Mitt’s VP Shocker

[Raz]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

Civil unions are the same as the 'Separate, but equal' legal doctrine that defined segregation. Unless homosexuals are recognized as being the complete equals of heterosexuals and integrated entirely in society without any division being made between them and heterosexuals, then it will always be unequal.

I don't have any hope for Obama, but I certainly have no hope for Romney either. I am voting for a third party. I don't care if people tell me my vote is wasted. I'd rather throw away a vote then give it to these bastards.

No one has any control over their skin color; only their parents did. Everyone has control over their behavior, no matter what the proclivity.

I have no doubt that every facet of human beings was affected by the Fall. Some are born with body types and rates of metabolism that make it very difficult to control their weight. Others are born with a clear predisposition to alcoholism. And I'm sure that a few are born with a proclivity to same sex attraction.
But in no way are any of these predispositions so overpowering that they utterly eliminate personal behavioral choice. So I do not agree with your characterization.

I do agree with your political choice. I see a slight possibility that Romney might shock me and attempt to do the right thing if he's elected.
But I place the odds at such an astronomically low percentage that I'm not willing to take that bet.

[BadJuju]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

The problem with everything you say is that it is all based upon scripture. You base your views upon non-scientific teachings. Unfortunately, the science is clear: sexual attraction is based entirely upon biological mechanisms. A person's sexuality is out of their control. They are either attracted to something or they are not. Whatever their attraction is, it is natural to them.

[jpetr48]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

Unfortunately this thread Is a microcosm for the current national political debate. Debating equal rights for homosexual marriage is like rearranging chairs for the orchestra on the deck of the Titanic. This debate will always continue as it engages multiple platforms such as moral legal political and religious. It is one of the most divisive issues. Unless we return to the source and understand what the authors of the Declaration of independance meant, this debate of equal rights will continued to be hijacked by special interests. For starters, the opening of the United States Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson in 1776, states as follows:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;[7]


Ok so what are unalienable rights?
the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property.
Reference:http://www.unalienable.com/

So anyone can add to what the founders intended. I will follow and listen to the law of the land and I hope our elected officials do likewise. Now can we please return this thread to the economy?joe

[Raz]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

The problem with everything you say is that it is all based upon scripture. You base your views upon non-scientific teachings. Unfortunately, the science is clear: sexual attraction is based entirely upon biological mechanisms. A person's sexuality is out of their control. They are either attracted to something or they are not. Whatever their attraction is, it is natural to them.

You are stating opinion as fact. It most certainly is not. No one has found a "gay gene" anymore than they've found a "fat gene".

"The biological mechanisms that cause alcoholism are not well understood. Social environment, stress,mental health, family history, age, ethnic group, and gender all influence the risk for the condition." ...A complex mixture of genetic and environmental factors influences the risk of the development of alcoholism. Genes that influence the metabolism of alcohol also influence the risk of alcoholism, and may be indicated by a family history of alcoholism. One paper has found that alcohol use at an early age may influence the expression of genes which increase the risk of alcohol dependence. Individuals who have a genetic disposition to alcoholism are also more likely to begin drinking at an earlier age than average.
Also, a younger age of onset of drinking is associated with an increased risk of the development of alcoholism, and about 40 percent of alcoholics will drink excessively by their late adolescence. It is not entirely clear whether this association is causal, and some researchers have been known to disagree with this view. A high testosterone concentration during pregnancy may be a risk factor for later development of alcohol dependence.
Severe childhood trauma is also associated with a general increase in the risk of drug dependency. Lack of peer and family support is associated with an increased risk of alcoholism developing. Genetics and adolescence are associated with an increased sensitivity to the neurotoxic effects of chronic alcohol abuse. Cortical degeneration due to the neurotoxic effects increases impulsive behaviour, which may contribute to the development, persistence and severity of alcohol use disorders. There is evidence that wth abstinence, there is a reversal of at least some of the alcohol induced central nervous system damage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholism


"
The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and National Association of Social Workers stated in 2006:

Currently, there is no scientific consensus about the specific factors that cause an individual to become heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual—including possible biological, psychological, or social effects of the parents' sexual orientation. ... The American Academy of Pediatrics stated in Pediatrics in 2004: Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts. Although there continues to be controversy and uncertainty as to the genesis of the variety of human sexual orientations, there is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation. Current knowledge suggests that sexual orientation is usually established during early childhood. The American Psychological Association states "there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people", and says most people's sexual orientation is determined at an early age. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality The Wikipedia article is clearly weighted to the idea that homosexuality is exclusively a genetic condition. I do not believe that is so, and neither do many others including two psychiatrists that I personally know. They are, however, quite sympathetic to the struggles they've observed in people who have this condition. I am also sympathetic, but not to the point that I accept people as genetic automatons who have absolutely no control over their thought paterns or behavior. You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion. But many of my opinions - including those on homosexuality - have changed since I was twenty-six years old.

[Raz]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

The truth is that there is no such thing as a modern scientific consensus on homosexuality. There are even indications that top scientists are starting to back off from the idea that “homosexuality”—which no one has scientifically defined, maybe because it’s impossible—is entirely or even primarily genetic. Whereas the American Psychological Association stated this in 1998…

There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play [sic] a significant role in a person’s sexuality.

…they recently backtracked and wrote this…

Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.

http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx


What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

[BK]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

+1
Both political parties toss the voters RedHerrings to keep everyone distracted. Its like watching a magician keeping is audience distracted while he pulls the rabbit out of its hiding spot and creates the illusion that it came out of his hat!

