Slashdot Mirror
State of the Union
travis slack writes "President Bush used his State of the Union speech to press home key domestic and international agendas. At home he promised to reform Social Security for future generations. Looking overseas, Bush vowed to spread freedoms around the world while continuing the war on terror, and he pointed to Iraq as a symbol of change."
I have an idea. How about you stop taking money out of my paycheck for something that will hardly provide a living-return under any circumstances and let me save that money myself.
Really, just because some idiotic baby boomers can't comprehend "save some cash for later in life" doesn't mean the rest of us who have a fucking clue should be forced to hand over our cash.
He is still trying to "protect the scanticty of marriage". I still find it disgusting that people buy into this bullshit. It would seem that most voters think a leadership who undermines and attacks a segment of the population is a legitamate and compassionate leader.
I had decided before to give him a pass on last time and see if he had learned anything since the election. Unfortunatly I was wrong. Bush may have a new suit and a few more fans, but it is still the same brain damaged monkey running around and throwing shit.
There is nothing wrong with being gay. It's getting caught where the trouble lies.
Black comedy perhaps
"We Americans claim to be a peace-loving people. We hate bloodshed; we are opposed to violence. Yet we go into spasms of joy over the possibility of projecting dynamite bombs from flying machines upon helpless citizens. We are ready to hang, electrocute, or lynch anyone, who, from economic necessity, will risk his own life in the attempt upon that of some industrial magnate. Yet our hearts swell with pride at the thought that America is becoming the most powerful nation on earth, and that she will eventually plant her iron foot on the necks of all other nations. Such is the logic of patriotism."
-Emma Goldman (1869 - 1940) writer
cL0h
No, you got that wrong too. The actual fact is that he thought the war on IRAQ was a videogame.
They could promise TODAY to vote NO on any budget that mixed the SS trust fund with the general fund. They won't. They like spending our money too much. They will leave the problems until it is a crisis, but most importantly, somebody else's crisis. Just like they always do. This SS ponzi scheme is just a slush fund for over-spending politicians. And they like it that way.
The only parts of the speech dealing with IT were two separate sentences, floating around in thousands of political slogans. One sentence was pie-in-the-sky "hydrogen fuel" promotion. The other was more IT for medical records:
"improved information technology to prevent medical error and needless costs"
So our privatization president wants to spend more public money subsidizing doctors, hospitals, pharmacos and insurance companies. The free market works great, but not when life, death and billions in profits are motivating corporations to invest in competence and efficiency.
Meanwhile, the president sees a rosy economy, while the American IT sector shrinks. All those trillions of dollars he's spending in his budgets (which he complains is "the spending appetite of the federal government" that must be restrained) were collected during the tech bubble. He's so far from interested in recovery in our industry that he ignores it entirely, while bragging about a fictional general prosperity. While remaining obsessed with hundreds of billions of dollars for the war technology that's keeping us winning hearts and minds in Iraq.
--
make install -not war
SS won't be solvent forever...it *will* start running a deficit and eventually be bankrupt. How is pursuing change a bad thing? You can argue that his plan sucks, and plenty of people do, but letting a faulty program run its course is being irresponsible.
--trb
BFD. You single out words that you think make a point, just like our liberal media. To put it in an unbiased light why don't you construct a histogram of all words used in these speeches and compare the frequency of these buzz words to the sum total. How many times did he use the terms "reform" or "senate" or "future"?
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
Jesus loves you, I think you suck
The Bush White House intended ideas for Social Security reform (and very quietly, health care reform) is half baked, when considering, he's fiddling with an institution that will be able to 30 YEARS from now provide 80% of the benefits it's supposed to. Knowing that, one would think "ok let's make allowances for the other 20 percent, maybe add money to the Social Security trust from other areas.
Instead his solution is is private accounts. And it's promoted the same way this administration does anything: fearmongering. "LOOK! Young people, Social Security is melting down! It's not gonna be here! Everybody's gonn retire and the crush is going to ruin things! You're gonna be out on the street with no one to take care of you!"
