Why I Voted Yes

I voted yes on proposition 8. I did it for several reasons.

First, I believe in absolute truth and absolute morality. I do not believe morality is relative, depending on the circumstances of an individual's life. I believe there is a basic, universal moral law which brings consequences - good or bad - to people, depending on whether they follow it or not. This absolute morality is something that can be learned by all people, if sought after through both reason and faith. Don't stop reading! This is a big topic and one I have just begun exploring in my own mind, so I don't have flawless arguments, yet. But this absolute truth and morality, I believe, is a premise of pretty much all I do. So, i vote based on my moral views.

One of the truths I believe in is that marriage is the foundation of society. I'm not speaking of a loving relationship between two people. I'm speaking of a man and woman united together, often raising children. This marriage has been the basis of all successful societies. The family is the institution in which children learn about basic morality, justice, love, and all good things. True, this is the ideal and does not always happen, but no other organization or institution of man has been as successful at producing good people as the traditional family.

Many of society's recent ills show correlation with the falling apart of the family. Some may ask, "Have society's problems, such as widespread drug use, pornography, crime, increased anger and much more, been the result of the break-up of the family, or the cause?" I propose that the break-up of the traditional family is the cause.

With the family in such a precarious position, why do we want to experiment further? What evidence do we have that gay marriages will contribute to the well-being of society? I feel that the burden of proof lies with them. We know traditional marriage works. It worked for thousands of years. Only in recent decades, as our society has experimented with reforms, has the traditional family begun to deteriorate. Experimenting further is risky business.

Now to go from the slightly abstract to the facts. The legalization of gay marriages poses threats to both families and religious freedom. In Massachusetts, two events show this. First, the reading of a book about two princes marrying led to a lawsuit in which parents tried to control their children hearing about homosexuality. The court ruled that the parents cannot control what their children learn at school. When courts take away a parent's right over the education of their children, something is wrong. Public schools are there to assist parents in teaching their children, not to replace them or try to do the job better. Second, Catholic adoption agencies had to shut down because the state was forcing them to adopt children to gay couples, even though this is against the Catholic faith. Does this sound like freedom and tolerance to you?

Finally, people claim this is about equality, comparing it to the black civil rights movement. This argument is fundamentally flawed. First of all, one of the main arguments for black equality is that skin color does not mean a person acts, thinks, believes or is different in any meaningful way. It is simply skin color. But this does not work for homosexuals. Regardless of whether or not homosexuality is wrong, it cannot be compared to skin color. Skin color does not affect behavior, but the definition of homosexuality is a type of behavior. This is not about equality. it is an issue of a type of behavior.

Proposition 8 takes nothing away from homosexuals. It preserves marriage as it has existed for all of Western society. Justice and morality, as well as genuine Christian love, requires that we treat homosexuals like all other people - with respect and dignity. I do not hate gays. They are people just like anyone else. But I do not accept their behavior and will not accept that preserving marriage, the foundation of society, is somehow bigotry and a hate crime.

Please, comment and help me refine my argument.

Hope in Capitalism

This is a pretty amazing article about the financial crisis and it's relationship with our market system. There are some great quotes in here, especially in the last paragraph.

The Capitalist Manifesto

What should we base our votes on?

Probably not the economy.

There's Good News Out There

A Note of Optimism

I'm Scared

We are in trouble.

I gotta admit, the stuff I've been reading on economists blogs, such as The Big Picture and Greg Mankiw's Blog, is a bit one-sided. but I don't see much praise of these moves from anyone that understands the economy. And from my evaluation of it, this is a bad move. As Luigi Zingales put it, the government is creating a system "where profits are private, but losses are socialized." That doesn't sound like a good system to me. I love to benefit from my work. And in all honesty, the idea of not paying for the things that go wrong around me or because of me is very attractive. But I don't want others to pay for it. If it's a case of them or me, I will say me. Hence, if I'm willing to pay for my mistakes, I ask that others pay for their own. 

And more important than who pays for what is what happens when we pay for it. If I trip down the stairs and break my collar bone, rest assured, next time I'll walk down those stairs with extreme care. If I ride my bike without a helmet, crash, and get a concussion, next time I'll wear a helmet. And what encourages me? The pain. What if the pain were taken away? Well, I'd run recklessly down stairs and knock my brain around falling off the bike, and probably end up killing myself from all the injuries. The pain is a motivation to change. If we take the pain of this crash from those who are in a position to make sure it doesn't happen again, then they will not learn and we are in danger to face this again.

Of course, there is a degree to which I'll take on others losses and pains. I believe in service, in helping and loving my fellow man. I will work in soup kitchens, I will pay fast offerings, I will give time and money to help others. But that is on a personal, individual basis. I reject the government's right to force me to help others. 

