The more people hate Sarah Palin, the more I realize that I love her. I did not like how she resigned from the governorship of Alaska though. I thought that was too premature. I will though support her over Obama any day of the week.

With her new book Going Rogue already out, I'm going to conclude to you why she's right for America.

Why she's right on abortion:
In the Declaration of Independence, it says that all men are created equal. It doesn't say they were born equal. Roe v. Wade is a rejection of the foremost unalienable right.

Why she's right on same sex marriage:
Marriage is an institution promoting a biological family. Homosexual couples do not need marriage to tell each other how much they love each other. However, same-sex marriage advocates think that they can redefine the family structure to fit in with their homosexual agenda.

Why she's right on the separation of church and state:
I think if you can prove something secularly, you will win the argument. Invoking God is an argument from authority and although it is surprisingly effective, logically it is not. I do think that government officials should not be prohibited from having religion influence them, because like it or not, religion and even the lack thereof can affect our thinking, so it's important to know how exactly someone like Sarah Palin thinks.

Note: I need to be clear on one thing. While the U.S. government has every right to put "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, that doesn't make them right in their thinking that there is a God. You may be wonder, "Why is Genetic_Code arguing against the separation of church and state when he's a staunch materialist?" Well, I'm also a moral absolutist, and I would hate to see the government pander to moral subjectivists, moral relativists, and moral nihilists, because they're simply wrong and no progress could ever be done coherently through those ethical beliefs. In this way, I can understand how those in charge of the government would refuse to bow down to the postmodern notion that we must pander to everyone who disagrees with us. We must only pander to reason.

Why she's right on guns:
Government can only enforce the use of guns, not the possession of guns. Guns don't kill people anymore than pencils make spelling mistakes.

Why she's preventing terrorism by any means possible:
I assume this comes from someone who believes torturing an immoral terrorist to be wrong. I don't have to debate it, because the argument is self-defeating. If doing wrong to something that's wrong in order to correct the error is wrong, then the one making the judgment call is truthfully the one being wrong.

Why she's right on abstinence only sex education:
High schoolers aren't the age of consent. Therefore, they shouldn't be taught something they're not fully aware of the consequences of what they're doing.

Why she's right on the death penalty:
A killer deserves to be killed. What more needs to be said?

Why she's right on sending more troops:
We started too large of a war in Iraq to leave it as we have done under the Obama administration, regardless if you agree with the premise the war was started on.

A man was riding his Harley along a California beach when suddenly the sky cleared above his head and, in a booming voice, the Lord said,"Because you have tried to be faithful to me in all ways, I will grant you one wish."

The biker pulled over and said, "Build a bridge to Hawaii so I can ride over anytime I want."

The Lord said, "Your request is materialistic. Think of the enormous challenges for that kind of undertaking; the supports required reaching the bottom of the Pacific and the concrete and steel it would take! It will nearly exhaust several natural resources. I can do it,but it is hard for me to justify your desire for worldly things. Take a little more time and think of something that could possibly help mankind."

The biker thought about it for a long time. Finally, he said, "Lord, I wish that I and all men could understand women; I want to know how she feels inside, what she's thinking when she gives me the silenttreatment, why she cries, what she means when she says nothing's wrong, why she snaps and complains when I try to help, and how I can make a woman truly happy."

The Lord replied,"You want two lanes or four lanes on that bridge?"

This is a very good song by Boys Like Girls featuring Taylor Swift. It's called Two Is Better Than One, from the album Love Drunk.

I remember what you wore on the first day
You came into my life
And I thought hey
You know this could be something
'Cause everything you do and words you say
You know that it all takes my breath away

And now I'm left with nothing
So maybe it's true, that I can't live without you
Maybe two is better than one
But there's so much time, to figure out the rest of my life
And you've already got me coming undone
And I'm thinking two, is better than one

I remember every look upon your face,
The way you roll your eyes, the way you taste
You make it hard for breathing
'Cause when I close my eyes and drift away
I think of you and everythings okay
And finally now, believing

And maybe it's true, that I can't live without you
Well maybe two is better than one
But there's so much time, to figure out the rest of my life
And you've already got me coming undone
And I'm thinking two, is better than one

Yeah, yeah

I remember what you wore on the first day
You came into my life
And I thought hey

Maybe it's true, that I can't live without you
Maybe two is better than one
But there's so much time, to figure out the rest of my life
And you've already got me coming undone
And I'm thinking

