Can We Agree On These Few Things?

[Bunz]

Ok Folks, lets take a true common sense approach and look at some issues and cut to the chase and come to some common ground in the name of common sense to be had by all.

The Earth is billions of years old, and not 6,000?

Whether the decision to terminate a pregnancy should be left up the person carrying the baby and the male counterpart?

Some people are born as homosexuals and some choose homosexuality, but some accomodation needs to be made to those who choose to live in long term relationships as homosexual couples?

It is time for the rise of a viable third party in American politics?

The war on drugs has been a huge policy failure?

Im curious to see what comes of this. Please post away

[9sublime]

Ok Folks, lets take a true common sense approach and look at some issues and cut to the chase and come to some common ground in the name of common sense to be had by all.

The Earth is billions of years old, and not 6,000?

I have a feeling very few on this board will argue with that.

Whether the decision to terminate a pregnancy should be left up the person carrying the baby and the male counterpart?

You've reponened about 5 massive threads.

Some people are born as homosexuals and some choose homosexuality, but some accomodation needs to be made to those who choose to live in long term relationships as homosexual couples?

You've reopened another 5 massive threads.

It is time for the rise of a viable third party in American politics?

Theres already one or two threads debating this.

The war on drugs has been a huge policy failure?

There was an almighty thread on this...

Im curious to see what comes of this. Please post away

Debate away...

The Earth is billions of years old. There is lots of proof for it, the only proof the Earth is 6,000 years old is the word of a bunch of men who wrote a book 2,000 years ago based on the ramblings of a preacher.

A baby should really only be brought into the world if it is going to be wanted and looked after, but people should really try to avoid abortion. But its not up to me to infringe their rights.

Accomidation needs to be made for homosexuals, because they are just the same as us in every way, and we don't discriminate against people who prefer black women, white women etc.

In the UK a third party is a remote possibility within a few years if it gets its act together. I don't think America is anywhere close to that.

The war on some drugs has been a total failure, namely cannabis and ecstasy.

[Bunz]

See you are already in principal agreement on every issue. If we take a step back and have a common sense approach to these issues, real progress can be made on them.

[palerider]

The Earth is billions of years old, and not 6,000?

And?

Whether the decision to terminate a pregnancy should be left up the person carrying the baby and the male counterpart?

Unborns are human beings. In the US, our entire legal system is based on the fact that we come into being with certain rights and among those is a right to live. Denying any segment of the population the most fundamental right that we have without due process is a blatant violation of our constitution. All rights and privileges that anyone may claim are secondary, in this country, to your right to live. It has nothing to do with your sex, race, or citizenship but is based entirely on the fact that you are a human being. Prove that unborns are not human beings and you will prove that killing them without legal consequence is constitutional. Fail to prove it, and you have lost the argument before you even begin.

Some people are born as homosexuals and some choose homosexuality, but some accomodation needs to be made to those who choose to live in long term relationships as homosexual couples?

Civil unions are a reasonable accomodation. A nation can not, however, go about granting special rights based on the sexual preference of 2 or 3% of its population.

It is time for the rise of a viable third party in American politics?

As soon as one comes along, it will find a place in the mainstream. That you might agreee with the philosophy of one, does not make it viable.

The war on drugs has been a huge policy failure?

Roll back all of the other intrusions into my life based on what is "best" for me and then we might be able to talk about a change in drug policy but so long as some people think that they have the right to make law and force me to behave in what they call a responsible manner (for my own good) the question of legalizing drugs is off the table for me.

[9sublime]

And?



Unborns are human beings. In the US, our entire legal system is based on the fact that we come into being with certain rights and among those is a right to live. Denying any segment of the population the most fundamental right that we have without due process is a blatant violation of our constitution. All rights and privileges that anyone may claim are secondary, in this country, to your right to live. It has nothing to do with your sex, race, or citizenship but is based entirely on the fact that you are a human being. Prove that unborns are not human beings and you will prove that killing them without legal consequence is constitutional. Fail to prove it, and you have lost the argument before you even begin.

I'm not getting into this one again :)

Civil unions are a reasonable accomodation. A nation can not, however, go about granting special rights based on the sexual preference of 2 or 3% of its population.

Why not? And its not a special right, its simply something they want, and it doesnt affect you adversely does it?

As soon as one comes along, it will find a place in the mainstream. That you might agreee with the philosophy of one, does not make it viable.

Agreed

Roll back all of the other intrusions into my life based on what is "best" for me and then we might be able to talk about a change in drug policy but so long as some people think that they have the right to make law and force me to behave in what they call a responsible manner (for my own good) the question of legalizing drugs is off the table for me.


Why not take off one of the intrusions and legalise a couple of drugs? To be honest, some drugs should be illegal. Drugs that are highly addictive, and have very bad health effects such as heroin and crystal meth should be illegal.

Cannabis prohibition hasnt worked, and it will be more beneifical it terms of its gateway status, and that the government can tax it, if it is legal.

Ecstasy does more harm being illegal than legal. The prohibition of ecstasy too has failed, with 2 million pills being taken every week in the UK alone. But the fact is they are more often that not contaminted and cut with other chemicals, and the user does not know the potency increasing the probablity of overdose.

By standardising the strength, and with a guarnateed purity, nobody is going to die from anything apart from an allergic reaction to the MDMA, an accident whilst using MDMA, mixing it with other drugs, or from a problem with antidiurectic hormones, which means people get very dehydrated or drink far too much and drown the brain.

Most ecstasy deaths come from what else is in the pill, or what people do on the pill, not MDMA itself. In fact only 90 deaths had ever been recorded in the UK from ecstasy in 2001, whilst 75 people a year die from glue sniffing, and over 8,000 died in 2005 from alcohol overdose. Imagine if people didnt know the strength of alcohol because it was an illegal drug?

[USMC the Almighty]

Ok Folks, lets take a true common sense approach and look at some issues and cut to the chase and come to some common ground in the name of common sense to be had by all.

Bunz, I think these issues are too complex to simplify to this extent. For instance, I could ask the same of people on the left:

- Abortion is killing. It's a baby. It kicks, moves, has a heartbeat and brainwave, and when allowed it can grow. Abortion kills human beings and should therefore be prohibited.

- Gun control gives law-abiding citizens means to defend themselves and their families. There will always be illegal weapons in the world and gun control only takes way the guns from those unwilling to illegaly buy weapons. Absence of gun control makes people and societies safer.

- Americans should be allowed to keep much more of what they earn and the government should not punish entrepeneurship, ambition, job and wealth creation with heavy taxes.

- State and federal governments are now spending way more than constitutionally mandated and government spending should be slashed.

- Government schools in this country are an absolute failure and if education was turned over to the private sector, a much better job would be done at a fraction of the cost.

- Our strategy with Islamic terrorism should be what Reagan's cold war strategy was: "we win, they lose".

- We should not award illegal immigrants who steal across our borders and live here on our dime with American citizenship. A physical and technological border should be constructed to keep them out, both for economic and national security reasons.



The Earth is billions of years old, and not 6,000?

I have no idea how old the Earth is, to be perfectly honest.


Whether the decision to terminate a pregnancy should be left up the person carrying the baby and the male counterpart?

Palerider has me convinced until someone can unconvince me that a woman's right to not be inconvenienced should outweigh a child's right to live.


Some people are born as homosexuals and some choose homosexuality, but some accomodation needs to be made to those who choose to live in long term relationships as homosexual couples?

I personally don't really care though I believe it should be left up to the state.


It is time for the rise of a viable third party in American politics?

I would prefer to get ride of political parties like Washington requested in his Farewell Address.


The war on drugs has been a huge policy failure?

I'll give you that it certainly hasn't been effective in slowing the flow of drug sale and use.

[ArmChair General]

Ok Folks, lets take a true common sense approach and look at some issues and cut to the chase and come to some common ground in the name of common sense to be had by all.

i know what yer saying.


The Earth is billions of years old, and not 6,000?
4.5 billion to be exactumundo


Whether the decision to terminate a pregnancy should be left up the person carrying the baby and the male counterpart?

hahaha, didn't you get enough of the other 500 page threads about this? we're gonna have to wait for our kids to agree about that. or maybe our kids kids. we sure aint gonna do it.

Some people are born as homosexuals and some choose homosexuality, but some accomodation needs to be made to those who choose to live in long term relationships as homosexual couples?

its 2007 for christ sake. stop the discrimination.

It is time for the rise of a viable third party in American politics?

Al Gore hes our man.

The war on drugs has been a huge policy failure?

