2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures bomb books budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal portland mayor president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties timber payments transportation union university of oregon violence washington water wildfire women

These two people confirm what I think about marriage. Government has no business being in the marriage business. What two adults do ,within the other laws,is of no concern to the state. What is of concern of the state are children.
There should be no unplanned pregnancies. Having children should be licensed.Two people ,usually the responsible man and woman,should be signed up for the care of that child until the child can function as an adult(not 18years, until 25 years if a PhD is needed, forever if the child is disabled).Single parent families should be unusual as should foster children.Of course this will never happen.Rational approaches to problems never occurs.

posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context

To make independant parties work, we need some kind of "instant runoff" or preference voting to prevent voting for an independent assuring the election of the candidate you like the least.

posted 2 years, 10 months ago
view in context

This boy was not able to make decisions because he had been brainwashed.Brainwashing is essentially convincing someone of something for which there is no evidence.Teaching evolution,plate tectonics, big bang etc is not brainwashing because there is evidence. All religions use brainwashing but some are more malignant than others. This presents the problem when you don't challenge religions.If you don't challenge beliefs where there is no evidence, where do you draw the line? Why draw the line with this couple?

posted 3 years, 5 months ago
view in context