[don]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

+1
Both political parties toss the voters RedHerrings to keep everyone distracted. Its like watching a magician keeping is audience distracted while he pulls the rabbit out of its hiding spot and creates the illusion that it came out of his hat!

Absolutely . . . and, of course! The immediate response to any criticism of a candidate is you must be in the other party's camp. Most effective. The naivete of some of our learned members is always a surprise. Change you can believe in? Ya gotta be kidding.

[littleshark]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

I think the pick was Romney's attempt to take some type of higher ground and campaign on what he deems real "issues" like fiscal discipline, austerity, and creating jobs. Ryan will be sold as a principled man who just wants what's good for the country, and the country is being irresponsible with the debt and the deficits, and his budget plan, you may not agree with, but he's trying to do what's best and bring both sides to the table....that's the sale I think. Problem is, the country wants a plan right now, and selling fiscal/monetary sanity and austerity isn't going to do it, look what's happening in Europe..

This plan will fall right into Obama's team's hands like a wounded deer to a lion. Obama will drag these guys right into the mud with them, they don't know what they're in for. Somehow, Obama's charm and charisma still resonate with most people and with each party having no real plan to sell, Obama's tactics will prevail in a big way I believe.

That being said, I will vote for Romney/Ryan, I can't stomach Obama.....but....

Here's a question: If the system needs to be ultimately cleansed, cronyism curtailed, govt/private sector start working together investing to create productive capital to move the country forward, who gets us there quicker? We know neither has a real plan, both will change nothing and pretty much make things worse. So simply, which candidate will take us to ground zero quicker so we can really recover? So maybe in a perverse way you want to vote for the candidate you think crashes the system/creates a real crisis quicker....just a thought.

[BK]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

To your point - Governor Romney often gets caught in details of how he can fix things. Sadly, most voters I know aren't interested in hearing the gory details about how to fix the fiscal problems in the United States (boring).

I was reminded of this when discussing the saving of General Motors. Most people are glad GM was saved, but understand how it was done, what the alternatives were, and few are aware of the fact that the people who owned GM bonds and had it converted to GM stock (trying to explain boring details like this puts voters to sleep).

[vt]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

One highly respected Democrat has a positive opinion on Ryan:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cut-ad-clinton-cos-ryan-guy-amazing_649942.html

[Finster]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

As the law currently stands, I do not believe they have right to survivorship for Social Security, which makes it discriminatory.

Why can't some people get this? A person exactly the same rights regardless of his sexual preference. He may marry someone of the opposite sex whether he is gay or straight. If he chooses not to avail himself of those rights, that does not mean they are unavailable to him. Under most current law, a gay person may not marry someone of the opposite sex. But - guess what - neither can a heterosexual person. Conversely, a heterosexual person may marry someone of the opposite sex - and so may a gay person. Exact same rights.

Whether Social Security offers survival rights to a same sex spouse is a separate question. There's no reason SS law can't be changed to allow a person to name a survivor of any relationship, same or opposite sex.

...

[Finster]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

I think the pick was Romney's attempt to take some type of higher ground and campaign on what he deems real "issues" like fiscal discipline, austerity, and creating jobs. Ryan will be sold as a principled man who just wants what's good for the country, and the country is being irresponsible with the debt and the deficits, and his budget plan, you may not agree with, but he's trying to do what's best and bring both sides to the table....that's the sale I think. Problem is, the country wants a plan right now, and selling fiscal/monetary sanity and austerity isn't going to do it, look what's happening in Europe..

This plan will fall right into Obama's team's hands like a wounded deer to a lion. Obama will drag these guys right into the mud with them, they don't know what they're in for. Somehow, Obama's charm and charisma still resonate with most people and with each party having no real plan to sell, Obama's tactics will prevail in a big way I believe.

That being said, I will vote for Romney/Ryan, I can't stomach Obama.....but....

Here's a question: If the system needs to be ultimately cleansed, cronyism curtailed, govt/private sector start working together investing to create productive capital to move the country forward, who gets us there quicker? We know neither has a real plan, both will change nothing and pretty much make things worse. So simply, which candidate will take us to ground zero quicker so we can really recover? So maybe in a perverse way you want to vote for the candidate you think crashes the system/creates a real crisis quicker....just a thought.

Yes, I think Romney chose the high ground here ... and yes, purely in terms of whether it helps him win the election, it may have made it more difficult.

[Finster]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

Unfortunately this thread Is a microcosm for the current national political debate...

... So anyone can add to what the founders intended. I will follow and listen to the law of the land and I hope our elected officials do likewise. Now can we please return this thread to the economy?joe

I second that motion. This is an economic site, after all.

[c1ue]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

Good point about the Tea Party ... although I'd taken that the conventional wisdom was that Romney needed "the middle" more.

I'm guessing you mean the Republican moderates when you mean 'middle'?

Romney could easily capture the Democrat moderates by doing something as simple as vowing to raise the minimum wage.

[Finster]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

I'm guessing you mean the Republican moderates when you mean 'middle'?

Romney could easily capture the Democrat moderates by doing something as simple as vowing to raise the minimum wage.

Yeah ... the more liberal Reps, the more conservative Dems, and the independents. Romney himself was considered weak in his appeal to the more conservative Rep element, which makes sense of your point about Ryan appealing to the more conservative end of the Rep spectrum. In light of that, probably Romney figures he's already in pretty good shape with that "middle", tapping Ryan to help with that conservative Rep element ... which I gather was the point you were making.

That said, I still think at least part of Romney's motivation was to highlight that the state of federal finances will be a very important part of his campaign and ultimately of a Romney admistration. There are a number of strong conservatives he could have named that don't have Ryan's budget cred.