Just say no to marijuana man! but feel free to drink that case of Budweiser. thats ok.

Im curious to see what comes of this. Please post away

Know what I'm saying?

[Bunz]

Palerider and others, since I can seem to figure out how to multiquote a message, Ill do a little copy and paste.

From Palerider:
And?
OK again common sense prevails

Unborns are human beings. In the US, our entire legal system is based on the fact that we come into being with certain rights and among those is a right to live.
Ah the Due Process argument, a very good one, I am curious how Roe V Wade made it past that. One thing I will point out is that we recieve our US citizenship and therefore that right upon our birth. They dont give SS#s to fetuses. I dont like the idea of abortion, especially as a method of birth control, but I believe if someone else wants to undertake those demons, I wont stop them.

Civil unions are a reasonable accomodation.

Thats all I was looking for.

As soon as one comes along, it will find a place in the mainstream.

I agree, and I dont have a particular one in mind, it is just that the two we realistically pick from are far from representative and have become entities on thier own and have lost thier focus.

Roll back all of the other intrusions into my life based on what is "best" for me and then we might be able to talk about a change in drug policy but so long as some people think that they have the right to make law and force me to behave in what they call a responsible manner (for my own good) the question of legalizing drugs is off the table for me.

For Example? I think a reversal or modification of much of the drug policy is a good place to start. It would go along way in changing the other laws. But those for instance like seat belt laws are just as much there as an ability to raise revenue as it is for safety.

USMC, I intended to make this about actual common sense and not about left or right to speak of. But Ill bite regardless.

Gun control gives law-abiding citizens means to defend themselves and their families. There will always be illegal weapons in the world and gun control only takes way the guns from those unwilling to illegaly buy weapons. Absence of gun control makes people and societies safer.

Although I might be left leaning, I agree, I am a gun totin, pistol carrying, trap shooting, hunter. I will say that some people shouldnt have them, as is obvious in the mass killings or any unjustifiable homicide with a gun. But the actions of those people should not reflect on those of us who use them responsibly.

We should not award illegal immigrants who steal across our borders and live here on our dime with American citizenship. A physical and technological border should be constructed to keep them out, both for economic and national security reasons.

I have said before, I am a fisherman, we cant begin to bail the boat until the leak is stopped.

From: ACG.
hahaha, didn't you get enough of the other 500 page threads about this? we're gonna have to wait for our kids to agree about that. or maybe our kids kids. we sure aint gonna do it.

I hope not, I dont even bother to look at those threads with more than about 40 posts, to much background reading to bother with.

Just say no to marijuana man! but feel free to drink that case of Budweiser. thats ok.

I am looking at this purely from a financial standpoint. Im not a user myself, but it makes little sense with all this half-assed enforcement and then locking away people who are more sick than criminals. I think trafficers should pay heavy prices, but users, send them to rehab or let them do it in thier own homes.

[dahermit]

palerider wrote: "Roll back all of the other intrusions into my life based on what is "best" for me and then we might be able to talk about a change in drug policy but so long as some people think that they have the right to make law and force me to behave in what they call a responsible manner (for my own good) the question of legalizing drugs is off the table for me."
So, what you are saying is, you support intrusions into my life based on what is "best" for me as long as they are based on Conservative values, but not Liberal ones?

[9sublime]

No, I think paleriders saying once some other laws trying to tell me how to look after myself are abandoned, I will consider legalization of drugs.

[palerider]

Cannabis prohibition hasnt worked, and it will be more beneifical it terms of its gateway status, and that the government can tax it, if it is legal.


The prohibition against murder hasn't worked either, should we abandon that one as well? Just because people continue to do a thing that is against the law is not sufficient reason to make that thing legal.

[vyo476]

And?

Is this a rhetorical statement?


Civil unions are a reasonable accomodation. A nation can not, however, go about granting special rights based on the sexual preference of 2 or 3% of its population.

I'm curious. Could you provide another example of a "special right," and then why it is negative to grant such things?

For that matter, could you reason out to me how it is the government "grants" rights? I was under the impression that our rights are naturally endowed and the government is just there to protect them.

As soon as one comes along, it will find a place in the mainstream. That you might agreee with the philosophy of one, does not make it viable.

But can you at least agree that the excess and corruption of our two major parties is a serious detriment to America today?

Roll back all of the other intrusions into my life based on what is "best" for me and then we might be able to talk about a change in drug policy but so long as some people think that they have the right to make law and force me to behave in what they call a responsible manner (for my own good) the question of legalizing drugs is off the table for me.

What are these "intrusions?" I'm sure I'd agree that removing them would be a good thing. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that seatbelt laws are on your list but undoubtedly there are more. If you can find one that I can't honestly say I'd be okay with repealing then I might have some respect for this position you've taken; otherwise it just looks like you're dodging the issue.

[palerider]

Ah the Due Process argument, a very good one, I am curious how Roe V Wade made it past that. One thing I will point out is that we recieve our US citizenship and therefore that right upon our birth. They dont give SS#s to fetuses. I dont like the idea of abortion, especially as a method of birth control, but I believe if someone else wants to undertake those demons, I wont stop them.

If you read roe v wade, it is clear how they got around due process. Way back in 1972, it was possible to make an argument of sorts that unborns were not, indeed, human beings. In his majority decision, justice blackmund acknowledged that should the argument ever be made that unborns are human beings, roe falls because they (unborns) would be protected by the 14'th amendment.

The fact that we receive citizenship after we are born has no bearing on the question as one doesn't need to be a citizen in this country to have the right to live. The 14th amendment protects everyone regardless of their citizenship status, that is why it is called the equal protection clause and numerous cases have made it clear that one need not be a citizen to have one's basic rights protected.

If you care to try this, go out and kill someone who doesn't have a SS## and you will find that you will be just as guilty of murder as if you killed a citizen of the US.

For Example? I think a reversal or modification of much of the drug policy is a good place to start. It would go along way in changing the other laws. But those for instance like seat belt laws are just as much there as an ability to raise revenue as it is for safety.

It is hypocritical in the extreme to insist that I buckle up for safety and fine me if I do not do so and then legalize a drug that will most certainly result in highway deaths.

[vyo476]

The prohibition against murder hasn't worked either, should we abandon that one as well? Just because people continue to do a thing that is against the law is not sufficient reason to make that thing legal.

And if that were the only reason than we probably wouldn't be having this discussion anymore. The revocation of its gateway status is a big plus for me. The possible economic benefits are another.

You compare marijuana with murder? Prohibition is a much, much more apt comparison, as both center on recreational substances.

[palerider]

Is this a rhetorical statement?

Yes. I don't know of anyone who actually argues that the earth is 6,000 years old.

I'm curious. Could you provide another example of a "special right," and then why it is negative to grant such things?

No I can't and that is exactly the point.

Tell me. Where, exactly, would you draw the line with regard to marriage? Would you allow anyone to marry anyone or anything? And once you grant one group to marry based on no more than their sexual preference, how do you justify denying ANY other group who want to marry based on any preference?

For that matter, could you reason out to me how it is the government "grants" rights? I was under the impression that our rights are naturally endowed and the government is just there to protect them.

Show me a right to marry in the constitution. Marriage is what it is. A nation can't go about redefining the meaning of institutions based on the sexual preference of some of its citizens either.

But can you at least agree that the excess and corruption of our two major parties is a serious detriment to America today?

So you think 3 corrupt parties or 5 corrupt parties will be better?

What are these "intrusions?" I'm sure I'd agree that removing them would be a good thing. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that seatbelt laws are on your list but undoubtedly there are more. If you can find one that I can't honestly say I'd be okay with repealing then I might have some respect for this position you've taken; otherwise it just looks like you're dodging the issue.

My position is that it is hypocritical to force me, by the power of law to do anything for my "own good" and then legalize a drug that is most certainly not good for me or anyone else.

[palerider]

You compare marijuana with murder? Prohibition is a much, much more apt comparison, as both center on recreational substances.

No. The point was that just because a law hasn't eliminated a thing is not a valid justificaton to make that thing legal.

[vyo476]

Yes. I don't know of anyone who actually argues that the earth is 6,000 years old.

I don't know anyone personally who does so either.

No I can't and that is exactly the point.

Then provide a hypothetical. You're saying we're inventing a "special right" and I'm wondering if you invented the concept of "special rights."

Tell me. Where, exactly, would you draw the line with regard to marriage? Would you allow anyone to marry anyone or anything? And once you grant one group to marry based on no more than their sexual preference, how do you justify denying ANY other group who want to marry based on any preference?

