|
oops...must have clicked reply instead of edit
|
On August 06 2010 05:16 BrownBear wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 04:49 Savio wrote:On August 05 2010 16:59 d_so wrote:On August 05 2010 15:40 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On August 05 2010 15:29 d_so wrote:On August 05 2010 14:42 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On August 05 2010 12:30 d_so wrote:On August 05 2010 12:16 Jibba wrote:
Majority vote referendums make a mockery out of republicanism.
The judiciary also has a role in protecting minorities. If you truly think majority population votes should be able to establish laws, then women still wouldn't be able to vote, jim crow laws would still exist, etc. The fact of the matter is that the general population is unfit to make legislation, which is exactly why we have a republic and not a direct democracy. yes. it's why i fear for california and am happy to have moved out. Every post I have read of your has angered me beyond what words can describe. You attempt to articulate yourself and justify oppressing other human beings. It is honestly one of the most appalling things I have ever read. When I read you talking about the "morality" of the issue it is the most irritating thing. Morality is such a vague personally defined notion that you should not cast onto others. I could hypothetically think its immoral to be black or Jewish, as unreasonable as either of those are. I swear to god, I don't see how you can try to be so rationale in your posts (mainly referring to the 08 ones) and then just ignore it when it matters. gay marriage quite simply does not effect you on a personal level. So its fine. You think its morally wrong, and you can sit in your corner and scuff about that all you want, but you damn sure should never allow your personal beliefs to infringe on the lives of others. Whether its a choice or not is not fucking up to you. Edit: And for the record, Gay marriage does not effect me so I don't really care that much about it because that is only logical. The thing that really pisses me off is such a level of ignorance and intolerance that you and other close minded individuals and institutions perpetuate. ... i'm sorry if the OP made you mad, but the reason I fear for californa is not cuz of gay marriage or even gays, but just the idea that a majority vote is enough to constitute change in laws, otherwise known as the power of the majority. Context yo. Nor do I hate gays; one of my best and closest friends is gay, just because my morals tell me something is wrong doesn't mean it overrules the actual person. You should watch Kenshin. As for morals, I have my own set of morals and you have yours. However, I don't believe my morals should be law. This is why I'm against prop 8 and always have been, as evidenced by the OP; I don't believe my morals supersede others, and it makes no sense to use the law to enforce religion. edit: in other words you've made a strawman, and not once but twice. Are you trying to argue that if a bunch of people agree on the same injustice that it makes it alright? That doesn't seem fair. That is like saying slavery was alright until the majority decided otherwise. Did I misread what you said? You voiced your opinion and your feeling on morality by decided that your view of right and wrong was more important than another persons freedom? I misread your post. But I will leave my mistake here. You say you are against prop 8, by that do you mean you are against its existence or you are for gay marriage? From what I can tell its that you are against its existence. However a lot of your posts referred to gay marriage being wrong and shouldn't exist for religious/moral reasons X/Y. Edit: Rurouni Kenshin? Otherwise I haven't watched any other show with the same character name. I think gay marriage is wrong. I am against it. But the scope of my belief is limited to me and a few of my immediate family members, because I personally don't believe any belief should be valued over a person. If others choose such a path then I respect their differences. I hear a lot of that kind of talk when people are defending things like abortion and gay marriage. But the truth is that society makes laws based on what we think is right in addition to any other motivation for law-making. According to your logic, we would also have to legalize prostitution, gambling, drugs (lsd, crack, meth, and all the hard ones..not just pot), remove all restrictions to abortion (including partial birth abortion), legalize polygamy, and pretty much any other law you can think of that does not involve 1 person doing "something" to another unwilling person. Because for any of these listed cases you could also say "I'm against that, but I would never force my will upon others". But the fact is that that is never going to happen. Societies have the ability to make laws regarding what is "right" and what they believe would keep their society upright. Many people think that gay marriage is wrong just like others believe prostitution and drug dealing are wrong. They have as much