 short years ago.
We have always prospered under republican control, things have gone bad since the dems have ran congress!
Clinton should shut that big pie hole under the red zit above his upper lip and thank god he was able to be POTUS with a Republican congress and an economy that Reagan and Bush 1 built, a congress that reformed welfare and made his embarrassing charade of 8 humiliating years of rule have at least some redeeming qualities.
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
McCain's dishonest ad
The respectful issues-based campaigning continues
...
Where is the backlash for tactics like this?
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
It's time
to embarrass the hell out of these people.
My view, this is Republican terrorism. It's shameful.
It is the economy, stupid.
I think calling it shameful
would be plenty strong enough criticism, I'd like to see the media step up here. (Terrorism is a loaded word, doesn't really apply.)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Obama was again demonstrating...
... his sophomoric level of foreign policy knowledge, it is what he said and this is a perfect example of the MSM again not happy that their boy isn't performing like they all wrote him up in the papers too for 8 months.
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
That was a joke right?
Whats next, McCain's new ad will Obama saying "What...about all the good things....Hitler did?"
That ad was like a Larry King endorsement of a movie.
Larry Kings says "Wow, what a...great... movie."
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Heh
Maybe they got the idea from here
=)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Guesses for McCain's VP?
Romney, Huckabee, Pawlenty, Lieberman, Hutchinson seem to be the most likely.
Lieberman would certainly be interesting -- after the Dems have spent the convention bashing McCain for being more of the same, a continuation of Bush, selecting as his VP the man who ran with Gore in 2000 would help blunt that attack. OTOH the conservative base would be seriously annoyed.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
It'll show the dominant faction
The VP pick will determine who is dominant in the GOP, though.
Lieberman: neo-cons
Huckabee: religious right
Romney: pro-business
Pawlenty and Hutchinson are hedges.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Probably Pawlenty then
Should be a lively VP debate... one of the too-few upsides to having Biden as VP is that he's good in debates.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
McCain would like to pick
Lieberman. Obviously they are close. They travel everywhere together.
Supposedly he deplores Kay Baily, even more than Mitt.
Will McCain go with the maverick choice, or will he be pragmatic?
It is the economy, stupid.
I predict pragmatic
Can't afford to give the base a reason to stay home.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Lieberman...
Pick Lieberman because that will ensure that the terrorist killers will further oppose McCain being POTUS.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
That would make me so happy....
All I know...
is that if the terrorists hate him, I have to like him or I'm a terrorist, too.
Did you know that Hamas provides assistance to the poor? Anyone who provides assistance to the poor is an awful lot like Hamas.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I'll guess Lieberman
which I would be content with, but I mainly hope for Romney.
Pawlenty is ok, while I do not want Huckabee or Hutchinson.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
In CA, the same-sex marriage ban is behind in the latest poll
The poll indicates that backing for a proposition to ban such marriages is lagging.
Guess the populace has come to terms with gays having the same rights as straights. Nothing more, nothing less. That's the way it should be.
Party differences
Interesting, but not surprising, how the party line vote breaks on that ballot question. Independents look almost exactly like Democrats. I think this is a real loser of an issue for the Republicans.
I still have never heard a rational argument against same-sex marriage. (Red Wing, I know you at least tried, but all your arguments were simply pro-marriage, not anti-same-sex-marriage.) I wonder what this major campaign will involve?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
We do have a lot of gay republicans out here. The Party hates
them but will ask them for money. Not surprisingly, those gay Republicans will also vote against the ban and many have in fact recently gotten married.
Ya, those gay Rep's are just lined up...? n/t
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
Why should the government be in the business of changing terms?
And why should the government be in the business of making moral statements? If the government calls a gay relationshsip marriage they are not being morally nuetral.
That post made no sense at all.
For one thing, the Constitutional Amendment was put on the ballot by a citizens group that opposes gays having the right to marry, not the CA government.
And if you are making the argument that the government shouldn't be making morals decisions.....uh....it does that every single day.
Morally neutral....so allowing gays the same rights as straights is not morally neutral? Here's the point of the article. Morality is both a singular and group idea. If the group decides it isn't
immoral behaviour, it isn't.
This is a sad case of judical activism at its worse!
"For one thing, the Constitutional Amendment was put on the ballot by a citizens group that opposes gays having the right to marry, not the CA government."
Yes, the same "citizens that already settled this issue in a state wide ballot initiative!