I would allow anyone to marry anyone else, so long as they are of the age of consent to do so (rather like sexuality). I really don't see a problem with letting some guy marry his sister or two men and three women entering into a polygamous marriage. It doesn't have anything to do with me - just like a man and a woman getting married has nothing to do with me.

Show me a right to marry in the constitution. Marriage is what it is. A nation can't go about redefining the meaning of institutions based on the sexual preference of some of its citizens either.

The 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Once upon a time, the institution of slavery was considered just fine. It was redefined as an intolerable evil. Voting is an institution that has been redefined to be a right of all citizens - not just white male landowners. Even marriage itself has already been "redefined" - where it was once a purely religious institution a government-issued marriage license is now required.

So you think 3 corrupt parties or 5 corrupt parties will be better?

I think that much of the corruption of the two major parties come from their excessive size. Elections should be based on individuals, not party lines.

And on the side, damn you're cynical.

My position is that it is hypocritical to force me, by the power of law to do anything for my "own good" and then legalize a drug that is most certainly not good for me or anyone else.

And I'm saying that I probably don't agree with these laws that force you do anything that is "for your own good." Whether or not it's hypocritical, though, has nothing to do with whether or not marijuana (which isn't, arguably, as harmful as nicotine or alcohol) ought to be legalized.

Do you have any reasons against the legalization of marijuana that don't involve you disliking being forced to wear a seatbelt?

No. The point was that just because a law hasn't eliminated a thing is not a valid justificaton to make that thing legal.

No, it's more of a tag. There are few if any legitimate reasons for marijuana to remain illegal, and (here comes the tag!) it's not like making it illegal is really doing much to deter its use. This tag serves to offer the logical question of, "So...what's the point?"

So far, the only point you seem to have offered is that you dislike laws that force you to do "what's good for you" and so long as those stand you won't consider legalizing marijuana.

[9sublime]

The prohibition against murder hasn't worked either, should we abandon that one as well? Just because people continue to do a thing that is against the law is not sufficient reason to make that thing legal.

As vyo has already stated, this is not a good example. Legalizing skunk has health benefits, for example, eliminating grit weed.

Grit weed was something that came on the market a few years ago, and is cut with sugar and sand sometimes (pretty harmless to smoke), but sometimes small glass beads and quartz which went into the lungs and ripped them to shreds, causing long lasting damage to the respiritory system.

Cannabis resin has also been found to be cut with car tyres, and I have seen friends pull plastic bag shreds out of larger quantities before. And thats what the kids smoke because its cheaper.

A video on grit bud:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8zSPTsMhX0

Sure, you can say you shouldn't be smoking the stuff in the first place, but making it legal is going to stop this inevitably happening.

[palerider]

I would allow anyone to marry anyone else, so long as they are of the age of consent to do so (rather like sexuality). I really don't see a problem with letting some guy marry his sister or two men and three women entering into a polygamous marriage. It doesn't have anything to do with me - just like a man and a woman getting married has nothing to do with me.

Then in the name of your ideology, you would see civilization go right down the toilet. Refer to history. If you are unable to learn from it, you are doomed.


Once upon a time, the institution of slavery was considered just fine. It was redefined as an intolerable evil. Voting is an institution that has been redefined to be a right of all citizens - not just white male landowners. Even marriage itself has already been "redefined" - where it was once a purely religious institution a government-issued marriage license is now required.


Slavery is today exactly what it was then, one human being owning another. It has not and never was redefined. Voting is today exactly what it always has been, casting a ballot for a person or initiative, it has not been redefined. Marriage is what it is and always has been. An institution between men and women.


And on the side, damn you're cynical.]/quote]

Exactly what makes you think a third party would not be as corrupt as the two that exist now?


[QUOTE=vyo476;23960] And I'm saying that I probably don't agree with these laws that force you do anything that is "for your own good." Whether or not it's hypocritical, though, has nothing to do with whether or not marijuana (which isn't, arguably, as harmful as nicotine or alcohol) ought to be legalized.

Read some modern research. Pot isn't the harmless little weed users would like you to believe it is.

[palerider]

Cannabis resin has also been found to be cut with car tyres, and I have seen friends pull plastic bag shreds out of larger quantities before. And thats what the kids smoke because its cheaper.

Under your "legalization scheme" you would let kids buy pot? And have you seen how expensive a pack of cigarettes has become due to taxes? You don't think that pot would be just as, if not more expensive and don't you think that a black market will spring up trying to beat the price?



Sure, you can say you shouldn't be smoking the stuff in the first place, but making it legal is going to stop this inevitably happening.


No it won't. Even though you can go to any liquor store and buy pretty much whatever you want today, there are still those who are brewing and selling their own and every year people are permanantly injured or killed by moonshine liquor. There will always be people who try and skirt the system, so it won't stop.

[9sublime]

Under your "legalization scheme" you would let kids buy pot? And have you seen how expensive a pack of cigarettes has become due to taxes? You don't think that pot would be just as, if not more expensive and don't you think that a black market will spring up trying to beat the price?

No I wouldn't let kids buy pot, but under legalization I'm sure they would be able to get their hands on its, because they can get it now, but off dodgey people who cut it and try and flog them pills etc. at the same time.

Sure, a black market might spring up if the government doesn't know how to handle it, but if the government grows it economically, they will be able to charge the same amount as it costs now. The black market in ciagrettes is simply foreign cigarettes being sold because they were purchased tax free, not from people growing their own tobacco (which incidentally would be much better than the 3,000 chemicals thrown into a fag).


No it won't. Even though you can go to any liquor store and buy pretty much whatever you want today, there are still those who are brewing and selling their own and every year people are permanantly injured or killed by moonshine liquor. There will always be people who try and skirt the system, so it won't stop.

Haha. Maybe in America. I know one person who made moonshine and they never even drunk the stuff after they smelt the oven. I have never seen or heard of a moonshine death in the UK, but I'm sure they happen very occassionally.

[palerider]

Sure, a black market might spring up if the government doesn't know how to handle it, but if the government grows it economically, they will be able to charge the same amount as it costs now.


Didn't you just say that people are cutting it with all sorts of stuff because of the present cost? How will making it legal and selling for the same cost make things any better. By the way, growing one's own tobacco is quite an operation. It isn't the sort of thing one can grow in a back yard or wooded plot. Pot, on the other hand can be very easily grown across the countryside and legalization and taxation would surely not diminish the black market.

[Coyote]

I've always been ambivalent about the legalization of pot. On the one hand, I think there are far worse drugs and arresting and prosecuting people for the relatively minor crime of possesion takes money and manpower away from more important crimes and fills our jails unnecessarily.

On the other hand - would legalization lead to an industry committed to growing, selling, advertising pot and towards horticulture geared towards maximizing THC - much like the tobacco industry does with nicotine levels?

It probably would....and that wouldn't be a good thing.

[vyo476]

Then in the name of your ideology, you would see civilization go right down the toilet. Refer to history. If you are unable to learn from it, you are doomed.

Educate me. Where is the historical precedent for liberalization of marriage?

Slavery is today exactly what it was then, one human being owning another. It has not and never was redefined. Voting is today exactly what it always has been, casting a ballot for a person or initiative, it has not been redefined. Marriage is what it is and always has been. An institution between men and women.

How we view slavery and voting have both changed. Once upon a time, it was acceptable for people to own other people. Once upon a time, it was acceptable that only white male landowners could vote. When those sentiments changed the institutions themselves were changed.

Your definitions were oversimplifications.

Exactly what makes you think a third party would not be as corrupt as the two that exist now?

Much of the corruption in the Democratic and Republican Parties come from their ungainly size and their attempts to remain the only viable political parties in America. Doing away with the two-party system would decrease their size and divert their attention from "holding the party line" to winning on the merits of the individual.

Read some modern research. Pot isn't the harmless little weed users would like you to believe it is.

No, pot certainly isn't harmless. I know that. However, its harmful affects aren't as strong as those associated with nicotine. Hell, if you want to just talk about what's not good for you, cholesterol can screw you up a whole lot more than pot can.

I'm just going to keep track of your points against marijuana legalization.

1. You won't support it because of the plethora of laws that are "for your own good" that you don't like, since marijuana legalization would be hypocritical.

2. You won't support it because marijuana "isn't the harmless little weed" it's made out to be by users. Yet you've already stated that you dislike laws that are "for your own good" so this must just be an extension of your first point, ie, why it'd be hypocritical to legalize marijuana.

So far, according to what you've provided, it looks to me as though you'd be all for the legalization of marijuana if we were to get rid of those "for your own good" laws. So let's take them off the table. It's tomorrow and they're gone. Do you still disagree with legalizing marijuana?

