Miumaru said:
Well, if there is any good criticism of Obama, i havent heard it. So far its been for him being kind to the rest of the world (interperated as being weak) and being too calm (same thing) God forbid people start to like America and we dont have a hot head leader.
As for gay marriage and the like, Adam and Eve, and next people will wanna marry their dog and lamp is just dumb. I could argue stupid like that too against not letting gays marry. "Lets not let gays, then blacks, then next we shouldnt let anyone marry anyone who isnt themselves, cept you cant anyway since that would be...gay"
Well, about Obama, he refused help from 13 different countries in the first week of the oil spill disaster, and refused help with this oil spill until it was a complete, utter disaster, about 5 weeks in. All he did beforehand was try to figure out who to blame for it until he started taking flack from everyone for taking multiple golfing outings, except Gibbs says you can't call it "playing golf," you have to say he's "clearing his mind." He consistently says he's "not going to rest until...." but he golfs multiple times a month, takes a 4 day vacation to Las Vegas, and multiple trips each month. Now, I would normally let that pass, but Bush was raked across the coals when he went golfing once after the War in Iraq started, and after that, he never went golfing as president.
Obama's inexperience is really starting to show. He is a fantastic campaigner, but when he starts campaigning against an oil spill because that's all he knows how to do, it looks really bad.
I don't completely understand what you meant by your gay marriage argument, but I'll tell you mine. Mine is 2 fold. First the nit-picky one: "Marriage" is a distinct concept with a distinct definition. Language is built upon clear distinct definitions, and changing them willy-nilly because you want to leads inevitably to the destruction of language itself. When words can mean whatever you want them to mean, they mean nothing. Make up a new word, call it "civil union," whatever, but don't call it "Marriage" because it isn't.
Secondly, I point to an uncommon source: Friedrich Nietchze and his "will to power" concept. He argued that Christianity, in 19th century Germany was unhealthy for society because it depreciated the growth of society, and damaged the will to continue growing into the next generation. This ties in to homosexual relationships in the modern age.
Homosexual relationships do not produce offspring without heterosexual input. Therefore, assuming monogamous relationships, as the ratio of homosexual to heterosexual relationships within society increases, the ability of the society to grow decreases.
If a society cannot maintain a 1.2% growth rate, they decline and within a few generations suffer from complete societal collapse due to not having a large enough young, productive, youthful population to sustain the old, and continue to the next generation. It's all in the numbers. "Gay Marriage" then becomes damaging to the growth of a society, and therefore is damaging to the future of the society, and reduces the "will to power."