That alone should make young people suspicious. Couple that with with the fact that I don't fully understand how social security is funded. But they don't vote, so it won't matter til 45 years from now, or until we elect someone who may try to undo this. And God help that administration, because once Social Security has been privatized there will be no getting it back. Too much of a boon for the private sector; rolling dice with your money.
What's also disturbing is that some of my tax cut happy Bush supporting co-workers (ironically divorced bitter fellows for the most part) absolutely are drinking this Kool Aid. I've even heard one or two spouting, "what's wrong with YOU paying for you? I'm tired of others getting my money." For the life of me, I can't think of any Western country without a form of SECURED government provided pension, and as far as I'm concerned, it's a lynchpin.
Just wnother thing that scares me about this guy. And I won't get started on the health care account plans... BTW: Our defense budget seems to be in good shape, and QUITE solvent.
Blacker than my baby girl's stare. Black like the veil that the muslimina wear. Black like the planet that they fear...
liar, per:
Social Security actuaries project the trust fund will last until 2042. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office puts that date at 2052.
You're apparently confusing "liar" with "person telling me the truth but I don't want to think about it because it's a really long ways off". The fact that everyone predicts SS will, in fact, backs up his statement. The question is, and always has been, when.
"conservative" and "stock funds" do not go together
Do you have a retirement account? In most diversified plans, one is a conservative growth fund. Mine lost very, very little throughout the stock plunge and started doing better much, much sooner...that's what it's designed for, to be recession proof.
after all, he obviously has.
Why don't you just call him a "poo-poo head"?
now that the election is over, it's time to cater to religious zealots
He backed the marriage amendment when it was voted on DURING his reelection campaign. To say "now that the election is over..." is disingenuous and ignorant of (recent) history.
--trb
I find this paragraph troubling. He starts talking about fostering small business. Fair enough. But then he somehow twists this into a gripe about asbestos lawsuits. Whaa? Now, let's see, why does Bush consider hindering asbestos lawsuits important? Let's make this one multiple choice:
Why is Bush against asbestos lawsuits?
A. Most small businesses use asbestos in their daily operations.
B. The victims knew the danger and purposefully breathed in asbestos dust anyways.
C. Halliburton paid $4.2 billion to settle such a lawsuit in 1998.
D. Asbestos is a good source of vitamin E.
I think you can guess which is the right answer.
Unknown host pong.
SS won't be solvent forever...it *will* start running a deficit and eventually be bankrupt.
Good. It needs to be done away with. If you're too stupid to put a little bit of your money aside each month for your future, you deserve to die in a gutter somewhere without medication, shelter or food. If you can't take the initiative to give a fuck about your life and prepare for your future, why should the rest of the population and the government do it for you? And why should those of us who could make better use of the SS cash coming out of our paychecks be forced to dump it into some ridiculous "mommy government is looking out for you" program?
Yeah, but you've got 30 years to get it right. this, is NOT getting it right, unless you absolutely adhere to "some action, even the wrong action is better than no action".
This administration sure believes that.
Blacker than my baby girl's stare. Black like the veil that the muslimina wear. Black like the planet that they fear...
Too bad they're completely wrong! ;)
For sake of argument, I'll accept your correlation, but I find it very hard to accept your causation. I think divorce rose merely because (a) women became more financially independent and (b) it became more acceptable.
Secondly, your government paranoia dismisses the fact that the majority of Americans support laws forbidding homosexuals the ability to marry one another. These people (and I'm not one of them) don't support these laws because they'll give the government more control or more money, and at least some of them are not doing it out of hatred towards gays either. Some of them support these laws because their religious beliefs tell them that homosexuality is a sin (and some of them truly hate the sin, but not the sinner) and see no constitutional problem with laws that eliminate such sins. (After all, we have laws against and our attitudes against that are supported by religion.) I'm definitely not trying to convince you to change your beliefs, merely pointing out that you are drastically missing the reasons behind the FMA. If you don't understand those reasons, you won't be able to successfully fight them.