Just in case the answer is yes, I'll outline here the various pro arguments:

ECONOMIC
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) reported 5,599 marijuana-related arrests during 2005. Think of all the money that is being used to arrest, try, sentence, and punish all those people and ask yourself if it is worth it.

Also consider the fact that those are just the people who got caught. Who knows exactly how many people in the United States are involved with marijuana? The point here is that were it legal marijuana would become a major industry. It would create legitimate jobs and, through regulation, would help to stop the production and distribution to unsuspecting costumers of weed that is laced with much stronger drugs or similarly more dangerous.

SOCIAL
The gateway theory proposes that marijuana use leads directly to usage of much harder drugs. I've seen this happen personally and I accept that, as things are now, it is true. However, the reason it is a gateway drug has as much to do with its illegal nature as it does with the properties of the drug itself. Marijuana is a euphoric drug. There are plenty of ways to get euphoric out there; however, marijuana users who start to need a stronger high naturally associate marijuana with "harder" drugs, like cocaine or heroin. Is this because cocaine and heroin are similar substances to marijuana? No, it's because they're both illegal.

If you legalize marijuana, the gateway aspect disappears. People who get into marijuana no longer have to do so illegally. Since they're no longer introduced to the world of illegal substances, if they want to go out and get involved in cocaine or heroin, they'll have to figure it out from the ground up; marijuana will, at that point, not have introduced them to the black market. And, over time, the natural societally-programmed comparison between marijuana and "harder" drugs will fade and we'll see that people won't naturally turn to cocaine as the "next step" nearly as much.

Think of it like cars.

Let's say you have a Pontiac and it breaks down. This isn't your first Pontiac and you're sick of the fact that they're just not all that reliable. Do you naturally go out and buy a Ford, right away, without considering your options? No, you shop around. You look at Volvos and Hondas as well as Fords.

The same will be true of marijuana. When the high loses its appeal (which, by the way, it only does for people who abuse the drug, whereas most marijuana users are not abusers) the user goes looking for other ways of inducing that euphoric affect. Maybe they go for cocaine, but it's no longer the natural choice. Maybe they go for alcohol. Maybe they go out and get laid a whole hell of a lot. Maybe they have a "spiritual awakening" and find God.

In the face of these reasons I find it hard to believe that you can still sit there and say that you won't even consider marijuana legalization because you dislike being forced to wear a seatbelt.

[9sublime]

Didn't you just say that people are cutting it with all sorts of stuff because of the present cost? How will making it legal and selling for the same cost make things any better. By the way, growing one's own tobacco is quite an operation. It isn't the sort of thing one can grow in a back yard or wooded plot. Pot, on the other hand can be very easily grown across the countryside and legalization and taxation would surely not diminish the black market.

People cut it with stuff to increase the weight, thus they can sell 3 ounces for the price of four ounces etc. Dealers have set rate because its what people are willing to pay, and so the dealers buy it off the "wholesale" dealers for a similair price accordingly. If the government grew and sold the stuff, it could sell it at the same price because it would cut out the middle man and all the other money incurring costs that come from the chain of events that gets illegal cannabis onto the street.

Making it legal will not raise the price, unless the government chooses to do so for the sake of making more money, which would be foolish as it would encourage a black market. Making it legal will also make the purity better.

Growing cannabis is more of an operation that I think you have been led to believe. To grow buds that people are going to want, potency wise, you need to have a UV light running for hours, fertilizers, soil nutralisers, regular watering systems, and space to put the thing. And from one plant each harvest your only going to get a few ounces unless you have a 6ft plant or something. The casual smoker may have a plant, and sell an ounce or two to his mates and keep the rest for personal consumption as a general rule. The real dealers have whole rooms with the entire floor filled with cannabis plants.

[Coyote]

Slavery is today exactly what it was then, one human being owning another. It has not and never was redefined. Voting is today exactly what it always has been, casting a ballot for a person or initiative, it has not been redefined. Marriage is what it is and always has been. An institution between men and women.

If one were to define marriage in unalterable terms as you seem to feel slavery and voting are, it would be as follows: a legal union between two individuals. No more, no less. Same sex marriage has existed in other cultures.

But in reality the definitions have changed.

Slavery has varied from ownership of a person's labor to ownership of the person himself to ownership of the person and all the person's progeny.

[palerider]

If one were to define marriage in unalterable terms as you seem to feel slavery and voting are, it would be as follows: a legal union between two individuals. No more, no less. Same sex marriage has existed in other cultures.

Same sex marriages have not existed in any culture. While there might have been acceptable arrangements, they were never called marriages and you have admitted as much yourself in other posts.

[top gun]

Ok Folks, lets take a true common sense approach and look at some issues and cut to the chase and come to some common ground in the name of common sense to be had by all.

The Earth is billions of years old, and not 6,000?

Whether the decision to terminate a pregnancy should be left up the person carrying the baby and the male counterpart?

Some people are born as homosexuals and some choose homosexuality, but some accomodation needs to be made to those who choose to live in long term relationships as homosexual couples?

It is time for the rise of a viable third party in American politics?

The war on drugs has been a huge policy failure?

Im curious to see what comes of this. Please post away

I think you've pretty much nailed it.

I always worry a little about what kind of split a third Party might create. For instance a Green Party that couldn't win would hurt the Democrats much more. Same way a Religious Ultra-Conservative Party would probably more hurt the Republicans.

But I agree that if there were a broad based 3rd Party... it would be benificial... so I guess I'm in total agreement. :)

[Bunz]

Top Gun, I would support a centrist party that advertises as such, that puts its priority to listen to people, be above board in thier financial araingements and minimize the effectiveness of lobbies. I know the name common sense party is already taken, but one that prides itself on cutting to the chase on coming up with the most reasonable solution to the most people concerned with a focus on retaining liberties and helping where government needs to and keeping out of the way of society when it doesnt.

Palerider, in regards to marriage/civil unions. Marriage is often based on religious beliefs that dont apply to many people in modern times. Nobody is realistically suggesting people marrying non-human animals etc. But in terms of benefits such as health care, taxes, property ownership, there needs to be some accomodation. This wouldnt even have to apply to same sex unions.

Civil Unions: A government recognized long term relationship between two consenting adults with all the legal rights otherwise granted to a marriage.

[top gun]

[QUOTE=Bunz;24001]Top Gun, I would support a centrist party that advertises as such, that puts its priority to listen to people, be above board in thier financial araingements and minimize the effectiveness of lobbies. I know the name common sense party is already taken, but one that prides itself on cutting to the chase on coming up with the most reasonable solution to the most people concerned with a focus on retaining liberties and helping where government needs to and keeping out of the way of society when it doesnt.

I think your train of thought on all of the issues you've raised here are very common sense my friend.:)

[Bunz]

I think your train of thought on all of the issues you've raised here are very common sense my friend.:)

Well a few things I have learned about politics and politicians...
1. There is usually a logical, common sense response to any issue or program. Moving away from this is usually the case of an individual or small group of any given body with a specific agenda be it there own personal, or of an influencial lobby. Usually the people they represent come in third at best, often times fourth in the priority of how they vote.
2. Very few decisions are actually made when the vote comes. This is usually already decided and whichever speech might be made, or which ever. They have thier mind made up and little will work to change it regardless of what is said.
3. Politicians over complicate things.

So lets look at the original issues I brought forth. I mentioned them because they are all real issues and there are still plenty of people including elected officials who cant seem to grasp simple concepts.

The Earth is billions of years old, and not 6,000?
There is tons of physical evidence to support this. But again, there are people who refuse to believe it. Why I am not sure, but either you are up with the times, or the times leave you behind.

Whether the decision to terminate a pregnancy should be left up the person carrying the baby and the male counterpart?
some think of it as murder, others last resort birth control. The fact of the matter is that, according to the Supreme Court legal abortion is the law of the land. This makes sense regardless. People are always going to go to great lengths to terminate unwanted pregnancy. I dont like the idea. But I will not step in the way of what they decide is best for them and thier bodies. I believe there are other alternatives and dont like it being an actual birth control method, but those who do, I will let them deal with thier own demons they create after doing so.

