Im sick and tired of having stupid friends...

[turambar85]

I am a member of Facebook.com, mainly because it is a good way to keep in touch with friends. However, I also use it to try to start debates with friends about their beliefs using the new facebook news feed, which shows everything that all of your friends have done; such as what groups they joined, what they added to their site, and most importantly, what campaign views they promote.

I was looking through some of my friends views, and almost every single one of them contain a few of these, "abolish smoking cigs, against the adoption of kids by gay couples, anti-gay marriage, modest is hottest, george bush rocks, yes on prop 9, protect the sanctity of marriage."

I put the Bush one, the abolish cigs, and the modest is hottest as a joke, those beliefs annoy me, but are not hate inspired like the other 3.

Why do people, especially in the South, have such an issue with these subjects?

I would like to pose these two questions, to put them up for debate.

1. Why should gays not be allowed to adopt?

2. Why should gays not be allowed to marry?

Lets roll.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Fuck the debate. Why are your friends stupid? Just because they disagree with you? Some friend you are.

[clambake]

It's the south. It's about some God horseshit. It's all about religion and hate. That's the combination, believe or not.

What they keep forgetting is that God has issues he has to deal with.

He is a single parent and he knocked up another man's woman.

[turambar85]

My friends are not stupid because they disagree with me, as I pointed out by saying that the Bush, modest is hottest, and cig ban beliefs only annoyed me.

The only beliefs that make a person stupid are the beliefs that are inspired by hate, and the reasons they think those things are for that very reason.

[turambar85]

And why must religion and reason always be at odds with one another?

Is it not possible to be religious and have an independent thought on occasion?

[turambar85]

Sorry, should have consolidated the last few posts, but one more thing.

What gives us the right to legislate morality?
and
Whos morality are we to use? There is no common morality.

[ChumpDumper]

Potential girlfriend turned out to be a neocon, eh?

[jman3000]

I'm from Texas and I'm indifferent about the gay marriage/adoption. Half of heterosexual couples can't even raise their kids right... who's to say that homo's would do any worse? if anything, the pressure to be viewed as good parents would make them better parents than most straight couples.

also, who gives a fuck if they get married? it's just a title... again... what is it? 60% divorce rate? sanctity of marriage my ass. what people do in their own homes (as long as it doesn't endanger the lives of others) is their own damn business.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

The only beliefs that make a person stupid are the beliefs that are inspired by hate, and the reasons they think those things are for that very reason.

So by proxy you're saying your friends hate cigarette smoke and are therefore stupid?

Damn them for not wanting to be exposed to something that has been scientifically proven to contribute to lung cancer. :rolleyes What a bunch of stupid, hateful friends.

[turambar85]

Actually I am engaged, and she is having the same problems I am. We don't want friends that agree with everything we say, or even want all of our friends to agree with something that we think....but you know....having one friend who agreed with one thing would be a bonus. :lol

I just have a hard time understanding people who have these limited viewpoints, and would appreciate an explanation. So I have posed the questions to the brilliant minds of Spurstalk.

:lol ....sorry, I couldnt say that with a straight face.

[turambar85]

So by proxy you're saying your friends hate cigarette smoke and are therefore stupid?

Damn them for not wanting to be exposed to something that has been scientifically proven to contribute to lung cancer. :rolleyes What a bunch of stupid, hateful friends.


I think you are having some problems understanding, or reading, or thinking....one of the 3.

I said I do not think theyre stupid for the reasons including cig banning, I think they are stupid for the hate inspired views pertaining to gay marriage and adoption.

Well, actually I think one of them is stupid for the cig view because she actually does smoke as well.

[turambar85]

I'm from Texas and I'm indifferent about the gay marriage/adoption. Half of heterosexual couples can't even raise their kids right... who's to say that homo's would do any worse? if anything, the pressure to be viewed as good parents would make them better parents than most straight couples.

also, who gives a fuck if they get married? it's just a title... again... what is it? 60% divorce rate? sanctity of marriage my ass. what people do in their own homes (as long as it doesn't endanger the lives of others) is their own damn business.


And there came a resounding cry of "AMEN."

[ChumpDumper]

My anti-smoking stance is based upon my hate of cigarettes and my hate of smelling like an ashtray when I leave a bar.

[turambar85]

My anti-smoking stance is based upon my hate of cigarettes and my hate of smelling like an ashtray when I leave a bar.


Well, my problem with that is that the law does not care what you want to smell like when you go somewhere.