And this differs from my personal willingness to serve in another way. I reject the government's right to take my money and help not the outcast and downtrodden, but the wealthy. This money is not going to help the poor. It is going to help the rich. 

We are in trouble. The capitalist system which has produced an incredibly wealthy and stable economy is being threatened by those who should protect it. But you can't trust politicians to think of the long-term. They are forced by short-term economic incentives (the need to get their constituent's vote in a month and a half) to think in the short-term. 

The market's up, but at what price?

I Like Your Thinking...

All right, now you can hear from someone who has a better idea what he's talking about:

Perhaps, It's Time to play Offense

So, here's the balanced idea. The government needs to step in to a degree. But it should do so in a way that limits the amount of our money it uses and it should let the market take care of bad business-men. Should we bail-out people who are bad at business? Does that help the economy in the long run?

More Beauracracy?

Obama wants more regulation

So, Obama wants more regulation, while McCain wants a government study. My honest opinion, as a highly educated economist (a total of 3 basic econ classes), is that the government should have as little involvement as possible. Government involvement is part of the reason we are in this mess. Granted, it's a complex issue I hardly understand. Let me say what I know, or have been told.

First, this housing crisis was one foreseen years ago. I remember walking with my dad through the frames of new houses on the edge of Simi, talking about how these house prices are being driven up not by actual demand, but by speculation. And that's exactly what it was. It was an unsustainable surge, because people simply couldn't afford to live in the houses they were getting. The supply of nice, big houses exceeded the demand.

Second, the government, in an effort to help out the mortgage market, set up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Their goal was to make it easier for people to get mortgages. The way it worked was, banks would sell people mortgages. Then Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would buy bundles of mortgages from the banks and sell them as securities to investors. So, the banks had no accountability. They simply had to get the commission. They sold mortgages to people they probably never would have sold them to if the bank had to care for the mortgage. The government helped out the mortgage market, all right.

Third, there is a natural business cycle. Over all of recorded economic history, there have been ups and downs. Sometimes everyone gets more prosperous. Sometimes everyone gets a little poorer. But time has proven, at least in the U.S., that despite every downturn, Americans have consistently gotten richer. This cycle will end as well, and the prosperous days will return.

So, eventually, as has happened several times in the past, the bubble burst. People realized that they were paying far more than the houses were worth. Something sparked someone to start selling, then others started selling. Mortgages became worthless because so many had been sold to people who couldn't pay them. The market began to unravel.

Now, is this the government's fault? No. Is it the banks? No. How about the buyers? No. Whose is it? Well, I feel everyone shares the blame. There was a lack of responsibility, long-term thought, and understanding of markets on all sides. 

The government made a move they didn't necessarily need to make. They stepped in on a market to make it more "fair." My opinion there? This should only be done very, very carefully, if ever. Despite my advanced economic understanding, this is a subject I need to study more about. I do feel, however, that if the market has driven prices up, there is a reason, and it has nothing to do with anyone taking advantage of anyone.

Banks made a big mistake. There were no short-term incentives to control who got mortgages, but they are now experiencing the long-term ones. Rest assured, no matter what the government does, banks and businesses will learn from the mistakes of their failed competitors and set their own regulations. It makes good business sense.

And of course, there is us - the consumers. It was consumers who began the speculating and bought things that they couldn't afford. Ok, maybe not you and I, but many people not too different from us. What this comes down to is simple advice that we have been told by parents, teachers, advisors, and even our modern-day prophet - don't buy what you can't afford. Stay out of debt. Homes are wise investments, but you have to be able to at least pay the interest rate. Spending money wisely would probably solve a lot of problems in today's economy.

The financial market is reeling. It is in the low part of the business cycle. Hopefully it doesn't get worse. But it will get better. And I don't think the government is going to get it better. I don't think my tax dollars are going to save anyone's butt. My hard work will save mine. And it will be the hard work of the average American that gets us out of this mess. Each man, working for his wage, for his personal profit. That is the solution. If we work hard enough to provide for ourselves, not only will we personally make money, but we will produce something. That thing which we produce is what we pass on to the next generation. It is what they will build off of to be far more prosperous than us. But if we sit on our butts and try to make money off others, then it will fall apart. Someone somewhere has to produce. Someone has to seek profit through their honest hard work. If no one does, then it falls apart.