Having said all that, I support the idea that we should keep the government out of marriage, at least to the extent that they keep out of other contracts. (Judges will still need to get involved during some/most divorces, etc.)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
You're apparently confusing "liar" with "person telling me the truth but I don't want to think about it because it's a really long ways off". The fact that everyone predicts SS will, in fact, backs up his statement. The question is, and always has been, when.
Actually, saying that the Social Security fund will go bankrupt is indeed a lie, because no matter what date you choose to believe, that is the date when the Social Secuirty fund will continue to pay out, but at only 70% of current benefits. Due to the interest on the fund and the pay in, Social Security will never go "bankrupt." For Bush and other Republicans to use that word is completely misleading.
Furthermore, according to the White House's own economic projections (which they insist are correct because they show that making the tax cuts permament will help the economy), the Social Security fund will never experience a shortfall. So, which is it? If you believe permament tax cuts are going to help the economy, then you have to believe that Social Security is in no trouble at all. Or, if you believe Social Security is in trouble, then you have to believe that the tax cuts should not be made permament. The fact that the White House uses whatever projections are "convenient" for making their points smacks of pure politics.
Yeah, but you've got 30 years to get it right. this, is NOT getting it right, unless you absolutely adhere to "some action, even the wrong action is better than no action".
This administration sure believes that.
I suppose we all hear what we want to hear but if you evaluate what he SAID and not what the news folks said, he said any idea was on the table. The main thrust of that portion of his speech was that it was going down the tubes and SOMETHING must be done. I like the fact that instead of saying "It's broke, it's the democrats fault" he said (paraphrased of course), "It's broke, and we need to figure out how to fix it. I have an idea but I'll listen to anyone".
What's the matter with that? Would it be better if he said "It's broken and I have no ideas..."
You'll have that sometimes...
Really? I'll submit that while it's a flawed system, the same can be said of many social programs, especially when we're trying to apply New Deal economics to today's markets.
But that doesn't mean it's time to do away with the whole thing. What I should've said was, if you oppose Bush's idea of SS reform, then, you're only playing politics - and this "with us or against us" administration certainly believes it has the clout to paint its opponents that way.
I don't see how you can have an option to take money out of a system that will already have a shortfall / be broke in 50 years, and somehow not come up in the red, even sooner than if we keep the current system and stop spending the cash set aside for it like it's a fucking money tree for Bush's wars.
When did he say he wanted to "do away with the whole thing"?
Furthur, his plan is to allow people to "opt-out" of to a certain level and put that money elsewhere. (which I would prefer) I would much rather take a chance with my money than let my government take a chance with it. I mean, your social security is YOUR money. Wouldn't you like to be in control of as much of it as you can?
Plus, politicians play politics. Especially now-a-days when the democrats are outnumbered. They said themselves that they are going to "draw a line in the sand" on this issue. Well how open minded can you be staring at a line in the sand. Although I agree that the present administration has a with-us-or-against-us policy, so do the democrats. That's how politics work.
You'll have that sometimes...
I've heard that one from a few of my coworkers as well. I'm not opposed to those who are "not indigent or needy" (wait 'til you get to be 70 after this administration is done, you might be more likely to be one of the two) OPTING out of the system. If you make enough money and think you can do a better job of it, sure.
I don't think though, that's what most people are thinking. The thought seems to be "I'm tired of PAYING for the poor or elderly." at times it smacks of selfish greed. Social Security is equated as a tax for welfare. It's not. It's a form of pension. In principle, it's not much different than drawing a pension from a company. A certain amount of current wages go INTO that pension plan to pay the retirees.
That's the way the system is. Today's workers pay the pension of yesterdays workers, as tomorrow's workers will pay the pension of ours. It's not a tax. Besides, what protection to people who DON't have big fat 401k's and IRA's and are working for next to minimum wage have?
Add to that the fact that Americans are notoriously poor savers, so now you're going to force people who full may not understand the dynamics of money, and in some cases don't make enough to save to plan for a retirement future? Everyone in society isn't going to grow up an be a millionaire.. Society requires people to perform different duties at different levels of compensation. Social pension makes sense when you consider that.