If that were the case, there would be laws banning certain perfumes, laws demanding that you shower every day, and laws banning the eating of certain noxious substances.

We do not make laws because people do not enjoy the byproduct of what other people are doing. There has to be a very good reason to restrict the freedom of individuals, and what someone may or may not like is completely irrelevant.

[jman3000]

the best political view, is to have no political view at all.

[turambar85]

i might agree with you Jman, but I just get too much pleasure out of starting arguments with my own.

If I gave up political views then life would be a very boring waste of time.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, my problem with that is that the law does not care what you want to smell like when you go somewhere.

If that were the case, there would be laws banning certain perfumes, laws demanding that you shower every day, and laws banning the eating of certain noxious substances.I don't care how other people smell as much as I care about how other people make me smell. Everything you stated does nothing to my smell. If someone wiped a turd on me and made me stink, I'd probably have a case for simple assault if nothing else.
We do not make laws because people do not enjoy the byproduct of what other people are doing. There has to be a very good reason to restrict the freedom of individuals, and what someone may or may not like is completely irrelevant.I like not having lung cancer, and do I not have the freedom to not smell like shit? (Double negative added for emphasis.)

[turambar85]

So.....

Where are the hordes of answers to my two questions?

Im assuming aggie is out of commision and out of the race because he is having a hard time wrapping his mind around the fact that I was joking about my friends being stupid for liking Bush, or banning cigs, but that I simply am annoyed by those views.

I would hope that by saying it again he would get it, but I will not create any such false hopes because he failed to grasp it the 1st two times.....

Though 3rd try is a charm...

[ChumpDumper]

The homosexual issues?

I'm not against either.

[turambar85]

You go to bars, people enjoy smoking in bars, thus, people smoke in bars.

Now, lets change that to....

You go to bars, people enjoy not showering before going to bars, thus, people in bars smell like rancid body odor.

So, should people adopt that policy and view, should we ban the practice because it causes you to smell?

[jman3000]

i might agree with you Jman, but I just get too much pleasure out of starting arguments with my own.

If I gave up political views then life would be a very boring waste of time.

not that having a political view is wrong... but having one based on a right wing or left wing ideology is what i am against. arguments are fun and all but there comes a time when it becomes less about presenting your views to win and more about arguing for arguments sake and not giving up any ground on the subject.

[ChumpDumper]

Again, you're talking about other people. I don't smell like other people's BO after standing in the same room with them.

[jman3000]

that made no sense.

fucking typers... typing and what not.

[jman3000]

i would think that the argument to ban smoking would have less to do with the odor side and more to do with the cancer causing side effects of second hand smoke....

[01Snake]

My anti-smoking stance is based upon my hate of cigarettes and my hate of smelling like an ashtray when I leave a bar.

Werd!

[ChumpDumper]

i would think that the argument to ban smoking would have less to do with the odor side and more to do with the cancer causing side effects of second hand smoke....Of course. I never said that's what the laws are based on. I certainly enjoy the by product of not smelling so horrible though.

[turambar85]

not that having a political view is wrong... but having one based on a right wing or left wing ideology is what i am against. arguments are fun and all but there comes a time when it becomes less about presenting your views to win and more about arguing for arguments sake and not giving up any ground on the subject.


well, I definetely can not be constrained within any political ideology. And while I would like to share my views with others in order to make them "see the light", my main reason is to hone my own arguments, see if I really believe what I do, and have a kickass time arguing.

[turambar85]

How many people die from second-hand smoke per year, discounting people who live with smokers since we are talking about the practice of banning smoking in public.

Also, are there no other legal activities which result in the death of as many people? Should we ban boats on lakes because one persons pursuit of pleasure leads to the death of others?

Just as the people on the lake put themselves in the dangerous position of getting killed by boaters, you put yourself in bars, where people are constantly smoking. I fail to see the difference.

Instead of banning smoking, we should rather require a certain degree of ventilation from all places that allow smoking indoors.

Is this not more logical? Should we stop people from doing what they enjoy because other people put themselves in situations where their actions may endanger their health, and a handful end up dead? Most things that we do for pleasure can lead to the death of others...and if smoking kills more people it is because more people smoke. If half of the country went boating every day, imagine how many would die.

Should we ban automobiles and air conditioners because they will end up killing far more with than second hand smoke, in the long run?

[ChumpDumper]

As far as your friends go, stuff like the homosexual issues are probably closing in on some of their core beliefs. Even if they are born out of ignorance or indoctrination, if they're really your friends you'll respect their views and just agree to disagree.