Some people are born as homosexuals and some choose homosexuality, but some accomodation needs to be made to those who choose to live in long term relationships as homosexual couples?
Civil unions, as I described above, as a long term relationship between two consenting adults with the same rights, priveledges, and responsibilities as marriage. Because it may be between two people of the same gender does not effect the commitment two other people have made to themselves. It doesnt detract from it a bit
It is time for the rise of a viable third party in American politics?
In contradiction to what I just pointed out, a third or extra parties would complicate politics. But I hate the idea that the one thing the two main parties can agree on is to suppress any uprising third party. They do this through legislation on primaries and who can be on the ballot etc.
The war on drugs has been a huge policy failure?
There has been a huge amount of treasure expended on enforcement and "corrections" of such problem, and the problem isnt even close to going away. We are making criminals of otherwise law abiding citizens with a health issue. Now this isnt to say that it is alright to rob a store to get money for one's next fix. That is armed robbery and should be prosecuted as such. Same goes with driving under the influence, and any other criminal offenses commited while on drugs or in pursuit of such. But lets draw some comparison to alcohol prohibiton of the 20s that was a total and complete failure. It was instituted by lobbying from a special interest group, being the Temperance League or whatever they called themselves. It did nothing but raise crime surrounding alcohol consumption, with gangs killing each other and innocents in an effort to capitalize from the amount of money to be made through the black market. Repealing the 19th or whichever amendment it was very effective in eliminating the structure and power derived from the structure in organized crime. If you legalize something, lets take cocaine for instance, I have never touched the stuff, and never will, even if it was legal. Because something is illegal or not, makes little difference if someone chooses to partake in that substance. So, again, I dont think it wise to ruin people's lives through criminal charges surrounding possession in thier own homes when the overall policy is flawed. It is often special interest, trying to eliminate or minimize another certain group who are stereotyped to use one substance or another. For instance our current drug policy instituted during the Nixon era, was an effort to marginalize the hippies because they were outspoken about the direction America was going in.
The other common practice politicians do, is to group together issues, when one is often similar but independant of each other. If we legalize marijuana, it doesnt mean we need to legalize heroin. Nor does it mean that everyone who does marijuana will go down the slippery slope to harder drugs.

[USMC the Almighty]

Bunz, though I don't necessarily agree with all of your positions, you do take a common sense approach (with the exception of abortion) and I can respect that.

[Coyote]

Same sex marriages have not existed in any culture. While there might have been acceptable arrangements, they were never called marriages and you have admitted as much yourself in other posts.

What ever they were called - they were treated as recognized bonds or commitments - to all intents or purposes something like a marriage that is recognized and conferred certain benefits.

[Popeye]

Here's an interesting study showing that countries with strong anti abortion laws don't have a lower abortion rate. The only thing they accomplish is to make abortion unsafe. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21255186/ I think that should be taken into consideration by those advocating the repeal of Roe v Wade.

[Bunz]

Popeye, this goes along the same argument about drug use. It is a matter of people doing it regardless of its legal status. So if we cant stop them, society needs to see the writing on the wall and make it as safe as necessary. I dont think we need public funding to pay for abortion. But again, the decision to bring a child into the world needs to be left to those who created it. Id certainly agree to only abortions in the first trimester, but it makes little sense to me to go back to the days in this country of overcrowded orphanages with thousands of children waiting for an adoption that will never come and are subjected to government control and expenditure. The current foster care system we have right now is bad enough.

[vyo476]

I'm going to play devil's advocate here, since I know that pale rider is going to address this and I figure it'd piss him off if I did it first.

Popeye, this goes along the same argument about drug use. It is a matter of people doing it regardless of its legal status. So if we cant stop them, society needs to see the writing on the wall and make it as safe as necessary.

Laws haven't "stopped" any of the behavior they're meant to stop; they only deter, and at certain levels. If you want to make the claim that anti-abortion laws don't deter abortion as much as, say, anti-murder laws deter murder, you'll have to back it up with some research. Otherwise, the idea that anti-abortion laws wouldn't stop abortion isn't anything more than a tag for the pro-choice camp.

I dont think we need public funding to pay for abortion.

When did that come up? First I've ever heard of it.

But again, the decision to bring a child into the world needs to be left to those who created it.

No one held a gun to their heads and forced them to screw.

Remember, biologically speaking pregnancy isn't a side effect of sex, it's the intended result - which means that if you're having sex, for whatever reasons, there's a strong chance she's going to get pregnant. Contraceptives are far from perfect and I've personally noticed that many couples tend to become lax in their application over time.

With all that in mind, the decision to bring a child into the world is, irregardless of anti-abortion laws, still with the (potential) parents.

Id certainly agree to only abortions in the first trimester,

Is the developing unborn child somehow less human in the first trimester?

Consider your answer carefully and remember that there are many born human beings who, as a result of disease, defect, or accident are in a very similar situation to that of the unborn fetus: underdeveloped or near non-existent brain functions, vital organs that require constant outside supplementation, wholescale dependency on outside sources for the appropriation of food...are people who have been born yet are still in these predicaments somehow less human? Would it be okay simply to kill them?

but it makes little sense to me to go back to the days in this country of overcrowded orphanages with thousands of children waiting for an adoption that will never come and are subjected to government control and expenditure. The current foster care system we have right now is bad enough.

There is overcrowding in many US cities. Perhaps we should just give the residents weapons and tell them that murder is no longer a crime. Overcrowding wouldn't be a problem after a while.

There are many ways to fix a problem. Better sexual education and more research into contraception (I recall discussing an "anti-ovulation" contraceptive with pale rider at some point that, while not a reality now, would pretty much make this whole fiasco go away) would both be very helpful in negating the importance of abortion in our modern world.

Personally, I think that working towards making abortion unnecessary would be a much more fruitful usage of our time than sitting around arguing about it uselessly when the two sides will never agree on whether or not abortion is or ought to be permissible.

[Bunz]

VYO, You are right the sides will never come together. The circumstances I spoke about, concern actual measures that have been attempted to curb abortion either on the federal level or in some states. Such as late term or third trimester abortions. Not making medicare or other public health funds available for it etc. Comparing overcrowded cities to orphanages isnt even close to a fair argumen and I think you know that.
You see I have a much more objective and consistent view on life and death. I dont want people to have children they are not interested in caring for, when they then become wards of thier respective state and a burden on society. While I agree a fetus is a living thing, it is not yet a human being until it is able to live outside of the mother's body and able to undetake the basic functions of life hold, mainly breathing and an operating respritory system and functioning brain. A fetus at 12 weeks or less it is virtually impossible without every body function being operated by machines to live. Which I dont consider living. Again, I dont like the idea of it. But my views are objective putting aside emotion or religious beliefs that are most often dragged into this. I believe the father should have some say in the situation on the decision to terminate a pregnancy. But ultimately it boils down to this. People are going to have sex for recreation, it is based on biology and to assume humans are only going to have sex for pro-creation purposes, well they arent getting laid enough. Pregnancy is a by product of that. If pregnancy should occur, and if for whatever reason, the pregnant person wants to pay for it themselves, and before the living thing in them is able to live outside of its body as more than a parasite(I do mean parasite in the nicest possible way, I just lack a better term right now) I dont have a problem with them doing that. I dont think anyone should stand in thier way of doing it. It is up to the woman and man if around to decide, not the government.

[vyo476]

Here's an interesting article I picked up off Yahoo. Browse at your leisure.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071012/hl_nm/women_dc

I think this highlights my point pretty effectively. Better and more prevalent contraception equals fewer abortions. Apparently, legalizing abortion also causes the number of abortions performed to decrease. There's some food for thought.

[Bunz]

I will certainly agree that less abortion is a good thing. I think it proves my point that having access to proper medical care if one makes that choice is critical. Over half a million deaths in Sub-Saharan Africa in a single year is eye-opening.

[vyo476]

VYO, You are right the sides will never come together. The circumstances I spoke about, concern actual measures that have been attempted to curb abortion either on the federal level or in some states. Such as late term or third trimester abortions. Not making medicare or other public health funds available for it etc.

These measures just make it harder for people to get abortions. They do not address the reason people get abortions and so aren't very helpful in the long run.

Comparing overcrowded cities to orphanages isnt even close to a fair argumen and I think you know that.

The comparison served its purpose.

You see I have a much more objective and consistent view on life and death.

Uh, more objective than who?

I dont want people to have children they are not interested in caring for, when they then become wards of thier respective state and a burden on society.

Neither do I. Neither does anyone in the pro-life camp, for that matter.

While I agree a fetus is a living thing, it is not yet a human being until it is able to live outside of the mother's body and able to undetake the basic functions of life hold, mainly breathing and an operating respritory system and functioning brain.

So the brain-damaged are less human than us "normal" people? How about people with asthma or other breathing disorders? And if they are, in your view, just as human as the rest of us, why is that the conditions for humanity you impose on newborns any different than the conditions you impose on people who've been around a while longer?