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
And the Supreme Court decided that was unconstitutional.
Funny thing about Supreme Courts.
In an absurdly far reaching act of judicial activism!
And now what, we must do it again.
"The decision is a masterpiece of judicial activism. It is long on public policy preferences, and extremely short on law.
Questions like what constitutes marriage are beyond the competence and expertise of judges. Decisions like these weaken the judicial system by causing the electorate to question the legitimacy of judicial decision-making."
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
6 Republican Justices & 1 Democratic Justice.
You do realize that is the current make up of the California Supreme Court
don't you?
You seem to be mistaking popularity with constitutionality. There's a big difference.
You're sayinig Republicans are bound to follow the constitution?
NT.
No way!!
The Republicans have shredded it already.
Changing terms
The government should be in the business of ensuring the rights of all citizens to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If that involves something so simple as changing terms, then it is all that more of a no-brainer.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
One should be able to be perfectly happy, free, and alive
without the government lying and saying they are married.
I agree
But your tone leads me to believe for completely different reasons.
To me, marriage is an exclusively religious institution. For whatever reason, the state uses the same term to talk about financial and legal benefits between two people.
If the state is going to provide these benefits, they have to do so in a non-discriminatory way. I'd rather the benefits not exist at all and marriage return to being a religious ceremony completely subject to the beliefs of a church/temple/mosque/etc. Until the state gets out of the business of "marrying" people, no discrimination is warranted.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Disagree
If the government is actively preventing you from marrying the person you love, for no good reason at all, it flies in the face of the self-evident truths enumerated in the Constitution.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Look I don't think the government should prevent you
from marrying. If you want to have a ceremony and call it marriage - go all out. But what's the goverment's interest in calling such a union marriage.
I dunno
What's the government's interest in calling any union marriage? Sounds like you might agree with stinerman - just get the government out of the business of marriage altogether. That's fine by me.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I'm certainly sympathetic
with getting government out of marriage, not entirely convinced, but I do tend to lean a bit that way.
And if the government is not providing
you with the home to live in, and it doesn't make sure you have enough money, and if it doesn't give you free education...
Ridiculous SL!
Marriage is an institution that maintains the underpinning of human society. It is an institution with a purpose, to have and raise children, and all children should have a Mother and a Father.
Without a mom and dad all sorts of social problems form. This is fact, and is indisputable from the utopian, liberal, warm and fuzzy perspective.
The negative effects fall like dominoes, it leads to poverty, crime, and higher welfare costs which lead to bigger government, higher taxes, and a slower economy.
So if the 5% of the population want to live with one another, and love one another, fine, but marriage is between a man and a woman, so recognize gay marriage, never.
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
Clarification
So a man and a woman who cannot have children or do not wish to have children shouldn't be allowed to get married then, right?
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Obtuse retort?
Anomalies are to be expected, that does not de-value the basis.
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
Not at all
I don't see how the sex of the couple is any more of an anomaly if the explicit purpose of marriage is child rearing.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
OK...
First off, there very little independent evidence that marriage is destroyed by two gay people getting access to the same benefits as two straight folks.
Secondly I could make everything if I link it right to poverty, crime, and higher welfare costs..which lead to total societal destruction as you so mention.
If the government is tasked with the preservation of society and marriage, there are certainly much larger aspects to tackle. Gay people make up about 5% of the problem and the affect on marriage is at best indirect. Let's focus on the direct problems:
Adultery is very detrimental to marriages, wouldn't you agree? So is pre-marital sex (but less so). So is divorce. why not throw the focus on things that will really affect the marriage rate? I don't see it. If gay people get married, society fails..but if gay people don't get married, we've "saved" marriage? I think society has been dragging very well on its own with the "shame" taken away from things like adultery, divorce, and pre-marital sex.
If you have an overflowing sink in one room and a dripping faucet in another house, shouldn't you probably throw the focus on the larger causes first then work your way down?
Or is it the term marriage? The actual word, that bothers people? Personally I think society will be just fine if gay people can have equal access to societies benefits. I doubt there's a conversation going on where I heterosexual male/female somewhere is thinking.."Well, guys can marry each other now, so I guess I can stop liking these women now.."
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678
Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
Wrong analogy
The correct analogy is... if the governement is preventing you from purchasing a home, or taking all your money (I know how much you love that one!), or prevents you from getting an education...
You are the one being ridiculous here.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Whatever...