[turambar85]

As far as your friends go, stuff like the homosexual issues are probably closing in on some of their core beliefs. Even if they are born out of ignorance or indoctrination, if they're really your friends you'll respect their views and just agree to disagree.

I never harrass them for these views. I put out my opposing views, but never in my lifetime have I yelled at, or had a serious argument with any of my friends regarding their views, and I never will.

I simply wish that one or two of them could think for themselves...

Your core beliefs are not important when it comes to making laws.

[jman3000]

i have stupid friends... and i quite enjoy it.

[jman3000]

smart friends tend to take themselves too seriously.

[ChumpDumper]

How many people die from second-hand smoke per year, discounting people who live with smokers since we are talking about the practice of banning smoking in public.How many is enough for you?
Also, are there no other legal activities which result in the death of as many people? Should we ban boats on lakes because one persons pursuit of pleasure leads to the death of others?There are reasonable boat safety laws, why should there not be reasonable safety laws for enclosed public spaces?
Just as the people on the lake put themselves in the dangerous position of getting killed by boaters, you put yourself in bars, where people are constantly smoking. I fail to see the difference.I know you fail to see it.
Instead of banning smoking, we should rather require a certain degree of ventilation from all places that allow smoking indoors.Why not just go outside?
Is this not more logical?For most small places, absolutely not.
Should we stop people from doing what they enjoy because other people put themselves in situations where their actions may endanger their health, and a handful end up dead?They can smoke all they want -- outside.
Most things that we do for pleasure can lead to the death of others...and if smoking kills more people it is because more people smoke. If half of the country went boating every day, imagine how many would die.Quite a few people go boating every day. Quite a few people walk across streets every day. There are laws to help preserve their health and safety. Why should breathing be excluded from that?
Should we ban automobiles and air conditioners because they will end up killing far more with than second hand smoke, in the long run?Nope. We should pass laws to make them safer, just like we should pass laws to make air safer to breathe.

[ChumpDumper]

I never harrass them for these views.You just call them stupid on the internets.
I simply wish that one or two of them could think for themselves...i.e., agree with you more.
Your core beliefs are not important when it comes to making laws.You can't be serious.

[turambar85]

When making boating safety laws we are not talking about wholesale bans of the activity, only restrictions.

Thus, in the same light, why not just have the simple changes, not bans, to make things better?

Why is the ventilation idea bad? If they can't create the ventilation, then they can not allow smoking. If they cant allow smoking, their patrons go elsewhere.

This way noone is being prohibited, we are only making sure that when they do smoke indoors, it is safer for the rest of the bars patrons.

[ChumpDumper]

When making boating safety laws we are not talking about wholesale bans of the activity, only restrictions.You can't drive a boat in a public swimming pool.
Why is the ventilation idea bad? If they can't create the ventilation, then they can not allow smoking. If they cant allow smoking, their patrons go elsewhere.I've seen some places here where it kind of works. In others it's a joke.

How difficult is it for you go outside for a smoke?

[turambar85]

Chump, youre completely missing what I am saying.

I do not think them stupid for any view, simply for their reasons for these views. Any view that is out of hatred or discrimination is a stupid view, plain and simple. Now, if they truly professed logical reasons for these views i would not care.

This is evident in tha fact that they believe in the cig bans, believe Bush is the best president ever, and have numerous other views that are vastly different that mine, but I do not think them stupid for having these, merely different than I.

I do not want everybody to share my views, so do not judge me until you have known me. I get just as upset at people when they do not know why they think things that I agree with as I do when they dont know why they think things that I do not agree with....in fact, I have played the devils advocate to my fiancee until she wanted to hit me, simply because I wanted her to find out why she thought things.

And NO, ones personal morality should have ZERO basis on the laws they make. Only reason...slow, cautious reason should have any influence on their political views.

[ChumpDumper]

Any view that is out of hatred or discrimination is a stupid view, plain and simple.Well have you asked them upon what they base their views?
And NO, ones personal morality should have ZERO basis on the laws they make.You can't be serious.

[turambar85]

You can't drive a boat in a public swimming pool.I've seen some places here where it kind of works. In others it's a joke.

How difficult is it for you go outside for a smoke?

1. I dont smoke, and wouldnt touch the gross pieces of death.

2. It is very difficult. People who smoke regularly smoke often. Alot of people smoke more often at a bar because it is where they go to relax.
People who smoke, often do so to relax. If you are at a bar, you want to be smoking, but you are forced to leave the premises every time you want to light up. Then, you are required to pay, and lose your seat, every time you want to smoke.