A fetus at 12 weeks or less it is virtually impossible without every body function being operated by machines to live. Which I dont consider living. Again, I dont like the idea of it.

I don't consider it living either, but I do consider it being alive. I'm bordering on cliche with that statement but I think it gets the point across.

I believe the father should have some say in the situation on the decision to terminate a pregnancy.

If I was fully able to get behind abortion rights I'd probably agree with you on this.

But ultimately it boils down to this. People are going to have sex for recreation, it is based on biology

No. Sex drive is our biology's way of telling us to reproduce. It is not a biological drive towards recreational activity, it is a biological drive towards the propagation of the species necessary for the species' survival.

and to assume humans are only going to have sex for pro-creation purposes, well they arent getting laid enough.

Sadly I'd have to agree with you here. :(

Pregnancy is a by product of that. If pregnancy should occur, and if for whatever reason, the pregnant person wants to pay for it themselves, and before the living thing in them is able to live outside of its body as more than a parasite(I do mean parasite in the nicest possible way, I just lack a better term right now) I dont have a problem with them doing that. I dont think anyone should stand in thier way of doing it. It is up to the woman and man if around to decide, not the government.

There's one thing I'm curious about. Why bother saying that you mean "parasite" in the "nicest possible way"? Especially in light of the fact that you're discussing the willful termination of that "parasite's" existence.

I can just see you talking to a fetus. "You're a parasite. I don't mean to offend you. But it's okay for people to kill you."

I'll let palerider address the points you've posted that have to do with how human a fetus is; he's the one who knows all that stuff. The only reason I argue in abortion threads at all is to show how useless it is to argue in abortion threads. Anyone who is thinking things through clearly and logically can see that abortion presents an insoluble moral dilemma.

In a side note, I'd very much like to introduce you to your enter key. He is your friend, and more to the point he is the friend of those of us who don't want to get headaches when we read your posts. Just a somewhat sarcastic suggestion that you use it a bit more often (I assure you, this was meant in the nicest possible way :p ).

[Bunz]

Let me preface this by stating that, abortion is now legal in the US. The Supreme Court ruled it that way. If the court were to change thier ruling, my feelings wouldnt be hurt. I am not a crusader for one side or the other. Just simply someone who looks at the writing on the wall, and says that if someone wants an abortion, they will do it regardless. It is much more wise to allow conditions under which that can be met.
Uh, more objective than who?
I look at it more objectively than the folks who let emotion or religion into thier arguments on the issue, or any issue for that matter. The two main arguments I hear in the pro-life camp are...its against god, or "oh my, how could someone do that" Well I dont judge those who choose what they want to do. I dont think it my place to interfere with it. This is a consistent stance I take on many issues. I let people decide for themselves.
So the brain-damaged are less human than us "normal" people? How about people with asthma or other breathing disorders? And if they are, in your view, just as human as the rest of us, why is that the conditions for humanity you impose on newborns any different than the conditions you impose on people who've been around a while longer?
No no, dont get me wrong. I work with disabled people. But they are among the vast majority of those whose parents decided to continue thier pregnancy. I dont impose my beliefs on newborns. As they are born. I impose my thoughts on something that has not developed enough to that point to live outside of another body.
There's one thing I'm curious about. Why bother saying that you mean "parasite" in the "nicest possible way"? Especially in light of the fact that you're discussing the willful termination of that "parasite's" existence.
Well I used parasite, because as I said I didnt have a more appropriate term for it. I am sure there is some scientific or medical term. But what I meant by it was, a living organism that needs a host organism to live in for its further survival.
In a side note, I'd very much like to introduce you to your enter key.
Point taken, I often get on a rant and forget to use it. Ill do my best in the future. My feelings arent hurt.

Also VYO, I see that post was 1,500 for you. I am not sure if I should say congrats or get a life! :)

[vyo476]

I am not a crusader for one side or the other.

Neither am I. This is because I find both sides intolerable. It's an interesting dilemma.

I look at it more objectively than the folks who let emotion or religion into thier arguments on the issue, or any issue for that matter. The two main arguments I hear in the pro-life camp are...its against god, or "oh my, how could someone do that" Well I dont judge those who choose what they want to do. I dont think it my place to interfere with it. This is a consistent stance I take on many issues. I let people decide for themselves.

In the time I've been here I've seen a few of those emotional arguments. I've also seen a lot of logical arguments. If you're curious about them, here are a few links.

http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=620
http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1441
http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1629

There's a HUGE amount of stuff there, obviously. The debates between palerider and Coyote are, in my opinion, the best.

Well I used parasite, because as I said I didnt have a more appropriate term for it. I am sure there is some scientific or medical term. But what I meant by it was, a living organism that needs a host organism to live in for its further survival.

A born baby also relies entirely on a "host" for nourishment. The only difference between the infant and the unborn is that the unborn is connected, and that isn't in the definition of parasite.

Semantics? Maybe. However, I think this illustrates the point - the differences between the unborn and the infant are also largely semantics.

Point taken, I often get on a rant and forget to use it. Ill do my best in the future. My feelings arent hurt.

That's good to hear. Once upon a time I asked Roker to clean up his posts and I'm pretty sure he burned me in effigy that night.

Also VYO, I see that post was 1,500 for you. I am not sure if I should say congrats or get a life! :)

Either works. In a quirky way this is a lot closer to reality than the "real world" I inhabit (I go to art school), so if you were to tell me to "get a life" it'd be exceedingly difficult.

[Bunz]

Semantics? Maybe. However, I think this illustrates the point - the differences between the unborn and the infant are also largely semantics.

Again, the difference, between a fetus that would have no realistic ability to survive on its own and an infant there is quite the difference.
One can live on its own with assistance from humans to raise that creature. But its natural bodily functions have developed enough to the point where they can function on thier own.
The other is a matter of, the fact they havent developed enough to be able to live outside of its womb.

[palerider]

Educate me. Where is the historical precedent for liberalization of marriage?

While it is possible to go deeply back into history and find societies that have suffered when they liberalized marriage, it isn't necessary. Look at the US in the past half century or so.

We liberalized marriage to a great degree here with the passage of the divorce laws that we live with at present. Are you going to argue that the society hasn't suffered greatly and is experiencing grave symptoms as a result of even that relatively mild liberalization? Do I really need to remind you of the life long problems that children of broken families have which they in turn tend to pass along to their own children as a result of their own broken familes?

It is possible to continue ad nauseum throughout history detailing the problems various societies have suffered as a result of liberalizing marriage but I am not going to do it for you. The burden of proof that allowing gay marriage won't harm society falls squarely on you since it is you who is advocating that we disregard social norms that have been time tested for millenia. Feel free to prove your case at any time.

There is an ever growing body of evidence that highlights the destructive nature of homosexuality and homosexual relationships. To advocate normalizing a relationship that is unhealthy for those who participate and in turn, normalize the consequences for society as a whole is simply irresponsible.

The American Journal of Public Health Highlights Risks of Homosexual Practices
by A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., M.B.A., M.P.H., (June 2003, Vol.93, No. 6)
http://www.narth.com/docs/risks.html

"Suicidality and Sexual Orientation: Differences Between Men and Women in a General Population-Based Sample From The Netherlands", 17Oct06, published in Archives of Sexual Behavior (June 2006) found that even in gay-tolerant cultures, suicidality rates are higher among gays than among heterosexual males. http://www.narth.com/docs/netherlands.html

The Health Risks of Gay Sex, by internist John R. Diggs, Jr., M.D. (Note: this is a 19 page downloadable PDF file from the web site of the Corporate Resource Council - www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf

Why Isn't Homosexuality Considered A Disorder On The Basis Of Its Medical Consequences? By Kathleen Melonakos, M.A., R.N.
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/medconsequences.html

Studies on Homosexuality and Mental Health
http://www.narth.com/docs/recent.html

Research Studies and Journal Articles of Interest
http://www.narth.com/docs/studiesofinterest.html

Sexually Transmitted Depression – The New STD?, Warren Throckmorton, PhD,
November 29, 2005
http://www.drthrockmorton.com/article.asp?id=173


The beneficial effect of a stable family structure for generation after generation upon a society is well known and undeniable as well as the harmful effect of an unstable family structure. Since you are primarily interested in homosexual marriage, here are some results from a study in a nation in which there is no particular stigma attatched to homosexuality and in which homosexual marriage is legal.