right to try to protect their communities and states from legitimizing (making legal and acceptable) something that is morally wrong. I know of no society liberal enough that this is not true. California voters have the right to say that even though meth may not affect them directly, the state should still prohibit it because it is wrong. California voters have the same right regarding gay marriage. EDIT: also note that nobody is talking at all about inhibiting homosexual "behavior". Gay people can still have as much sex as they want and live together. What is being debated is whether or not California will legitimize (and subsidize) homosexual unions in the same way it legitimizes and subsidizes heterosexual marriage. This is just straight up wrong. Not even close to right. The major flaw in your logic is that not letting people do meth does not infringe on their personal rights to be happy, nor does it prevent them from obtaining certain legal benefits available to almost everyone else in the state. Preventing gay marriage does exactly that. Your comparison is ridiculous, and your logic is terrible. Plus, there's far more than just a moral objection to things like illegal drugs and prostitution: we have lots of evidence to show that allowing such things in our society leads to higher crime rates, murders, and the like. Crime/murder would obviously infringe on the rights of the average person to lead a full, happy life, so we ban things that lead to crime/murder. The only thing allowing gay marriage does to society is allow gays to marry. There is ABSOLUTELY no evidence that letting gays and lesbians marry would create more crime, and it does not affect anyone other than gays and lesbians. Thus, it does not infringe on your abilities to lead a full, happy life, and there is no reason to disallow it under law. If you have a moral objection to it, whatever. But at least man up and say that. Don't try to hide it behind flimsy "legal" reasoning.
There are strong movements right now in the United States to try to legalize both prostitution and narcotics (just look at some of the other posts we're seeing). So it is definitely not so different. You are just picking and choosing some things to allow and other to not..just like proponents of Prop 8 did.
But you also try to deny them the ability to pick and choose based on their thoughts or opinions.
Unless you put yourself in the camp of "legalize everything that is not a non-consensual action of 1 individual against another" then you are picking and choosing simply based off what you think is right. Don't try to hold special privileges like that to yourself and deny others the same.
|
Democracy sucks balls, a system that values the opinion of the ignorant and close minded as much as the brightest minds is bound to create injustice and empower the gazillions of morons with power to keep the status quo as it is.
You need those judges making the tough decisions, at least they get paid not to be biased fools.
|
On August 06 2010 06:36 D10 wrote:
Democracy sucks balls, a system that values the opinion of the ignorant and close minded as much as the brightest minds is bound to create injustice and empower the gazillions of morons with power to keep the status quo as it is.
You need those judges making the tough decisions, at least they get paid not to be biased fools.
Pretty strong words... as long as the judges are deciding your way.
|
On August 06 2010 06:51 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 06:36 D10 wrote:
Democracy sucks balls, a system that values the opinion of the ignorant and close minded as much as the brightest minds is bound to create injustice and empower the gazillions of morons with power to keep the status quo as it is.
You need those judges making the tough decisions, at least they get paid not to be biased fools. Pretty strong words... as long as the judges are deciding your way.
They are deciding on increasing civil liberties, giving people equal rights, and not allowing people to use their religious and moral bias to arbitrarily reduce the rights of others it will be my way.
Hopefully in a few decades we will see all those senseless bans lifted, abortion rampant, and drugs legalized in a industrial scale.
|
On August 06 2010 06:55 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 06:51 Savio wrote:On August 06 2010 06:36 D10 wrote:
Democracy sucks balls, a system that values the opinion of the ignorant and close minded as much as the brightest minds is bound to create injustice and empower the gazillions of morons with power to keep the status quo as it is.
You need those judges making the tough decisions, at least they get paid not to be biased fools. Pretty strong words... as long as the judges are deciding your way. They are deciding on increasing civil liberties, giving people equal rights, and not allowing people to use their religious and moral bias to arbitrarily reduce the rights of others it will be my way. Hopefully in a few decades we will see all those senseless bans lifted, abortion rampant, and drugs legalized in a industrial scale.