My grandmother worked in a steel mill in the midwest, and for TRW, only to watch her pensions
evaporate. In her later years she had to depend on cleaning the homes of those who sure as hell didn't have to worry about retirement to supplement her income from SS. Otherwise she'd have been working til she was 80, or to death just to live.
Those are the fears I have, that the latter will become much more common not by the insolvency of SS, but by privitization.
Blacker than my baby girl's stare. Black like the veil that the muslimina wear. Black like the planet that they fear...
And when is the last time he's listened to anyone that wasn't with his plan? Heck, name a potential voice of dissent in his administration? I'm not some bleeding heart liberal, but for a guy who says he believes in bipartisanship, you'd think his cabinet would reflect that. And there's precedent for it.
Case in point: Bill Clinton's Secretary of Defense in his second term was Bill Cohen. He's a Republican. In his first term, he was occused of not having enough "grown-ups" in his decision making team. He sought out well-respected Warren Christopher to round out his cabinet.
This guy promoted from within, replaced from within and just handed out medals like hotcakes. He also, as someone has said here has devastated the surplus (blame that all you want on the ressessive slowdown of 2000-2003, but there's no way we're in this deep a hole if he doesn't), Cut taxes.. DURING a time of war...
And, I'm going to trust his judgement with this?
Blacker than my baby girl's stare. Black like the veil that the muslimina wear. Black like the planet that they fear...
You know, every time I start to worry about GWB's brain, I watch a good news show (e.g., The News Hour) that pits opposing people at each other in a mature manner, and it makes me worry a little bit less. There are a lot of smart people in Washington--people who do understand the issues. They are fully aware of the criticisms and the conflicts, and some of them are even in Congress! The balances of power generally are working, it's just that we are in a rut, right now. The USA has been in many ruts before and survived. Just remember that these things can take a few years to wring themselves out. Last I checked, GWB cannot run for a third term, at least.
The time I will start worrying is if "emergency powers" gets mentioned--hopefully, that will never happen.
My biggest concern with "fixing" SS is the potential for corruption that comes in when you start having fund managers. Right now SS only buys treasury bonds, no conflicts of interest or anything to worry about there. Once it becomes more like a 401k manager there are going to be companies lobbying to have their stock make it into one of the funds (talk billions of dollars invested into companies).
Also think of the impact on the stock market. The goverment would be capable of swing stocks instantly higher or lower. Insider information on their transactions would be invaluble to private sector investors.
The government hasn't traditionally been good about controlling corruption. I'd imagine this would be a massive pork fest until some scandal broke out.
Save a life, sign your organ donor card.
If you think Hussein was that bad then you've fallen for the propaganda. Pol Pot made Hussein look like Santa Claus, yet we didn't invade and remove him from power. There are several dictators that were far worse than Hussein that we politely ignored. You've also forgotten that we've killed more civilians in Iraq than Hussein did, so what's your point? Oh yeah, the only difference between Bush and Hussein is one of scale.
The entire point of social security is to provide a safety net. It is there to be the last fall back in the event of total economic catastrophe.
ALL investments follow a simple rule. More risk = more reward. Social Security isn't even an investment, it's a wealth redistribution system designed such that individuals who pay into the system fund those who are no longer able to.
If we redesign the system to involve trust funds, we make is less secure. That lack of security derails the entire point of the program. It's called Social Security for a reason.
Sure, your account didn't loose a lot of value, but it could have. If it had, if your retirement accounts had been completely wiped out, you'd still have social security to fall back on.
What if social security had been wiped out? What would you do then? Keeping the social security fund from capsizing (following it's legally questionable and morally objectionable raiding by the GOP in the 1980s) is very important. Preserving its character as the last, best defense against economic failure is yet more important. Re-engineering the system into a stock and bond fund only serves to provide security to the securities industry. Bankers make billions and Grandma's monthly check is tied... no matter how loosely... to the fickle whim of the stock market.
That's not security. That's not the point. That's not what we should be doing.
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
Pol Pot made Hussein look like Santa Claus, yet we didn't invade and remove him from power.
Surely your not suggesting that one inaction warrants further inaction. We can all agree that Pol Pot was bad. What I can't agree with is the notion that since the world ignored him they should ignore all future tyrants.