Major Study Finds New Evidence That Childhood Family Factors Influence Sexual Orientation (10/06)

[Peer-reviewed journal, Archives of Sexual Behavior 10/06]

It provides striking new evidence for the influence of childhood family factors on sexual-orientation development. The 12-year study used a population-based sample of 2,000,355 native-born Danes between the ages of 18 and 49.

Denmark -- a country noted for its tolerance of a wide variety of alternative lifestyles, including homosexual partnerships -- was the first country to legalize homosexual "marriage".

The study found that men who did not live with both parents until age 18 were 56%-76% more likely to "marry" another man. The researchers Morten Frisch and Anders Hviid conclude by saying, "Whatever ingredients determine a person's sexual preferences and marital choices, our population-based study shows that parental interactions are important." Notice they didn't say "parental genes" were important but family structures. [FRC, 13Dec06]

The researchers assessed detailed marriage records for all Danish-born men and women marrying a same-sex partner from the years 1989 through 2001. With access to the "virtually complete registry coverage of the entire Danish population," the study sample therefore lacked the problematic selection bias that has plagued many previous studies on sexual orientation.

Parental Influences on Sexual Orientation Development The authors conclude: "Our study provides population-based, prospective evidence that childhood family experiences are important determinants of heterosexual and homosexual marriage decisions in adulthood."

Assuming that people who marry heterosexually are almost always heterosexual -- especially in a country where homosexuality carries little stigma, and gay marriage is legal -- and people who marry homosexually can be presumed to be homosexual, the study's findings offer intriguing evidence about family factors separating homosexual from heterosexual persons.

The following are findings from this new data:

Men who marry homosexually are more likely to have been raised in a family with unstable parental relationships -- particularly, absent or unknown fathers and divorced parents.

Findings on women who marry homosexually were less pronounced, but were still associated with a childhood marked by a broken family.

The rates of same-sex marriage "were elevated among women who experienced maternal death during adolescence, women with short duration of parental marriage, and women with long duration of mother-absent cohabitation with father."

Men and women with "unknown fathers" were significantly less likely to marry a person of the opposite sex than were their peers with known fathers.

Men who experienced parental death during childhood or adolescence "had significantly lower heterosexual marriage rates than peers whose parents were both alive on their 18th birthday.

The younger the age of the father's death, the lower was the likelihood of heterosexual marriage."

"The shorter the duration of parental marriage, the higher was the likelihood of homosexual marriage...homosexual marriage rates were 36% and 26% higher among men and women, respectively, who experienced parental divorce after less than six years of marriage, than among peers whose parents remained married for all 18 years of childhood and adolescence."

"Men whose parents divorced before their 6th birthday were 39% more likely to marry homosexually than peers from intact parental marriages."

"Men whose cohabitation with both parents ended before age 18 years had significantly (55% -76%) higher rates of homosexual marriage than men who cohabited with both parents until 18 years."

The mother's age was directly linked to the likelihood of homosexual marriage among men -- the older the mother, the more likely her son was to marry another man. Also, "only children" were more likely to be homosexual. - Persons born in large cities were significantly more likely to marry a same-sex partner -- suggesting that cultural factors might also affect the development of sexual orientation.

"Whatever ingredients determine a person's sexual preferences and marital choices," conclude the study's authors, "our population-based study shows that parental interactions are important." Reference:"Childhood Family Correlates of Heterosexual and Homosexual Marriages: A National Cohort Study of Two Million Danes," by Morten Frisch and Anders Hviid, Archives of Sexual Behavior Oct 13, 2006 [NARTH: http://www.narth.com/index.html

How we view slavery and voting have both changed. Once upon a time, it was acceptable for people to own other people. Once upon a time, it was acceptable that only white male landowners could vote. When those sentiments changed the institutions themselves were changed.

How we view them may have changed, but we have not redefined thier meanings. There is a difference between simply changing ones view on a thing and redefining that thing entirely.

Your definitions were oversimplifications.

My definitions are accurate. It is telling that you find it necessary to overcomplicate an issue in order to make a point. If your point was valid, it could be made in the face of the simple truth.

[palerider]

Educate me. Where is the historical precedent for liberalization of marriage?

While it is possible to go deeply back into history and find societies that have suffered when they liberalized marriage, it isn't necessary. Look at the US in the past half century or so.

We liberalized marriage to a great degree here with the passage of the divorce laws that we live with at present. Are you going to argue that the society hasn't suffered greatly and is experiencing grave symptoms as a result of even that relatively mild liberalization? Do I really need to remind you of the life long problems that children of broken families have which they in turn tend to pass along to their own children as a result of their own broken familes?

It is possible to continue ad nauseum throughout history detailing the problems various societies have suffered as a result of liberalizing marriage but I am not going to do it for you. The burden of proof that allowing gay marriage won't harm society falls squarely on you since it is you who is advocating that we disregard social norms that have been time tested for millenia. Feel free to prove your case at any time.

There is an ever growing body of evidence that highlights the destructive nature of homosexuality and homosexual relationships. To advocate normalizing a relationship that is unhealthy for those who participate and in turn, normalize the consequences for society as a whole is simply irresponsible.

The American Journal of Public Health Highlights Risks of Homosexual Practices
by A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., M.B.A., M.P.H., (June 2003, Vol.93, No. 6)
http://www.narth.com/docs/risks.html

"Suicidality and Sexual Orientation: Differences Between Men and Women in a General Population-Based Sample From The Netherlands", 17Oct06, published in Archives of Sexual Behavior (June 2006) found that even in gay-tolerant cultures, suicidality rates are higher among gays than among heterosexual males. http://www.narth.com/docs/netherlands.html

The Health Risks of Gay Sex, by internist John R. Diggs, Jr., M.D. (Note: this is a 19 page downloadable PDF file from the web site of the Corporate Resource Council - www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf

Why Isn't Homosexuality Considered A Disorder On The Basis Of Its Medical Consequences? By Kathleen Melonakos, M.A., R.N.
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/medconsequences.html

Studies on Homosexuality and Mental Health
http://www.narth.com/docs/recent.html

Research Studies and Journal Articles of Interest
http://www.narth.com/docs/studiesofinterest.html

Sexually Transmitted Depression – The New STD?, Warren Throckmorton, PhD,
November 29, 2005
http://www.drthrockmorton.com/article.asp?id=173


The beneficial effect of a stable family structure for generation after generation upon a society is well known and undeniable as well as the harmful effect of an unstable family structure. Since you are primarily interested in homosexual marriage, here are some results from a study in a nation in which there is no particular stigma attatched to homosexuality and in which homosexual marriage is legal.

Major Study Finds New Evidence That Childhood Family Factors Influence Sexual Orientation (10/06)

[Peer-reviewed journal, Archives of Sexual Behavior 10/06]

It provides striking new evidence for the influence of childhood family factors on sexual-orientation development. The 12-year study used a population-based sample of 2,000,355 native-born Danes between the ages of 18 and 49.

Denmark -- a country noted for its tolerance of a wide variety of alternative lifestyles, including homosexual partnerships -- was the first country to legalize homosexual "marriage".

The study found that men who did not live with both parents until age 18 were 56%-76% more likely to "marry" another man. The researchers Morten Frisch and Anders Hviid conclude by saying, "Whatever ingredients determine a person's sexual preferences and marital choices, our population-based study shows that parental interactions are important." Notice they didn't say "parental genes" were important but family structures. [FRC, 13Dec06]

The researchers assessed detailed marriage records for all Danish-born men and women marrying a same-sex partner from the years 1989 through 2001. With access to the "virtually complete registry coverage of the entire Danish population," the study sample therefore lacked the problematic selection bias that has plagued many previous studies on sexual orientation.

Parental Influences on Sexual Orientation Development The authors conclude: "Our study provides population-based, prospective evidence that childhood family experiences are important determinants of heterosexual and homosexual marriage decisions in adulthood."

Assuming that people who marry heterosexually are almost always heterosexual -- especially in a country where homosexuality carries little stigma, and gay marriage is legal -- and people who marry homosexually can be presumed to be homosexual, the study's findings offer intriguing evidence about family factors separating homosexual from heterosexual persons.

The following are findings from this new data:

Men who marry homosexually are more likely to have been raised in a family with unstable parental relationships -- particularly, absent or unknown fathers and divorced parents.

Findings on women who marry homosexually were less pronounced, but were still associated with a childhood marked by a broken family.

The rates of same-sex marriage "were elevated among women who experienced maternal death during adolescence, women with short duration of parental marriage, and women with long duration of mother-absent cohabitation with father."

Men and women with "unknown fathers" were significantly less likely to marry a person of the opposite sex than were their peers with known fathers.