Yeah, because we wouldn't want a society where not everyone smoked, got prostitutes every week, drank, got high on crack, and every othe rmoral ill.
|
On August 06 2010 06:58 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 06:55 D10 wrote:On August 06 2010 06:51 Savio wrote:On August 06 2010 06:36 D10 wrote:
Democracy sucks balls, a system that values the opinion of the ignorant and close minded as much as the brightest minds is bound to create injustice and empower the gazillions of morons with power to keep the status quo as it is.
You need those judges making the tough decisions, at least they get paid not to be biased fools. Pretty strong words... as long as the judges are deciding your way. They are deciding on increasing civil liberties, giving people equal rights, and not allowing people to use their religious and moral bias to arbitrarily reduce the rights of others it will be my way. Hopefully in a few decades we will see all those senseless bans lifted, abortion rampant, and drugs legalized in a industrial scale. Yeah, because we wouldn't want a society where not everyone smoked, got prostitutes every week, drank, got high on crack, and every othe rmoral ill.
Even with an ironfist dictatorship you wouldnt be able to make everyone smoke, bang hookers and get high on crack.
Its just an asinine argument that legalizing stuff would make everyone do it.
And really, does anyone really believe prostitution should remain illegal ? all it does is making hookers slaves of their pimps.
So here it goes, im saying it, if you are against legalizing prostitution, you are in favor of slavery.
If you are against legalizing drugs, you are in favor of arresting and murdering innocent children.
If you are against gay marriage, you are a horrible human being, incapable of letting other people live their lives without your moral finger in their pie.
|
On August 06 2010 07:04 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 06:58 Pandain wrote:On August 06 2010 06:55 D10 wrote:On August 06 2010 06:51 Savio wrote:On August 06 2010 06:36 D10 wrote:
Democracy sucks balls, a system that values the opinion of the ignorant and close minded as much as the brightest minds is bound to create injustice and empower the gazillions of morons with power to keep the status quo as it is.
You need those judges making the tough decisions, at least they get paid not to be biased fools. Pretty strong words... as long as the judges are deciding your way. They are deciding on increasing civil liberties, giving people equal rights, and not allowing people to use their religious and moral bias to arbitrarily reduce the rights of others it will be my way. Hopefully in a few decades we will see all those senseless bans lifted, abortion rampant, and drugs legalized in a industrial scale. Yeah, because we wouldn't want a society where not everyone smoked, got prostitutes every week, drank, got high on crack, and every othe rmoral ill. Even with an ironfist dictatorship you wouldnt be able to make everyone smoke, bang hookers and get high on crack. Its just an asinine argument that legalizing stuff would make everyone do it. And really, does anyone really believe prostitution should remain illegal ? all it does is making hookers slaves of their pimps. So here it goes, im saying it, if you are against legalizing prostitution, you are in favor of slavery. If you are against legalizing drugs, you are in favor of arresting and murdering innocent children. If you are against gay marriage, you are a horrible human being, incapable of letting other people live their lives without your moral finger in their pie.
I'm not saying that everyone would do it, I'm saying there's reasons why a law is sometimes there: because it prohibits something that is just WRONG. Killing is wrong, no question. Child Pornography is also just wrong.
Maybe the hookers shouldn't be in that profession in the first place. Don't even get the second argument regarding legalizing drugs. You're making broad leaps from one opinion and transforming that into a statement that you support something drastically different. The situation between a slave and a slave owner is different than a pimp and a hooker.
|
Prostitutes are the world oldest profession, who are you to claim it should remain outlawed ? illegality was only done to control them and try to enforce moral values that should never have made their way to the legislative process, not to inhibit them.
Woman should have every right to get banged for a buck in a safe way paying their taxes like everyone else.