The world needs some housecleaning. Sadly the U.N. isn't up to the task as evidenced by history.
You can call Bush a chimp, a liar, a baby-killer and get modded "insightful", but dare to criticize his critics, and you get modded into oblivion.
Gotta love the zero tolerance here. This is place is worse the DU.
Please, just turn your television off. Or if you leave it on, please avoid any channels which are owned by a gigantic corporation...wait...thats pretty much all of em. Yeah, better leave it off. At least for the next few days.
Why should you turn the TV off? Well, for numerous reasons, but the main reason being that the next week will be a neverending stream of propaganda to give you the impression that it's a miraculous, historic, unprecedented turnout of Iraqis who are experiencing freedom for the first time. There will be shitloads of rhetoric, incessant self-fellating and praise about the red, white, and the blue...
This is all bullshit.
Here are facts you will never hear come out of Aaron Brown's mouth...never uttered by any Faux News commentator...never scrolled across the screen in between Robert Blake trial footage and the interview with the teacher that had sex with the student...
We have killed at least 15,000 innocent Iraqis. This is a fact.
In perspective...5 times the amount of people we lost on 9/11.
And Iraq had absolutely ZERO involvement in the 9/11 attacks. So how can any of this be justified?
How can you expect the families and friends of these innocent Iraqis to just "forgive and forget?" Would you ask the 9/11 victims to forgive Osama?
Open your fucking eyes people...we all have blood on our hands.
We can't keep draping ourselves in the flag and shield ourselves from the reality of our government. We can't put ourselves on this pedestal and demonize those who kill, and at the same time kill just the same.
According to figures recorded by the Iraq Ministry of Health, from July 2004 - Jan 2005, 3274 civilians have been killed. Out of those civilians, 1233 were killed by insurgents. 2041 were killed by coalition forces.
Who is the bad guy? Who is the enemy? Please someone, answer the fucking question.
Why are we better?
This election is complete bullshit. You can not force democracy with the barrel of a gun. Democracy must not be delivered by a foreign hand. It ceases to be democracy. This is Empire. Why is this not bothering anyone??
Where is the fucking dissent? Where are the voices of the other side..the reality based community? Where have all the hippies gone? When did the spirit of this nation get replaced with a bunch of complacent, detached, ignorant, apathetic FOOLS?
Have you ever heard of Al-Jazeera? Well, they are a news channel in the Middle East, and they are very controversial as they spin their news towards a certain viewpoint of the world. Specifically, they gather their facts and present the news in a format which is construed as "propaganda." They believe that a foreign nation does not have the right to invade another, force it's government upon it, and kill thousands of innocent civilians in the process. Because of this belief, they show footage of dead and maimed Iraqi women and children, and other videos you will never see on any channel you can reach on your remote. They believe that if people are in a war, then simply broadcasting the results of the war should be not only allowed, but encouraged.
Why does our media not feel the same?
Why can we let our government kill others in our name, and yet seeing the murders is "propaganda" and "anti-American?"
Americans are so fucking detached, but pictures make a difference. 9/11 proved that. In perspective, 3000 people, while serious grief is felt for those who fell, is not that many people on the grand scale of things. Many more people die of many more causes for many more preventable reasons.
But the point is, the pictures inflated the trauma. If the movies of the plane crashes, the jumping people, the screaming, crying families...if the pictures were not available the sense of grief would have seriously diminished.
And now this quagmire in Iraq. We have killed 15,000 innocent civilians...yet...let me pose to you a question...
When is the last time you saw a movie of an Ir
Actually, I think you make a good point. Bush's detractors learned a lot of this behavior from Clinton. Clinton was always trying to twist words and semantics. Now it has got to the point where people think that "freedom" is a code-word for "baby killing" or something.
The definition of these words is widely known. If you want to know how he defines the word, go find a freaking dictionary.
