Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (128118)	11/28/2012 5:21:31 PM
From: koan	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

<<Democrats on the other hand are for gay marriage, because they are taking a moral stand and want to impose that on the whole nation. You see the difference>> No they aren't. They are taking a scientific stand. Gays are born that way and so society must make a place for them. It is a civil rights issue. Here is my take on social security. Most people just don't do a very good job of addressing their own retirement, and usually through no fault of their own. LIfe is full of unexpected experiences. Like 2008 when the middle class lost 40% of their wealth over night. So most just can't do any better. I see it all the time selling real estate. Smart good people who are old and just do not have much even though they worked hard their whole life.? I think what SS showed us is that having a solid state retirement program that everyone must pay into is sort of a necessity given the human condition.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (128118)	11/28/2012 6:47:57 PM
From: LLCF	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

I don't think the "pro-gay marriage" stand is so simple. Unfortunately at some point religions put "marriage" into the governments hands, presumably they institutionalized it into the fabric of government (law) as a "moral stance". If they had left it to religions... then each religion could do what they wanted and there would be not "government definition". They way it has morphed is there are all sorts of "perks" to being married dictated by the government, as well as the very definition that the government gets to futz with. It is RELIGION that screwed themselves by getting the government involved in the word "marriage". DAK