Oooh I can't live without you
'Cause baby two is better than one
There's so much time, to figure out the rest of my life
And I've figured out with all that's said and done
Two, is better than one

Two is better than one

I haven't been around here much as of late and most of that can be attributed to vacation, but a big factor has to be with my complete ineptitude to yield a single cohesive argument. No matter how much I read into a subject, my mind draws blanks whenever I'm replying to debate someone. My text field remains empty although my mind is spinning around without churning much cohesive thought that would be easily digested by the average viewer. I prefer simplicity but when a topic diverts from simplicity and becomes multi-faceted, I then can't keep my thoughts straight.

Some issues I believe I can argue decently, specifically superstition and abortion especially approached from a non-technical perspective. But hey, I'm not an embryologist so I have to yield to an expert on that field. I simply can't put into words what they first wrote. I'm capable, but for the life of me, my brain fails its capacity and I struggle immensely. I can't argue other technical subjects such as health care reform, global warming, or evolution. Some issues I can argue on but the rhetoric seems empty, as though I'm arguing a position that I necessarily shouldn't hold, such as my opposition to same-sex marriage. Maybe it's because I have no interest in the specifics; only the details concern me.

GameSpot's a horrible place for arguing anyway. The place is over-run by liberals, atheists, and liberal atheists that, for the most part, can't think for themselves, yet think of themselves as Freethinkers or of some variation of the term. Thinking for yourself involves critical thinking. It does not mean something you believe something because it's progressive or it's popular to do it or it's associated with an elitist way of thinking. That isn't critical thinking. There are some exceptions to this intellectual depravity. I find some liberals to be intellectually informed, even if I can't say it for myself why I believe they're wrong and thus misinformed.

I've got to be honest. I'm not the most intelligent user on these forums. So to think that I could take on multiple users in a debate is unbearable. I can't fathom that, because I simply don't have the tolerance to deal with that many people, that I just shrink. The irony is, is that I'm just as guilty of believing something just because someone in the national spotlight does so too, basically. Health care reform is a big issue that I need to be better acquainted with, yet my passive-aggression lures me but repels me at the smell of details, and I immediately resign from my search, still believing myself to be a critical thinker, which I'm not.

GameSpot's not even a decent place to argue. There are too many users who can't even spell, whose typing errors are so common, that I have to ignore their post completely in most cases. The problem is is that I don't know many forums that don't have these occurrences. It's as if I'm stuck with GameSpot because I feel as though I'm married to the site thanks in part to this wedding ring, my account. Another irony is that I find myself in agreement with certain GameSpot users a lot in many situations that I feel compelled not to respond to threads because they give their response in much better words than I do. Tsk, tsk. Oh well.

Based as it is on the principle of complementarity, marriage is also about a great deal more than love. That "great deal" encompasses, above all, procreation. The timeless function of marriage is childbearing and child-rearing, and the best arrangement ever developed to that end is the marital union between one man and one woman. -Bill Bennet

First of all, marriage is an institution of procreation, establishing first and foremost the characteristic of a stable biological family. "Love" is certainly a trait that should be held in marriage, but marriage isn't required to love someone. Any individual can love another, whether it be their spouse, their best friend, or even their dog. This does not mean, however, that humans should begin marrying their best friends or their pets. That's not what marriage entails, although it often is portrayed as such by same-sex marriage advocates.

What same-sex marriage proponents are advocating is a depreciation of the term "marriage" to include the most artificial rendering of the term "love". Love doesn't require marriage. Love also doesn't require sex. This idea that the three are entwined is false. Furthermore, although it is a sad state of our era, sex no longer requires marriage. Sex has been reduced to mere practical purposes without any regard for the social distractions that it may cause in relationships. Materialistically speaking, a rocky relationship is overshadowed by satisfactory sex. So, as long as the endorphins are kicking in, humans have this unfounded tendency to think that it's okay to be uncommitted to their partner.

But if sex doesn't come with the stigma that it requires marriage, why do homosexuals feel the need to get married? It surely can't be some religious belief. If it's that, then there's no reason to debate my secular side. I'll just let the Bible quote itself for me and leave it at that. Hoo hum diddely doo, neighborino. Not until those pesky secular liberals banish Christianity will that happen. I kid though. Perhaps they want to be committed to an individual? While marriage does entail commitment, it also entails procreation. Additionally, commitment, much like love and sex, don't require marriage, so this idea that these words are entwined with each other are once again false.