"The benefits of marriage for husbands and wives, and their children essentially and uniquely derive from the fact that marriage unites the two halves of the human race to share in raising children."
But congratulations, if this is the kind of crap
you want to see as a result of trying to legislate everything in your state! Gender neutral bathrooms, transgender education, what BS! But not here, no way!
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
How is the government not recognizing your marriage preventing
you from anything? There is nothing that you would naturally have that the government is preventing you from having. You're are still able to do what you would do if there were no government. You can argue that the government has an obligation to give you recognition, for some reason, but the government is not taking away natural liberty.
Excellent point JM! n/t
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
Civil Unions = Marriage?
I assume that you don't have a problem then with civil unions that have the exact* same meaning under the law as marriage? It's just the word "marriage" that has some special meaning for you, not the concept? At that point it is just semantics then. And even if the government has no obligation to recognize marriage, it shouldn't recognize some but not others without valid reason. That's discrimination. And so we come back to the thought that maybe government shouldn't be recognizing any marriages at all.
If the word "marriage" is so important to you that you would deny it to a certain segment of the population, then you might want to think about how those people you are denying feel about the word as well. Do you think that gay people would be fighting so hard for this right if it was not also important to them? And what makes your feelings about it trump theirs?
*Note: current laws regarding civil unions are NOT equivalent to marriage.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
RE:
"I assume that you don't have a problem then with civil unions that have the exact* same meaning under the law as marriage?" I don't know what all the legal benefits of marriage are. But any benefit should have a civil reason behind it - that the governement finds the union worthwhile and wants to encourage it. Now, I believe marriage brings more benefit to society, but that may be on a religous side which society cannot reward. However, marriage not having a clear-cut objective benefit to society is an arguement against the goverment being involved in marriage not one for government being involved in gay marriage.
Now I guess marriage also provides certain things like hospital visitation rights... these should be open to any two ( actually I don't know why you would have to limt it to two) people though. I don't know why a relationship would have to even be sexual in order to enter into a contract giving each other hospital rights or inheritance rights...
Therefore, the right to enter to any kind of contractual union should exist, but whether the relationship is a sexual one should be irrelevant. You shouldn't get anything special just because you have a commited sexual relationship with a member of the same sex.
As to the name marriage yes it's important. Words are highly important. And for government to change a word like marriage is for the government to make a social statement - its for the government to call what many view as immoral, sacred. This isn't just about preserving the meaning of word, if the word's meaning naturally changes, than another word will replace and nothing is lost. However, for the government to change the word to apply to gay marriage is for the government to make a statement that gay relationships are sacred. I say the government has no right to call it immoral and no right to call it sacred.
Gays should be able to file their federal taxes together.
You seem to have left that out.
Perhaps you didn't notice the "...".
But I will say any two people should have the right to enter an agreement share property and have whatever type of relationship they want, but being a gay couple shouldn't give you any special break that any other two or more people wouldn't have.
I would say no. n/t
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
Huh?
How does allowing gay marriage give a gay couple a special break that anyone else doesn't have?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
And tell me, why should we rewrite...
...the history of mankind, tell me why we should allow the law to go in a direction contrary to our natural physical makeup, tell me why we should give 5% of the population a right to therefore encroach their fringe lifestyle choice on 95% of the rest of us and our children?
Let me guess, because to you, in your liberal circus of a world, think everyone should have everything, as long as you think it's fair in your homogenized Utopian world.
What about my right to inherent the legacy of our American forefathers? And please don't even try to equate slavery with homosexuality, OK, thank you. What about my right to raise my children in a world with the traditional American values that made our country the envy of the world!
You don't care about liberty, or justice. What you care about is advancing your socially liberal agenda.
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
Geez, dude
Allowing a couple to get married encroaches their lifestyle choice on you? How's that work?
The rest of your post either doesn't make much sense, or is frankly kind of obnoxious, so I won't comment further on it.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Uh huh?
When you think of an answer let me know, it's so much obnoxious, as much as it is true.
As far as how that works, you're pretty bright, I think you get it.
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
Yeah
I guess you know more about how I think and what I really care about than I do. Not obnoxious at all.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Are you going to answer the questions...
...or act obtuse.
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
Answers
Some of your questions are senseless, but I shall do my best.