Men who experienced parental death during childhood or adolescence "had significantly lower heterosexual marriage rates than peers whose parents were both alive on their 18th birthday.

The younger the age of the father's death, the lower was the likelihood of heterosexual marriage."

"The shorter the duration of parental marriage, the higher was the likelihood of homosexual marriage...homosexual marriage rates were 36% and 26% higher among men and women, respectively, who experienced parental divorce after less than six years of marriage, than among peers whose parents remained married for all 18 years of childhood and adolescence."

"Men whose parents divorced before their 6th birthday were 39% more likely to marry homosexually than peers from intact parental marriages."

"Men whose cohabitation with both parents ended before age 18 years had significantly (55% -76%) higher rates of homosexual marriage than men who cohabited with both parents until 18 years."

The mother's age was directly linked to the likelihood of homosexual marriage among men -- the older the mother, the more likely her son was to marry another man. Also, "only children" were more likely to be homosexual. - Persons born in large cities were significantly more likely to marry a same-sex partner -- suggesting that cultural factors might also affect the development of sexual orientation.

"Whatever ingredients determine a person's sexual preferences and marital choices," conclude the study's authors, "our population-based study shows that parental interactions are important." Reference:"Childhood Family Correlates of Heterosexual and Homosexual Marriages: A National Cohort Study of Two Million Danes," by Morten Frisch and Anders Hviid, Archives of Sexual Behavior Oct 13, 2006 [NARTH: http://www.narth.com/index.html

How we view slavery and voting have both changed. Once upon a time, it was acceptable for people to own other people. Once upon a time, it was acceptable that only white male landowners could vote. When those sentiments changed the institutions themselves were changed.

How we view them may have changed, but we have not redefined thier meanings. There is a difference between simply changing ones view on a thing and redefining that thing entirely.

Your definitions were oversimplifications.

My definitions are accurate. It is telling that you find it necessary to overcomplicate an issue in order to make a point. If your point was valid, it could be made in the face of the simple truth.

[vyo476]

We liberalized marriage to a great degree here with the passage of the divorce laws that we live with at present. Are you going to argue that the society hasn't suffered greatly and is experiencing grave symptoms as a result of even that relatively mild liberalization? Do I really need to remind you of the life long problems that children of broken families have which they in turn tend to pass along to their own children as a result of their own broken familes?

Our society was already suffering prior to the introduction of divorce laws. The only thing that changed when they were introduced was that people in abusive or unwanted relationships had a way out; the things that caused those bad relationships has changed only gradually. My parents are still together but they hate each other; as a result, I had a pretty screwed up childhood.

It is possible to continue ad nauseum throughout history detailing the problems various societies have suffered as a result of liberalizing marriage but I am not going to do it for you. The burden of proof that allowing gay marriage won't harm society falls squarely on you since it is you who is advocating that we disregard social norms that have been time tested for millenia. Feel free to prove your case at any time.

I asked you for historical precedents for liberalization of marriage because I don't know of any; the ball is, therefore, in your court. You've provided one and I'm sure that our debate on that one isn't over. Feel free to provide any others or we can just consider this section of the debate closed.

There is an ever growing body of evidence that highlights the destructive nature of homosexuality and homosexual relationships. To advocate normalizing a relationship that is unhealthy for those who participate and in turn, normalize the consequences for society as a whole is simply irresponsible.

So much for your disdain for laws that are "for your own good."

The American Journal of Public Health Highlights Risks of Homosexual Practices
by A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., M.B.A., M.P.H., (June 2003, Vol.93, No. 6)
http://www.narth.com/docs/risks.html

"Suicidality and Sexual Orientation: Differences Between Men and Women in a General Population-Based Sample From The Netherlands", 17Oct06, published in Archives of Sexual Behavior (June 2006) found that even in gay-tolerant cultures, suicidality rates are higher among gays than among heterosexual males. http://www.narth.com/docs/netherlands.html

The Health Risks of Gay Sex, by internist John R. Diggs, Jr., M.D. (Note: this is a 19 page downloadable PDF file from the web site of the Corporate Resource Council - www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf

Why Isn't Homosexuality Considered A Disorder On The Basis Of Its Medical Consequences? By Kathleen Melonakos, M.A., R.N.
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/medconsequences.html

Studies on Homosexuality and Mental Health
http://www.narth.com/docs/recent.html

Research Studies and Journal Articles of Interest
http://www.narth.com/docs/studiesofinterest.html

Sexually Transmitted Depression – The New STD?, Warren Throckmorton, PhD,
November 29, 2005
http://www.drthrockmorton.com/article.asp?id=173

Hopefully I'll get a chance to read some of these later, but I only have an hour before class and I'm trying to polish up a paper on the Trojan War.

The beneficial effect of a stable family structure for generation after generation upon a society is well known and undeniable as well as the harmful effect of an unstable family structure. Since you are primarily interested in homosexual marriage, here are some results from a study in a nation in which there is no particular stigma attatched to homosexuality and in which homosexual marriage is legal.

Your article says nothing about the stability of the resultant homosexual marriages, only that many people wind up homosexual if their home lives with the traditional Mom and Dad (or without one or the other) didn't exactly go very nicely. Do you suppose that people with bad childhoods don't make good parents?

How we view them may have changed, but we have not redefined thier meanings. There is a difference between simply changing ones view on a thing and redefining that thing entirely.

Last stop, obfuscation station, everyone off.

This is all legality, palerider. If you make something illegal you change its legal definition. That's how the definitions of slavery and voting were changed and that's how the definition of marriage will be changed.

The sweeping changes to the definition of marriage that I hear about from the right won't even affect most people. This isn't going to pull the rug out from under the institution, just extend to grant rights to a minority that has been, until now, oppressed (kind of like how we extended the right of freedom to slaves...). You're married, right? Tell me, how does allowing two gay men to get married adversely affect your own marriage?

My definitions are accurate. It is telling that you find it necessary to overcomplicate an issue in order to make a point. If your point was valid, it could be made in the face of the simple truth.

The world is not so simple as you would like it to be. If you oversimplify enough, sure, things look clear and dandy, but there are a lot of people who'll get left out of the equation.

Palerider, can you stop for a moment and just try to imagine what it's like to be a homosexual, watching hetersexual couples that are no more in love than you and your partner get married and to know that society will not let you express that love in the same way as those heterosexual couples?

[palerider]

Our society was already suffering prior to the introduction of divorce laws. The only thing that changed when they were introduced was that people in abusive or unwanted relationships had a way out; the things that caused those bad relationships has changed only gradually. My parents are still together but they hate each other; as a result, I had a pretty screwed up childhood.

Actually, some people were suffering. Not society. Society in general was not suffering the ill effects that millions of children of broken homes are creating today.

So much for your distain for laws that are "for your own good."

There is a difference between laws that are good for society as a whole and laws that are targeted towards individuals.

Hopefully I'll get a chance to read some of these later, but I only have an hour before class and I'm trying to polish up a paper on the Trojan War.

Let me know when you have because the conversation really need not go any further if you can't effectively rebutt the information there.

Your article says nothing about the stability of the resultant homosexual marriages, only that many people wind up homosexual if their home lives with the traditional Mom and Dad (or without one or the other) didn't exactly go very nicely. Do you suppose that people with bad childhoods don't make good parents?

And that takes us right back to the liberalization of marriage in the first place.


This is all legality, palerider. If you make something illegal you change its legal definition. That's how the definitions of slavery and voting were changed and that's how the definition of marriage will be changed.

Slavery is what it is. It was exactly the same thing while it was legal as it is after it became illegal. The definition of slavery didn't change, only its legality did. If spitting on the sidewalk is legal one day, and illegal the next, spitting on the sidewalk remains what it is. Making a thing legal or illegal does not change what it is.

The sweeping changes to the definition of marriage that I hear about from the right won't even affect most people. This isn't going to pull the rug out from under the institution, just extend to grant rights to a minority that has been, until now, oppressed (kind of like how we extended the right of freedom to slaves...). You're married, right? Tell me, how does allowing two gay men to get married adversely affect your own marriage?

Of course it won't pull the rug out from under it any more than liberalizing divorce law did. It just destabalizes it some more. The collapse of the institution doesn't have to be a sudden thing, it can crumble a bit at a time and history tells us that such a crumbling invariably leads to societal collapse.

The world is not so simple as you would like it to be. If you oversimplify enough, sure, things look clear and dandy, but there are a lot of people who'll get left out of the equation.

And that is true with any action that is taken for the benefit of the society as a whole rather than for what a few individuals want. There is a greater good to be considered.