So, what is my solution? Well, I have a lot to learn in my field. There is a lot I don't understand. But I don't think the government should do too much. They should do something. While the business cycle always has and always will exist, it hasn't been nearly as bad since the Great Depression, when the government began stepping in. But limited involvement is important. The simple reason is, I feel, because of the lack of information the government has. They don't understand the complex economy. No one does. So if they try to control it, it will be like building levees around New Orleans - doomed to failure. They can affect it, but they have to accept the fact that collapses such as these are inevitable - just like hurricanes. Of course, one big difference is that while people can't cause hurricanes, government regulations can actually cause economic problems. So, both McCain and Obama must be very wary of where they step. I'm sure they both seek a better economy. The fact is, it's very difficult to tell how to bring that about and impossible to force it. I think McCain's more cautious and careful approach is better because it won't accomplish much straight away. The slower it takes the government to step in, the better.

In the meantime, don't let your investments rely entirely on the stock market.

The Winds of Change

I think the nature of my blog might begin to change soon. I decided I want people to read my blog. People tend to be more interested in reading about other people's lives than they are in reading about politics and economics. Not that i won't write about those things - that's part of who I am. But there will be updates on my life here. Soon...

The War We Wage

I have just returned home from the front lines of a war against ignorance and darkness. I spent two years doing all I could to bring the light I enjoy into the lives of others. I came home to find that the frontline extends to not only my home nation or state, but into my very community, home, and heart. Satan is relentlessly attacking and his efforts are accelerating. As new media tools come into play, there is no longer a sideline. The line has been drawn and the people of the world are taking sides. Whether it be on the topic of marriage or family or temples or truth, there are constant battles around us. Today I continue by battle for truth and light.

Mormons Exposed - Famous Mormons and Mormon Beliefs

Home Sweet Home

Well, I made it home. After 2 years in Sydney, it's a little strange to be back. It's nice, though. I can do things like watch tv, get on the internet, and sleep in. I'm enjoying it a little now. The next step is to figure out a bit of a schedule so I can still get stuff done. How weird to be home...

Sum of All Fears

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | US claims it is 'ready' for Korean missile test

One thing I have yet to see any newspaper report is exactly how far 9300 miles is. A quick estimate using Google Earth showed me something that convinced my North Korea should not have nuclear weapons or long-range missiles. A range of 9300 miles cover all of Asia, Europe, Africa, North America, and the northeern part of South America. By all means, take this weapon away from them!

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | US claims it is 'ready' for Korean missile test

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | US claims it is 'ready' for Korean missile test

One thing I have yet to see any newspaper report is exactly how far 9300 miles is. A quick estimate using Google Earth showed me something that convinced my North Korea should not have nuclear weapons or long-range missiles. A range of 9300 miles cover all of Asia, Europe, Africa, North America, and the northeern part of South America. By all means, take this weapon away from them!

Maggie Gallagher on Mitt Romney and Gay Marriage on National Review Online

Maggie Gallagher on Mitt Romney and Gay Marriage on National Review Online

Mitt Romney has the argument I've been looking for and slowly developing for 3 years. Marriage is about the children, not the adults. Here it is! Ac lear argument about the real issue at stake. I don't need to say much. Mitt Romney says it all.

Responsibility?

BBC NEWS | Europe | Fears of Poland's gay community

"I want to live in a country which respects human rights."

Ever heard of human responsibility? The liberals in support of gay marriage go off about human rights, but they ignore the fact that along with these rights come responsiblities. Or they do not recognize which responsibilities are necessary to preserve any human society. I can understand the anger against those who threaten homosexuals. That's a righteous anger against those who simply hate. but there is a failure to recognize that there are those who hate the action because it does not promote the continuance of the human race. It promotes sheer self-indulgence, nothing else.

There is a lumping together of those who oppose homosexuals and those who oppose homosexuality. There is a difference it is an important one. Homosexuality is a deviant behavior. It is a sickness. It causes to people to seek happiness in something that, ultimately, will not bring it to them. But this does not mean we need to hate them. They are making a mistake, but hating them will not save anything.

It's like alcoholism. I know someone who was an alcoholic. He struggled with it greatly. It was a deviant behavior that was ruining his chances of a happy life. But his family didn't give up on him. They recognized that there was a difference between the man and the problem. They knew that this man, after you got past the alcohol, was good. His family continued to love him and help him. This doesn't mean they accepted the problem. Loving him and rejecting the problem was possible and necessary. Eventually, he overcame the problem. He is no longer an alcoholic and today is a great man.

We need to look at homosexuality the same way. We can't just reject those who struggle with the problem. We can and need to love them. But this does not mean we accept the problem. It is still a problem. So, we love the person and do our best to help them overcome this challenge. This deviance is not a central part of their personality, their essence, their soul. it can be taken away and they will still be a whole person. In fact, they will be overcoming something that was holding them back.