Same thing with drug dealers/users, what reason could you have other than fear and ignorance to enforce marginalization on something like weed, and let alcohol and tobbaco remain legal ?
|
On August 06 2010 06:58 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 06:55 D10 wrote:On August 06 2010 06:51 Savio wrote:On August 06 2010 06:36 D10 wrote:
Democracy sucks balls, a system that values the opinion of the ignorant and close minded as much as the brightest minds is bound to create injustice and empower the gazillions of morons with power to keep the status quo as it is.
You need those judges making the tough decisions, at least they get paid not to be biased fools. Pretty strong words... as long as the judges are deciding your way. They are deciding on increasing civil liberties, giving people equal rights, and not allowing people to use their religious and moral bias to arbitrarily reduce the rights of others it will be my way. Hopefully in a few decades we will see all those senseless bans lifted, abortion rampant, and drugs legalized in a industrial scale. Yeah, because we wouldn't want a society where not everyone smoked, got prostitutes every week, drank, got high on crack, and every othe rmoral ill.
No you are right, we should have prostitutes at least once a day.
|
On August 06 2010 06:36 D10 wrote:
Democracy sucks balls, a system that values the opinion of the ignorant and close minded as much as the brightest minds is bound to create injustice and empower the gazillions of morons with power to keep the status quo as it is.
You need those judges making the tough decisions, at least they get paid not to be biased fools.
Yes, empowering a few people with total power has never gone wrong before in history. The only thing worse than everyone having a vote is nobody having a vote.
On a completely different tangent-
There must be people that are in favor of gay marriage but oppose polygamy. I can't begin to think up an argument against polygamy that couldn't be used against gay marriage but maybe someone has one. The main stigma attached to polygamy is its association with fringe religious groups and coercion of young girls. If you set aside the issues of coercion and age, which there are already laws covering, I can' think of a good reason that its any better or worse than gay marriage.
My personal opinion about gay marriage/polygamy is mostly indifference. Other people should vote on it and decide how things should be. It should be possible to have a civil contract/union with the same legal benefits as a marriage.
|
On August 06 2010 07:12 D10 wrote:
Prostitutes are the world oldest profession, who are you to claim it should remain outlawed ? illegality was only done to control them and try to enforce moral values that should never have made their way to the legislative process, not to inhibit them.
Woman should have every right to get banged for a buck in a safe way paying their taxes like everyone else.
Same thing with drug dealers/users, what reason could you have other than fear and ignorance to enforce marginalization on something like weed, and let alcohol and tobbaco remain legal ?
Mmm Prostitution is not only highly dangerous proffession and can either get you AIDS/HIV's and thus pass on to another person, but I highly doubt anyone ever grew up wanting to be a prostitute. They do it out of desperation.
Yeah, being a King is one of the world's oldest professions too. Doesn't mean we should have one leading our country.
About drugs, that's a whole different topic. I myself am Indifferent about whether it should be legal or not and I definitely don't think it should become a mini-topic in here. So let's ignore that.
|
On August 06 2010 07:19 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 07:12 D10 wrote:
Prostitutes are the world oldest profession, who are you to claim it should remain outlawed ? illegality was only done to control them and try to enforce moral values that should never have made their way to the legislative process, not to inhibit them.
Woman should have every right to get banged for a buck in a safe way paying their taxes like everyone else.
Same thing with drug dealers/users, what reason could you have other than fear and ignorance to enforce marginalization on something like weed, and let alcohol and tobbaco remain legal ?
Mmm Prostitution is not only highly dangerous proffession and can either get you AIDS/HIV's and thus pass on to another person, but I highly doubt anyone ever grew up wanting to be a prostitute. They do it out of desperation. Yeah, being a King is one of the world's oldest professions too. Doesn't mean we should have one leading our country. About drugs, that's a whole different topic. I myself am Indifferent about whether it should be legal or not and I definitely don't think it should become a mini-topic in here. So let's ignore that.