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
Really? I'll submit that while it's a flawed system,
I'd submit that it hasn't been a flawed system since the 1980s when we repaired it the last time. What is flawed is the neoliberal and neoconservative attempt to steal money out of the system by calling it a loan and then never paying back that loan.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
This guy promoted from within, replaced from within and just handed out medals like hotcakes. He also, as someone has said here has devastated the surplus (blame that all you want on the ressessive slowdown of 2000-2003, but there's no way we're in this deep a hole if he doesn't), Cut taxes.. DURING a time of war...
We were not in a time of war during his "handout", which by the way I was against. Plus, his point is that the government shouldn't have to bail out a program like SS, since it should be set up to take care of itself. If the government does have to bail out the program, then it's not doing the job it was intended to do, which was to provide retirement benefits without using taxes outside the SS structure.
You'll have that sometimes...
This comment is (mostly) spot on.
The reason Dems lose is they call people stupid, stupid.
Democracy is a popularity contest and you won't get people to like you by constantly calling them "bigots," "ignorant," or "rednecks." Dems alienate the voters they need.
Between this and bypassing a democratic votes with court cases and judicial edicts, it is obvious that the Dems consider themselves better than the voters and distain the voters. The voters (as dumb as you think they are) realize that this is the Dems opinion of them, and therefore don't vote for them.
The Dems in the 60s/70s had a vision of what they wanted America to be. Now they only hate America. They wait for others to come up with solutions and then merley complain about those solutions. They have no message aside from anger and hate.
No one has any reason to vote for them. At best they only have a reason to vote against the other party (Reps). That strategy did not work in 2004.
As long as comments like the parent and this get MODed down and ignored, the Reps will win election after election.
Keep MODing them down.
"You've also forgotten that we've killed more civilians in Iraq than Hussein did, so what's your point?"
Your ignorance boggles the mind...
Had that article been about Islam (and I could basically convert the article to a believable one about Islam by running a few global substiutions), it would've been modded down and called hateful. As it is, it's modded up. It's a pure good ol' fashioned troll, without showing compromise or humility. It's on the same level as Michael Moore, just a little bit smarter.
My biggest problem with both sides of the political fence is the lack of compromise. No one can admit where the other one is right. People always complain about how this country is so polarized, but never want to do anything about it on a small scale. The first thing to do to stop the division is to compromise, but instead of actually compromising , most people will continue doing what they do and sluffing off any accountability to other people. That article sounds credible, but hot damn if it isn't willing to show any compromise or present the other side of the argument.
If you want to make things better, you have to start taking action in the most minute of ways. Instead of saying "OMG, the Iraq war is all for naught. Bush is awful" (in more words), make some damn compromise about it, and give credit where credit is due. If Bush's actions contributed to something positive, give the man some damn credit.
Same goes for republicans as well. Instead of defensively praising Bush at every step, point out where he could have done better.
Accountability goes hand in hand with compromise. Accept that you are accountable for any change you want to have happen. You don't have to act on a global level to promote change. Let's stop the polarity of the nation one person at at a time, by promoting compromise. As an example: if you want the planet to be clean, then don't litter. I see so much fucking hypocrisy with things like that. As an example, people talking about how corporation xyz is ruining the environment, but then go around and litter or dirty the environment themselves. Integrity and accountability start with you at the smallest level.
One of the best examples of a place with lack of accountability is Slashdot. The editors act like a bunch of little kids who bitch and bitch and bitch but never want to show they can do better than those they complain about. If you are the eternal critic no one is going to take you seriously. It all starts with compromise. I'm sure the powers at be are convinced that the bias and unprofessionalness of Slashdot today is much of its drawing power and are hesitant to bring any change. I enjoy Slashdot, but man it could go for a serious overhaul on many fronts.
Meh whatever. Forgive the somewhat disjointed nature of my post. I could write a lot more on all of this, and I'm sure there some holes in my points, but just get my gist and I'll be happy.
I'm a conservative. More specifically, I am a fiscal conservsative, but socially liberal. I believe in the power of capitalism, but I think that the extremes of capitalism must be moderated by the state, i.e., child labor laws are a good thing, etc.
I am also a registered Republican, although I am quite out of touch with my party. Or rather I should say that my party has become quite out of touch with the values it once held dear. It talks the talk, but it no longer walks the walk.