The great crime of homosexuality is that it focuses a person on themself. It is all about fulfilling their own desires. That is why I believe the only time and place for sex is after marriage. At this point, it's no longer about the individuals involved. It's about the couple. Or, at the least, it is a great deal more likely. Many will point out that many get divorce, have affairs, or simply do not wait until marriage. But that's not the point. Giving up on loyal heterosexual marriage simply because not everyone met its requirements is stupid. The fualt isn't in the institution. It's in humankind. We fall short of the ideal. And destroying the ideal simply because not everyone can meet it doesn't solve the problem. it makes it worse. Now no one has anything to strive for. The rules and bounds that kept society in check, that limited teenage pregnancy, the spread of STDS. fatherless children, divorce, etc. have been abandoned beause they didn't work perfectly, because they were to restrictive. People ignored their true purpose and called it meaningless tradition based on the desire for rich men to gain power over others. And today we see the results. I can lay, with confidence, a great deal of the problems of today's world at the feet of liberals who sought greater freedom, ignoring consequences.

I want human rights, but let's remember that along with every right comes responsibility and consequence.

Family

So, I was thinking about what we need to do to preserve this nation. Considering my audience, I probably don't have to explain what I mean. It's fairly clear that we're falling apart. So what's the solution? Well, I don't have one for many issues. Especially for things like Iraq, Iran, oil, nuclear weapons, Hugo Chavez, etc. Those are big questions that I don't know enough about, though I continually learn more about them and hope, someday, to have some ideas.

There is something more basic that needs to be done, though. All of those things, they're outside forces. They are all partially controlled or entirely controlled by other nations or forces that we can't control, no matter how hard we try. They present a danger and we need to do something, but we're limited in what we can do. And, most importantly, they are not the greatest threat.

The biggest threat, the most basic, is within our own society. It's the fabric that binds this nation together, that binds any nation together. It's the foundation upon which all communities, from the smallest neighborhood to the greatest nation, are built on. Once again, considering my audience, you know what I'm talking about. The family.

Our society is falling apart. I don't need to list what's happening. We all know it. We've seen it, we've experienced it. It's affected me deeply. Thankfully, I don't face any of the problems, but I've seen one of my closest friends struggle with the results of a shattered family. It's not easy and it's not pretty. He's in good shape now, but he will forever be changed by his experiences.

We don't want this. It causes too much pain. I hate it. I hate watching my friends struggle with divorced parents. I hate watching friends sleeping around. I hate watching friends lose brothers and sisters to drugs, alcohol, and whatever else is out there. I hate the excess of so much that is damaging this world. I hate the lack of everything this world needs.

What we need is a strong family for every person, for every child. Sure it's idealistic. So what? A 4.0 is idealistic. I bit more achievable, but idealistic. It's the ideal of every student. Those that don't strive for it, don't get it. Those who do, may not get it either. But are they worse off for trying? Usually, no, if they didn't sacrifice more important things for it. So, the ideal is a benefit. It is our goal and what we will strive for. Settling for anything less is failure.

So, the beginning? Strengthen marriage. You can't do much with any family without a good mother and father. That's right, mother and father. That's your only option. Mother and father. Anything else has nothing to do with the kids and is a selfish union for the sake of the ones entering into it. Anything else defies what is natural, good, and sacred. Here is the main reason that a Federal Marriage Amendment is a good idea. It strengthens marriage. Because of the wording of the amendment, some have expressed fears that any relationship between two people besides marriage will be discouraged. Ask any quality sociologist if this is a bad thing.

This is a great start. It is a reminder that marriage is about more than just two people being in love. Anybody can fall in love. That's easy. It's also easy to fall out of love. There really isn't a lot to it, alone. What makes it significant is when there is a commitment, a covenant between the two that fall in love. Then, there is something that will last. The commitment plus the love unite to create something that will last, in society, for all time and, in the church, for all eternity.

What this society has forgotten is the commitment part. They're all about falling in love. People fall in love left and right. And there's no discrimination in what they fall in love with. And as a result, we have millions of lonely, broken hearts, with painful ties that don't just affect the lives of the poor, disillusioned lovers, but also the children they conceived and the other lovers they betrayed and...well, you get the picture. It's not a desirable world.

So, this amendment can help remind the nation of the commitment. Define marriage officially. A lot of people complain, "well, there's not mention of marriage in the constitution." Well, duh. That's because up until the 1960's, people had enough common sense to know what marriage was. And then the experimenting started, walls that never should have been torn down were torn down, and the resulting flood washed away the firm definition of marriage that has existed for all of human history, with some notable exceptions (mostly notable because every society that allowed exceptions collapsed shortly after). So, with that public definition gone, we need to write it down more firmly than just in the public consensus. It needs to be in stone. Well, on paper and in computers. But, something tangible which cannot be violated. Namely, the Constitution.

Once we have this definition, we can move on. But, that's for another post. I hope you enjoyed my rambling. I just kind of laid out the thoughts as they came to me. Hope it makes sense.