Royalty is not a profession, since I cannot start being one tomorrow if I wanted too.
edit: also here in Brazil, any high level brothel is gonna show you all DST exams of the hooker done weekly so you are sure you are fucking a high quality product, also they always use protection.
edit2: what about porn stars, are they legal in the US ?
|
On August 06 2010 07:22 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 07:19 Pandain wrote:On August 06 2010 07:12 D10 wrote:
Prostitutes are the world oldest profession, who are you to claim it should remain outlawed ? illegality was only done to control them and try to enforce moral values that should never have made their way to the legislative process, not to inhibit them.
Woman should have every right to get banged for a buck in a safe way paying their taxes like everyone else.
Same thing with drug dealers/users, what reason could you have other than fear and ignorance to enforce marginalization on something like weed, and let alcohol and tobbaco remain legal ?
Mmm Prostitution is not only highly dangerous proffession and can either get you AIDS/HIV's and thus pass on to another person, but I highly doubt anyone ever grew up wanting to be a prostitute. They do it out of desperation. Yeah, being a King is one of the world's oldest professions too. Doesn't mean we should have one leading our country. About drugs, that's a whole different topic. I myself am Indifferent about whether it should be legal or not and I definitely don't think it should become a mini-topic in here. So let's ignore that. Royalty is not a profession, since I cannot start being one tomorrow if I wanted too. edit: also here in Brazil, any high level brothel is gonna show you all DST exams of the hooker done weekly so you are sure you are fucking a high quality product, also they always use protection. edit2: what about porn stars, are they legal in the US ?
It's good you know everything about hookers. And yes, some people would sadly want to be porn stars. -.-.
You don't need to be royal to be a king, you can "become royal" by taking ownership. The basic point would/does remain the same.
|
On August 06 2010 07:26 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 07:22 D10 wrote:On August 06 2010 07:19 Pandain wrote:On August 06 2010 07:12 D10 wrote:
Prostitutes are the world oldest profession, who are you to claim it should remain outlawed ? illegality was only done to control them and try to enforce moral values that should never have made their way to the legislative process, not to inhibit them.
Woman should have every right to get banged for a buck in a safe way paying their taxes like everyone else.
Same thing with drug dealers/users, what reason could you have other than fear and ignorance to enforce marginalization on something like weed, and let alcohol and tobbaco remain legal ?
Mmm Prostitution is not only highly dangerous proffession and can either get you AIDS/HIV's and thus pass on to another person, but I highly doubt anyone ever grew up wanting to be a prostitute. They do it out of desperation. Yeah, being a King is one of the world's oldest professions too. Doesn't mean we should have one leading our country. About drugs, that's a whole different topic. I myself am Indifferent about whether it should be legal or not and I definitely don't think it should become a mini-topic in here. So let's ignore that. Royalty is not a profession, since I cannot start being one tomorrow if I wanted too. edit: also here in Brazil, any high level brothel is gonna show you all DST exams of the hooker done weekly so you are sure you are fucking a high quality product, also they always use protection. edit2: what about porn stars, are they legal in the US ? It's good you know everything about hookers. And yes, some people would sadly want to be porn stars. -.-. You don't need to be royal to be a king, you can "become royal" by taking ownership. The basic point would/does remain the same.
Cant see how all this talk about kings and dictators changes anything about what I said.
Yes murdering millions and taking control of others lifes is evil, and so is banning gay marriage, prostitution, and peoples right to get high as fuck in whatever drug they want, not just alcohol.
|
On August 06 2010 06:34 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 05:16 BrownBear wrote:On August 06 2010 04:49 Savio wrote:On August 05 2010 16:59 d_so wrote:On August 05 2010 15:40 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On August 05 2010 15:29 d_so wrote:On August 05 2010 14:42 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On August 05 2010 12:30 d_so wrote:On August 05 2010 12:16 Jibba wrote:
Majority vote referendums make a mockery out of republicanism.