1) "Why should we rewrite the history of mankind?" I don't see anyone advocating that. I presume you mean to ask why we should do something now that we've never done before. And the answer to that is because we have always done things that we've never done before. We are not rewriting history, we are continuing it. That is what humankind does. It progresses. Tradition for the sake of tradition is not a reason to continue unequal treatment.
2) "Why should we allow the law to go in a direction contrary to our natural physical makeup?" OK, I won't try to argue about the naturalness or unnaturallness of homosexuality. I don't think it is particularly unnatural, but you obviously do, so let's go with that. The fact is though, that homosexuality exists. It is certainly the natural state of being for homosexuals. So your question becomes, why should we allow the law to go in a direction contrary to my natural physical makeup? And the answer is, because you don't get to decide what is natural for everybody else.
3) "Why should we give 5% of the population a right to therefore encroach
their fringe lifestyle choice on 95% of the rest of us and our children?" I've asked about this already, and no, I don't get it. What difference could it possibly make to you whether the gay couple that lives next door is married, or just living together having lots of unmarried sex?
4) "What about my right to inherent the legacy of our American forefathers?" What does this mean? And how does same-sex marriage affect it?
5) "What about my right to raise my children in a world with the
traditional American values that made our country the envy of the
world!" You are free to raise your children with whatever values you want. You don't have the right to impose your values on the rest of the world, sorry. Especially when those values involve the belief that a segment of the population is less deserving of respect than another, simply because they are different. Not evil, not harmful. Just different.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Ok, thanks for replying, but...
...you did a great job of answering "your" questions, but not mine.
All social change in history is not growth or progress SL.
In fact, I challenge you to name the changes you know of over the course of history in the fundamental, core aspect of the human condition, such as the union between a man and a woman, and the mutual care of their offspring, that can be chalked up as progress?
There are none.
To suggest that our essential, common thread of basic humanity and it's sustenance, which has been held in esteem for millennia, and is shared by the overwhelming vast majority of people on earth in its empirical sense, is somehow to be considered in the same regard as a manifestation in relatively few numbers of people, who inherited an instinct gone awry is unconscionable, and inconsistent with any precedent.
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
Give me a break
I specifically responded to every one of your questions, except for #4, which makes no sense and I suspect is just meaningless blather. If you don't have any reply to my answers, then fine, but don't go saying I didn't answer them.
As far as fundamental institutions that have changed for the better, I can think of a few off the top of my head. The concept of divine monarchy was part of the very "fabric of society" for many many cultures. Abolishing it was absolutely unthinkable, but it turned out to be a pretty good thing to get rid of. Integrating women into every aspect of society was a huge reversal of the societal norms. Allowing inter-racial marriages is the most obviously similar example.
Tell you what, since you don't like the way I answer your questions, how about I ask you one. Tell me: what harm do you envision occurring to the institution of marriage as a result of allowing same-sex marriage? Try not to use vague platitudes and be specific please.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Well let's just do that...
Your answers were directed at my questions, but then degraded to an ambiguous liberal ideal. I do appeciate your effort though and apologize for any obnoxious retorts... ;-).
It is already clear that in Scandinavian countries where same sex unions has been tried it is a disaster! Half the kids are born out of marriage, and it is estimated that fully half the kids born in the 1990's will live in a single parent home.
This in turn leads to the case in which children have a multitude of "Moms" and "Dads", six or eight "Grandparents" and may have a dozen of "Half siblings". It becomes a world where kids are moved from place to place and raised by a variety of people, and I don't have to elaborate on the consequences of that on society.
The introduction of gay marriages will definitely lead to polygamy and a wide range of alternatives to and combination's of one-man, one-woman unions.
The ACLU of Utah has actually suggested that the state will "have to step up to prove that a polygamous relationship is detrimental to society", I hate the ACLU, this as opposed to polygamists having to prove that plural marriage is not harmful to society.
Do you see how the game is being played? Despite 5,000 years of history, the burden now rests on the good citizens of America to prove that polygamy and gay marriage is unhealthy for society?
Another very real and big issue with the legalization of homosexual marriage is public schools would be required to teach that this is the equivalent of traditional marriage between a man and a woman, it simply is not.
Textbooks, will then have to illustrate man/man and woman/woman relationships, and stories written for children will have to give equal space to homosexual education, I DON"T THINK SO.
How about the impact on Social Security and the the other 95% of tax payers? We would then have millions of new dependents that will be entitled to survivor benefits? It will amount to billions of dollars on an already overburdened system.
And how about the cost to American businesses?
