|
Post by cenk on Jan 30, 2006 12:51:05 GMT -5
Would this include having illicit affairs? Sharing illegal drugs? Speeding on empty interstates in the middle of the night? Sacrificing animals deep in a forest? And whats wrong with any of these? If homosexuals are allowed to marry then why cant someone who enjoys taking drugs (that are only illegal because the government says so) cant? Thats not real freedom of choice.
|
|
|
Post by cenk on Jan 30, 2006 12:54:46 GMT -5
well, gay men take a much bigger risk of catching aids - if they don't stay with their one partner for the rest of their lives then they risk spreading aids, and there's no doubt that if no-one had gay sex then aids would not be such a big problem (which it is in scotland, if not elsewhere in the UK or USA). I remember saying this stuff about the aids and everyone was ganging up on me because of that
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Jan 30, 2006 15:12:05 GMT -5
Okay so if we take that line of reasoning. You can not have any law that affects any adults choices unless that choice directly harms another. Therefore all environmental regulations must be removed. All employment regulations must be removed and traffic laws as well as an adult should be able to make the right choice. We would be left with thou shalt not kill and thou shalt not rape and nothing else. Personally I do not think that would help society out at all.
|
|
|
Post by cenk on Jan 30, 2006 16:27:48 GMT -5
Well we might as well forget about any kind of environmental regulations (may I remind you that the USA is the only major power not to ratify the Kyoto protocol (unless you consider Australia to be a major power)) Well we might as well scrap all environmental regulations since we are beyond the point of no return. Its too late no matter what steps are taken to prevent the destruction of civilization it going to result in failure. The bottom line is the USA doesn't have to do everything in the world for Gay people. They already have their cities in San Francisco and Atlanta I'm sure there are other places. I say Bush and Ahmadinejad are both trying to keep up the moral standards (Decadence is prevaling across the world!) of their respected nations. The idea that UN should waste time with organisations of "sexual minorities" is just going to be a waste of resources and time. When people are starving in Mali who gives a damn on the status of homosexuals in Mali?
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Jan 30, 2006 17:00:51 GMT -5
I hear you, but sense when was the UN priority about people? I've made a real close watch of the scandals but it seems that every time there is a UN program there is someone making a few too many bucks on the side.
There is no clear purpose to the UN. If they made prevent war and getting food and aid to hungry people and helping nations to improve their education systems and economies so they would not need aid that would be one thing, but it is a collection of allies from a war that has been over for about 60 years and their have been major changes to the world sense then. Sadly I think The UN is just a meeting place for international plans to rip off the tax payers.
As far as some of the treaties go I've heard that they are not across the board deal and that in some of them (I do not recall which as the conversation was several years ago.) The US would be placed under strict regulations while other Nations would have little or none.
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Jan 30, 2006 17:39:23 GMT -5
as far as your legal arguments go - if you take anything to the absolute extreme then it's never going to work (ie. "people should be free" leads to no laws at all, but "people should be restricted when their actions adversely affects others" leads to everyone being forced to work and live a boring life), so simply pointing that out doesn't end the discussion ... almost always a middle ground has to be found and where the law draws the lines is basically arbitrary and no countries are ever exactly the same ...
in Germany they have the "autobahn", which is something like a special lane in the motorway where you are allowed to go as fast as you can - the theory behind it is that speed isn't dangerous on the motorway if you stay in your lane and don't drive to close to the car in front, so you might as well go as fast as you like if you stay in that lane. other countries disagree but often the speed limit is different when you cross a border (the speed limit on UK motorways is 70mph, but in france i've seen speed limits of up to 130kph - about 80mph). the same kind of thing could be said for many aspects of the law, not just speed limits ...
in a christian country like the UK we might as well reflect christian values and not allow gay marriage, but in a secular country like the USA the state shouldn't make the distinction purely on irrational feelings.
|
|
|
Post by cenk on Jan 30, 2006 18:31:58 GMT -5
The UK already has these Gay union things I'm not too sure what they are but I think Gays now get the same rights as married couples. Unfortunately (or Fortunately (it depends on how you look at it)) the EU is pretty secular so I wouldn't be supprised if they legalise Gay marriage. I just have to ask whats next? will Gays be allowed to adopt? What if they adopt a boy then turn him Gay! Why stop at Gay marriage why not allow Incest marriage (practically legal in Alabama)? or people who practise in Beastiality to marry their animals? (I hear thats practically legal in Wales and some southern states like Texas and Arkansas) and so on.
Teancum I think there is a purpose of the UN and that is to fulfill the wishes of the imperial powers, otherwise known as the USA, the UK, France and a few other major players. Its a very effective tool of the worlds freemasonary. Although I think without the UN people would be starving at a much higher rate (1.3 million Palestinians are on UN food aid).
Littlepea the thing is lets say if I want to smoke a joint then who is that harming? Is that really a crime? Isn't smoking Cannabis just a victimless crime? If anything people who smoke Cannabis are less likely to do crime then compared to drunk people.