The judiciary also has a role in protecting minorities. If you truly think majority population votes should be able to establish laws, then women still wouldn't be able to vote, jim crow laws would still exist, etc. The fact of the matter is that the general population is unfit to make legislation, which is exactly why we have a republic and not a direct democracy. yes. it's why i fear for california and am happy to have moved out. Every post I have read of your has angered me beyond what words can describe. You attempt to articulate yourself and justify oppressing other human beings. It is honestly one of the most appalling things I have ever read. When I read you talking about the "morality" of the issue it is the most irritating thing. Morality is such a vague personally defined notion that you should not cast onto others. I could hypothetically think its immoral to be black or Jewish, as unreasonable as either of those are. I swear to god, I don't see how you can try to be so rationale in your posts (mainly referring to the 08 ones) and then just ignore it when it matters. gay marriage quite simply does not effect you on a personal level. So its fine. You think its morally wrong, and you can sit in your corner and scuff about that all you want, but you damn sure should never allow your personal beliefs to infringe on the lives of others. Whether its a choice or not is not fucking up to you. Edit: And for the record, Gay marriage does not effect me so I don't really care that much about it because that is only logical. The thing that really pisses me off is such a level of ignorance and intolerance that you and other close minded individuals and institutions perpetuate. ... i'm sorry if the OP made you mad, but the reason I fear for californa is not cuz of gay marriage or even gays, but just the idea that a majority vote is enough to constitute change in laws, otherwise known as the power of the majority. Context yo. Nor do I hate gays; one of my best and closest friends is gay, just because my morals tell me something is wrong doesn't mean it overrules the actual person. You should watch Kenshin. As for morals, I have my own set of morals and you have yours. However, I don't believe my morals should be law. This is why I'm against prop 8 and always have been, as evidenced by the OP; I don't believe my morals supersede others, and it makes no sense to use the law to enforce religion. edit: in other words you've made a strawman, and not once but twice. Are you trying to argue that if a bunch of people agree on the same injustice that it makes it alright? That doesn't seem fair. That is like saying slavery was alright until the majority decided otherwise. Did I misread what you said? You voiced your opinion and your feeling on morality by decided that your view of right and wrong was more important than another persons freedom? I misread your post. But I will leave my mistake here. You say you are against prop 8, by that do you mean you are against its existence or you are for gay marriage? From what I can tell its that you are against its existence. However a lot of your posts referred to gay marriage being wrong and shouldn't exist for religious/moral reasons X/Y. Edit: Rurouni Kenshin? Otherwise I haven't watched any other show with the same character name. I think gay marriage is wrong. I am against it. But the scope of my belief is limited to me and a few of my immediate family members, because I personally don't believe any belief should be valued over a person. If others choose such a path then I respect their differences. I hear a lot of that kind of talk when people are defending things like abortion and gay marriage. But the truth is that society makes laws based on what we think is right in addition to any other motivation for law-making. According to your logic, we would also have to legalize prostitution, gambling, drugs (lsd, crack, meth, and all the hard ones..not just pot), remove all restrictions to abortion (including partial birth abortion), legalize polygamy, and pretty much any other law you can think of that does not involve 1 person doing "something" to another unwilling person. Because for any of these listed cases you could also say "I'm against that, but I would never force my will upon others". But the fact is that that is never going to happen. Societies have the ability to make laws regarding what is "right" and what they believe would keep their society upright. Many people think that gay marriage is wrong just like others believe prostitution and drug dealing are wrong. They have as much right to try to protect their communities and states from legitimizing (making legal and acceptable) something that is morally wrong. I know of no society liberal enough that this is not true. California voters have the right to say that even though meth may not affect them directly, the state should still prohibit it because it is wrong. California voters have the same right regarding gay marriage. EDIT: also note that nobody is talking at all about inhibiting homosexual "behavior". Gay people can still have as much sex as they want and live together. What is being debated is whether or not California will legitimize (and subsidize) homosexual unions in the same way it legitimizes