Are governments then expected to have to raise taxes, substantially, to benefit these millions of new spouses and other dependents?
This is the beginning of the decay of the very thing that holds our country together. We look at the African American community with so many kids without Dads and see the devastating effect that has had on it.
I don't know, I could go on and on but I am getting pissed just writing about it!
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
Here's why you are wrong! :)
Scandinavia: Half the hids are born out of marriage, and then a vast majority of those couples get married. Marriage rates had been declining before the law was enacted, and have turned around since then. In Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Iceland, marriage rates are now higher than they were before the law changed.
From 1970 to 1980, the Danish nonmarital birth rate tripled, from 11
percent to 33 percent. Over the next 10 years, it rose again to 46
percent and then stopped rising in 1990s after the passage of the 1989
partnership law. The change in nonmarital births was exactly the same in countries with partnership laws as it was in countries without.
Slippery slope argument: You say that polygamy will "definitely" be a result of the legalization of same-sex marriage. I guess that's why there are all the calls for polygamy to be legalized in Scandinavia. Oh wait, that hasn't happened, has it? Funny how you can be definitely sure of something that has already been shown to be false.
Sources for my stats and assertations here
and here 
.
Requirement to teach: Your objection here seems to be based on your belief that the homosexual lifestyle itself is inherently offensive. There is nothing about homosexuality that causes harm to others. Sorry, but the granting of civil rites can be offensive to others, often even the majority. That's one of the reasons that constitutional governments exist - to protect unpopular and powerless minorities from the tyranny of the majority.
Monetary reasons: Geez, it sounds like you think marriage is a burden to society now. Perhaps we should start encouraging divorces and we can all save a ton of money! But seriously, all you are saying here is that you think gay people don't deserve these benefits. (You must be against civil unions, too then?) Again, tyranny of the majority.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Just wondering
Has the knowledge that your two primary arguments are based on incorrect information at least given you pause? Is there even the slightest chance that you would be willing to re-evaluate your position based on the actual data?
Seriously, the statistics from Scandinavia show a slight positive correllation between the acceptance of same-sex marriage with higher marriage rates for heterosexuals, lower divorce rates, and lower rates for out-of-wedlock births. And you have been inferring a negative causality from the data. Doesn't that make you question your views at all?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
You'd have to convince me
I've yet to be convinced that marriage itself keeps families together. The cart is being put in front of the horse. Wanting to be together (in most cases) is what causes people to marry, not the other way around.
My parents had me before they were married. Then they got married because it was "the right thing to do". Then they got divorced when I was 5. Marriage didn't help anyone do anything. My parents could have just as easily broken up as they could have been separated or divorced.
The only way marriage keeps a family together is by force. That is to say, so long as a married couple must not be legally separated or may not be divorced. If indeed marriage is a union to raise children, then quite logically, no persons with children under the age of majority should be allowed to be divorced. They should be compelled by force of law to stay together and raise their children until the children become 18.
Lets just say this, if you're willing to move out and leave your kids and their mother, you're not going to worry about getting divorced and leaving them all the same. Marriage keeps honest people honest. It doesn't magically make irresponsible people stay with their spouse.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
While there are some valid points here, stinerman,
there are others that I disagree with.
While I agree with this:
You're absolutely right on this one, stinerman. Marriage isn't a reform school. If the fact that the divorce rate here in America is at an alltime high (one out of every two marriages these days ends in divorce) is any indication, the idea that marriage keeps families together is pure baloney. If a fiancee is abusive, unfaithful, or has substance/alcohol abuse problems, these things'll only get worse when the knot is officially tied, if one gets the drift.
I have to strenously disagree with the following:
Imho, it matters not what age the children are in the event that parents get divorced. If there's a lot of drunkenness, physical and emotional abuse, addictions, and actually physical fights that go on between parents, even if the kids are under 18 or so, why should the kids have to come home from school, or wake up every morning to see and hear all that stuff going on. It's better for the kids if the parents split up, even if they are underage, so they won't be constantly subjected to this stuff when they're still growing up. Unhappy marriages generally tend to breed children who're ill-equipped or unequipped to go out into the world and deal with its challenges or whatever.
Young kids should not be subjected to dangerous situations.
I wasn't advocating it
I was just pointing out (in an apparently poor manner) that if indeed the reason marriage exists is to raise children, then parents shouldn't be able to get divorced. I was just taking RW's position t