--

Now, I will proceed to post and refute some of the popular arguments made by same-sex marriage advocates.

Traditional marriage denies same-sex couples legal rights

Marriage is a legal institution in addition to a social institution.Loving v. Virginiaconfirms just this. Additionally, benefits spring up from marriage.I have to recognize the Supreme Court's decision. Therefore I cannot deny the rights withheld from same-sex couples, but honestly, I find this to be an irrelevant issue. If, there is something that compromises homosexuals to a degree that needs to be changed, then that issue should be taken with the law. It's the laws that should be changed, not marriage.

Now, I am going to be ignorant on the remainder of this issue, because I have not severely taken an in-depth look at the benefits of marriage now can I affirmatively say that they should be allowed for people of different sexuality, and I don't feel it within my power to tackle it issue by issue. The list is a long one, if you're interested.

http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/ObjectID/E0366844-7992-4018-B581C6AE9BF8B045/catID/F896EE61-B80C-4FE1-B1687AC0F07903BA/118/304/ART/

It's bigotry; discriminatory

And...? It's also bigotry to outlaw public waste. Pornography. Prostitution. Et cetera. Just because it's different doesn't mean it has to be tolerated. I think bigotry gets a negative wrap personally, and maybe understandably in some cases, but there is a tolerance level which should be set faithfully by society and when that tolerance level is violated, it's understandable to feel, perhaps, a little outraged over the matter.

--

Now that I've defended my argument, I will put in check certain arguments from traditional marriage proponents that are a bit lacking and people who agree with me should steer clear from in terms of using them as actual debate points.

Homosexuality is wrong

I agree; I believe sex outside of reproductive purposes is wrong. To add onto that, I will bring up that I also think premarital sex is wrong; it's akin to serving in the military without commitment to your country. However, I just can't imagine myself advocating laws being passed to outlaw premarital sex. Likewise, the same is true with sodomy. There are a couple reasons: (1) It would infiltrate the privacy of a couple's bedroom. (2) It just sounds Orwellian (see: Junior Anti-Sex-League); although this is erroneous thinking at best. (3) Humans are flawed. Some are going to break protocol and spend the night together. What, then, shall we do if they break the law? What consequences should we bestow onto them? Should we stone them? Surprisingly, there are no Old Testament laws in favor of stoning a young couple cheating marriage (unless they're both men; lesbians get a break). There's no practical response to premarital sex, except maybe counseling, but that's rehabilitation, not punishment. Likewise, there's no practical response to homosexuals actively engaging in sex.

Homosexuality is a choice

There's some debate to this, with scientific evidence claiming that homosexuality could be part of our genetic makeup. I haven't really looked into this.There's a difference between sexuality and sexual behavior.

Satan supports same-sex marriage; God supports traditional marriage

Being that I'm a "there is no such thing as a God; I have perfectly logical configurations why God can't exist; shut up with your riff raf; I don't need to hear it!" kind of atheist, the use of God and/or Satan doesn't work well for people of my ilk, or normal atheists, or agnostics, or even liberal theists, not that nontheists are all liberal as I seem to imply. And I agree. However, if something is absolutely true, it is absolutely true regardless of your belief on other issues. It is irrelevant on other issues, and sometimes I get the impression that traditional marriage advocates preach to the choir; to the people that already agree with them on almost every issue for principle purposes. The "fact" that God supports traditional marriage should not therefore warrant that you have to show God must first exist in order to argue your point. It's irrelevant. Making irrelevant points part of your thesis threatens the loss of credibility of those who already stand against your irrelevant points. So all the atheists will be adamantly against what all the theists are doing for traditional marriage because they're doing it in the name of the Lord, and if you don't accept it, burn in hell with you and your queer partner. (Please note: exaggeration of fundamentalists).

I see this all of the time with abortion. Everyone likes to bring up contraception, but it's totally irrelevant to the issue. Advocating both abortion and abstinence-only education in the same breath as though they both were central to each other is a crash-and-burn argument, even if both abortion and abstinence-only education are both morally upstanding. One can be right without the other. As soon as one picks flaws on one issue, they might be lead to believe the other one is just as flawed.

This is obviously my most biased argument (in case you couldn't tell).