and subsidizes heterosexual marriage. This is just straight up wrong. Not even close to right. The major flaw in your logic is that not letting people do meth does not infringe on their personal rights to be happy, nor does it prevent them from obtaining certain legal benefits available to almost everyone else in the state. Preventing gay marriage does exactly that. Your comparison is ridiculous, and your logic is terrible. Plus, there's far more than just a moral objection to things like illegal drugs and prostitution: we have lots of evidence to show that allowing such things in our society leads to higher crime rates, murders, and the like. Crime/murder would obviously infringe on the rights of the average person to lead a full, happy life, so we ban things that lead to crime/murder. The only thing allowing gay marriage does to society is allow gays to marry. There is ABSOLUTELY no evidence that letting gays and lesbians marry would create more crime, and it does not affect anyone other than gays and lesbians. Thus, it does not infringe on your abilities to lead a full, happy life, and there is no reason to disallow it under law. If you have a moral objection to it, whatever. But at least man up and say that. Don't try to hide it behind flimsy "legal" reasoning. There are strong movements right now in the United States to try to legalize both prostitution and narcotics (just look at some of the other posts we're seeing). So it is definitely not so different. You are just picking and choosing some things to allow and other to not..just like proponents of Prop 8 did. But you also try to deny them the ability to pick and choose based on their thoughts or opinions. Unless you put yourself in the camp of "legalize everything that is not a non-consensual action of 1 individual against another" then you are picking and choosing simply based off what you think is right. Don't try to hold special privileges like that to yourself and deny others the same.
Read my entire fucking post. Jesus Christ, my SECOND PARAGRAPH explains why some things should be allowed, and others shouldn't. I'll repost it here, since you obviously didn't notice it before:
On August 06 2010 05:16 BrownBear wrote:
Plus, there's far more than just a moral objection to things like illegal drugs and prostitution: we have lots of evidence to show that allowing such things in our society leads to higher crime rates, murders, and the like. Crime/murder would obviously infringe on the rights of the average person to lead a full, happy life, so we ban things that lead to crime/murder. The only thing allowing gay marriage does to society is allow gays to marry. There is ABSOLUTELY no evidence that letting gays and lesbians marry would create more crime, and it does not affect anyone other than gays and lesbians. Thus, it does not infringe on your abilities to lead a full, happy life, and there is no reason to disallow it under law.
Seriously, you are just embarrassing yourself here.
|
Alcohol leads to higher crime/murder rates but its legal, i guess your argument fails brownbear
|
On August 06 2010 07:39 D10 wrote:
Alcohol leads to higher crime/murder rates but its legal, i guess your argument fails brownbear
No, they tried to ban it. We see how that turned out. So ideally, Alchohol should've been banned but by then it had already been too ingrained in American Culture. So we should still illegalize other products because it hasn't as of yet.
|
On August 06 2010 07:43 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 07:39 D10 wrote:
Alcohol leads to higher crime/murder rates but its legal, i guess your argument fails brownbear No, they tried to ban it. We see how that turned out. So ideally, Alchohol should've been banned but by then it had already been too ingrained in American Culture. So we should still illegalize other products because it hasn't as of yet.
Well that means its only a question of time before weed get legalized, all that the users need to do is keep using it, until its so engrained into your culture that you have no choice but to legalize it ?
You cant seriously believe that the correct course of action is to forbid a drug to prevent it from getting ingrained at society if the drug is older than the worlds dominant religions, older than the concept of prohibition itself.
This basically means that at some point all those guys arguing against weed legalization will say "bah fuck it, billions of dollars and millions of lives wasted and we acomplished 0, more people smoke weed today than 50 years ago, we failed, legalize this shit and be done with it!"
If even the guys who want it banned think this way, it goes to show how the mind of people who want to take other peoples right away work, they dont seriously believe they will manage to ban gay marriage forever, they just want those gays to have less rights for as long as they can.
|
I'll throw this nugget out there.
It wasn't that long ago that interracial marriage was illegal in the US (1967 was when the US supreme court ruled it was illegal for states to ban it). The last person to be jailed for it just died last year I think.
Something to think about next time you're oogleing korean chicks during BW casts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