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Jan 30, 2006 19:16:24 GMT -5
cannabis is much less dangerous than tobacco, alcohol or even aspirin, but that in itself is not a reason to legalise it - tobacco, alcohol and aspirin should be illegal as well but the only reason they aren't is that the dangers were discovered after they were deemed legal and making them illegal now would actually cause more problems than we currently have. illegal drug use isn't a victimless crime if you buy your drugs from a dealer, because they will have gotten it from a chain of dealers probably involving some kind of exploitation along the way (either drug dealers forcing others to deal for them through force and fear or kids being forced to produce drugs on some kind of production line or the fact that money made from drug dealing is likely to be used for immoral purposes such as gang related crime or indeed more drug dealing) who knows ... of course if you legalise it then you practically cut out the dealers and a lot of the problems associated with that and holland (who has legalised cannabis) seems to function just fine.
a better example of a victimless crime is speeding on an empty road, but i suppose one argument against actually allowing that (and only enforcing the speed limit when there are other cars within sight) is that people will of course make mistakes and it's simpler and safer for everyone just to obey the speed limit at all times.
if people were 100% rational, only ever made informed decisions and never made any mistakes then we wouldn't need any laws at all, but fortunately that is not the case.
my lecturer in jurisprudence (the philosphy of law, basically - the sort of stuff we're talking about here, though it is slightly off-topic) reminded us that tolerating something is not the same as encouraging it ... although we were actually talking about legalising prostitution, but that's another story.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Jan 30, 2006 22:01:03 GMT -5
We are talking about lifestyle choices which are not, in fact, harmful to society, We fundamentally disagree on this point.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Jan 30, 2006 22:11:22 GMT -5
Would this include having illicit affairs? Sharing illegal drugs? Speeding on empty interstates in the middle of the night? Sacrificing animals deep in a forest? And whats wrong with any of these? Illicit affairs destroy trust in marriages... which leads to divorce... which leads to children being shuffled around like used books... which leads to children growing up believing that sort of lifestyle is normal... which leads to them entering relationships with a misunderstanding of what commitment means... which leads to adultery... and so on, and so on... Drugs are illegal not -- as you say -- "because the government says so" but because they do irreparable damage to the human nervous system... some of which causes genetic alterations that result in birth defects and deformities. Speeding on empty interstates at night assumes that they are empty -- which they rarely are -- and results in accidental deaths every year, particularly when alcohol is involved. It also gives young people a sense of immortality (of sorts) which before long leads to their speeding during the day, in neighborhoods, in increasingly risky ways -- leading to more deaths and injuries... Sacrificing animals in the forest is obviously harmful to the animals, but also has supernatural implications for the participants... not to mention anyone who happens along to witness the event. I really hope you were being sarcastic... (P.S. Technically, you could replace each of them with "sexual immorality" and they would still be true.)
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Jan 30, 2006 22:12:31 GMT -5
I remember saying this stuff about the aids and everyone was ganging up on me because of that It wasn't what you were saying... it was the way you were saying it...
|
|
moonchain
Guide
It raises a fever of intense apathy.
Posts: 595
|
Post by moonchain on Jan 31, 2006 6:32:04 GMT -5
I remember saying this stuff about the aids and everyone was ganging up on me because of that You were using it as one of the reasons you hate homosexuality. littlepea doesn't seem against it, as long as it is within a loving relationship and we can find ways to reduce AIDS in general so that gay men (and people who enjoy an active sexual lifestyle in general) don't have to worry about it.
|
|
moonchain
Guide
It raises a fever of intense apathy.
Posts: 595
|
Post by moonchain on Jan 31, 2006 6:37:17 GMT -5
We fundamentally disagree on this point. Right. I understand this. But the things that you tried to compare it to have shown an active harm in courts, whereas homosexuality has not and is harmful and immoral from the standpoint of certain religions. In a country that has separation of church and state, that supposed harm should be thrown out in view of any actual harm, which has yet to be proven as far as I can see. It isn't whether you disagree with me and Becca, it's whether the courts and the system disagrees. So far they're showing some agreement on your side, but that's *because* they are being ruled by the Religious Right at the moment.
|
|
moonchain
Guide
It raises a fever of intense apathy.
Posts: 595
|
Post by moonchain on Jan 31, 2006 6:43:46 GMT -5
I just have to ask whats next? will Gays be allowed to adopt? What if they adopt a boy then turn him Gay! Why stop at Gay marriage why not allow Incest marriage (practically legal in Alabama)? or people who practise in Beastiality to marry their animals? (I hear thats practically legal in Wales and some southern states like Texas and Arkansas) and so on. Oh jebus. You're joking, right? (Please tell me he's joking.) You can't be that reactionary. THIS is exactly what kind of arguments people here in the U.S. came up with when they were first trying to legalize blacks and whites getting married ("gee, if someone can marry a black man, why can't someone marry their mule?"). There is also a lot of gay adoption and it hasn't *made* any kid gay. They actually turn out more respectful of people of different genders and sexuality. Also, that's like saying "gay parents will make their children gay just as straight parents make their children straight." Wait, what? You've officially passed into moron status in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by cenk on Jan 31, 2006 8:52:15 GMT -5
You've officially passed into moron status in my opinion. Well your opinion means nothing to me. You say I'm a moron because I came up with an opinion which has been used by racists in the so-called land of the free. You see unlike the US of A I come from a place where it never ever mattered what colour you were when you got married, interracial marriage was never illegal. As for gay parents making some of their children gay (not all of them), you cant just dismiss it. Unless you can show me some sort of study that follows up people who were adopted into gay families, that shows that they are all pretty much straight. I do not believe such a study has been done but I could be wrong. Have you studied Psychology before? Do you know that children (especially when they are young) learn from their parental figures. Theres this process called imprinting. Lorenz (1932) did a experiment when several ducklings hatched from their eggs they first saw Lorenz (they never saw their mother), he fed them and looked after them. Eventually when they could walk they would follow him around everywhere. They saw him as their mother. Now imagine if you were the same sex as your gay homosexual parents is it really a long shot to say that this child could turn out gay?
|
|