I also have been following the growth of the Religious Right in my party. What started as a marriage of political convenience, as a coalition, has turned into a theocracy. No longer are the members of my party governed by enlightened self-interest, but by blind ideological and theological faith in George Bush.
You speak of compromise. Would you compromise with the terrorists? Would you negotiate with Bin Laden? Can you really trust anyone for whom the ends always justifies the means? So, how should we compromise with our own domestic homegrown fundamentalists? What liberties should we give away to appease them? How much corporate welfare is acceptable? Which lies are acceptable to justify war? By compromise, you mean we should allow Bush to dismantle Social Security just a little bit?
Compromise and negotiation are possible with a reasonable person on the other side of the table. When you realize how insane the Bush agenda really is, you realize that there is no compromise.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
This means no one is going to insure me from an American invasion.... I mean, liberation. After all, my country is going to hell in a hand basket, gay marriage, relaxed dope laws, liberal policies.
Outside of this particular time and place, I don't think marriage has much at all to do with romantic love. It has always been primarily about responsibility for those other people who are your family. Marriage doesn't even have to be voluntary. It is nice if the people entering into a marriage relationship have a romantic interest in each other, it makes the bond stronger, but it is entirely optional. Frankly, the government doesn't care if you love each other just as long as you relieve the government of the burden of taking care of you, your spouse, or your kids. Some needs can be satisfied by the government, the marketplace, and other institutions, but quite a few people think marriage is better at it than such methods as government paying women so they can afford to stay home and have kids, or government deciding your course of medical treatment instead of your "next of kin", or government "disciplining" young men in correctional institutions because their fathers did not feel obligated to take on this task themselves.
I am old fashioned enough to think that fathers are better at some parenting tasks than mothers. Women may not need men, but children need fathers. But, then families are as diverse as individuals. What works for one family might not work at all for another. If they don't have fathers, they can have an extended family with uncles and grandfathers. That is what makes families so ideal for raising young people. Parents have much more in common with their kids both culturally and genetically than government bureaucrats. If anyone is going to understand a confused young person, it is much more likely to be his parent than a jailer or a social worker.
Individuals are not always able to do it all for themselves and free markets, governments and other such institutions don't always work as well as the family. Historically, parents are responsible for their children when young and children are responsible for their parents when old. Also, historically, people who enter into marriage assume certain responsibilities towards each other (and any children they may raise). These responsibilities can be considered a contract although different societies assign different legal interpretations to this contract. When marriages are weak, people must get their needs satisfied in other ways. Sometimes it's the government, sometimes it's the marketplace. I don't simply mean sex, I mean advocacy for someone who is not conscious, I mean financial support when one doesn't have their own income, I mean procreation and any other project that is better done with a partner than alone.
For extreme conservatives, government IS the family. The family is the oldest form of government, much older than monarchy, theocracy, and especially demococracy. A good family is a benevelent dictatorship, something that is very hard to achieve outside of a family. So conservatives are for anything that enables families to take care of themselves, leaving governments and other nonfamily institutions as a last resort. Many people recognize that not all families are very good at support of their more needy members. While conservatives might prefer that government fix the family (or allow the church to fix it), liberals think it is better for the government to step in and take its place. I, like most people, am somewhere in the middle. There really are some lousy families, but if you treat all individuals who need help as though they come from lousy families, people from good families might turn to outsiders when it might actually be better for everyone for them to get help from the family.
If outsiders make it very easy to go outside of the family for help, then the family has no need to exist and may go away. Likewise, for people who do not have a functional family, depriving them of a means to form one makes no sense either. In the issue of gay marriages, pro family and pro gay marriage advocates are on the same side if a more modern term such as civil unions can be accepted by all. This is not a liberal issue at all. It is just a new twist on the conservative notion of solving problems by encouraging the formation of strong family units.
If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
No it wouldn't. Everyone knows that radical factions of Islam have some beliefs that most sane people would find quite objectionable. Pointing that out isn't hate speech, as long as you don't generalize to include all Muslims. However, delusional Muslims don't make up a significant portion of the US electorate, whereas delusional Christians do.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.