To require that they go outside for every cig is just not reasonable. Just make ventilation laws. If the bar cannot comply, people cannot smoke there. End of story.

[turambar85]

yes, I have argued these points many times. The only reason they think these things is because they believe it is Un-Christian.

And yes Chump, I am serious.

Tell me one instance in which we should make political decisions based on our PERSONAL MORALITY, rather than reason and logic, and I will concede the entire point and your absolute superiority over me.

[ChumpDumper]

1. I dont smoke, and wouldnt touch the gross pieces of death.Then how can you even answer #2?
2. It is very difficult. People who smoke regularly smoke often. Alot of people smoke more often at a bar because it is where they go to relax.My girlfriend smokes, and she is disabled. She has no problem going outside on her canes to smoke, so why would you?
If you are at a bar, you want to be smoking, but you are forced to leave the premises every time you want to light up. Then, you are required to pay, and lose your seat, every time you want to smoke.What do you mean pay? A cover? Ever hear of an armband? A handstamp?
To require that they go outside for every cig is just not reasonable. Just make ventilation laws. If the bar cannot comply, people cannot smoke there. End of story.:lol It's already happened. People still smoke their asses of in California and New York.

They just smoke outside.

End of story.

[turambar85]

But, this must be a point in which Personal morality supercedes reason and logic. That you are making a better law by using your own personal moral views than you would be by looking at the situation through reason and logic.

[turambar85]

I can answer number 2 better because I am not biased.

I hate the smell, the taste, and the affect of cigarettes, yet I am championing their cause.

You still fail to tell me how in the world it is a bad policy to simply require ventilation in order to have a cigarette license.

[ChumpDumper]

yes, I have argued these points many times. The only reason they think these things is because they believe it is Un-Christian.

And yes Chump, I am serious.

Tell me one instance in which we should make political decisions based on our PERSONAL MORALITY, rather than reason and logic, and I will concede the entire point and your absolute superiority over me.Are you kidding me? I think your definition of personal morality is too narrow.

[ChumpDumper]

I can answer number 2 better because I am not biased.

I hate the smell, the taste, and the affect of cigarettes, yet I am championing their cause.

You still fail to tell me how in the world it is a bad policy to simply require ventilation in order to have a cigarette license.Because I have been in places where it has been a miserable failure.

You still fail to tell me how going outside to smoke is a hardship if my mobility-impaired girlfriend has no problem with it an actually prefers to go to bars that prohibit smoking indoors.

[xrayzebra]

My two cents on smoking in public places. Public buildings, I agree with the no
smoking ban. In most cases people must go there to transact business and have
no choice. Restaurants and Bars. It should be up to the owner if he wants to allow
smoking. Those that don't like smokers or whatever are not forced into going
into them. Same with owners that ban smoking. Smokers don't have to go there.
I am not going to really comment on the perils of second hand smoke. There are
arguments on both sides of the issue.

Gays - marriage and adoption. Dealers choice. I only see the marriage as part
of an age old tradition that some want to destroy and twist. But again that is
my opinion and I have expressed it to my political representatives. I am quite
sure when I become a minority I will lost the argument. Until then, I have won
the argument, legally.

[turambar85]

No. Personal morality is something that you, based on your beliefs about life and religion, think is right.

Personal morality is something that is not necessarily shared by the rest of society because morality is not universal. Morality varies within all of society, so it can not be used to create laws which govern all of society.

[ChumpDumper]

No. Personal morality is something that you, based on your beliefs about life and religion, think is right.And what you think is right has no place in the making of law?

[turambar85]

Because I have been in places where it has been a miserable failure.

You still fail to tell me how going outside to smoke is a hardship if my mobility-impaired girlfriend has no problem with it an actually prefers to go to bars that prohibit smoking indoors.


Why would it be a miserable failure, Chump? If the Government makes it a law that all businesses much reach a certain level of ventilation in order for indoor smoking to be legal, then there are no problems.

And it is better than a ban because in any situation where we can make things work for both parties, where neither is inconvenienced, it is the best possible method.

As said, some people go to bars to conduct business. So they should be forced to leave if they choose to smoke? Just because your girlfriend enjoys going in and out does not mean that others do. There are some people who spend hours upon hours at a bar, and having to leave would be a major pain in the ass.

[turambar85]

Depends on your definition of right.

If you believe that right is what is in the true best interest of the individual people living in a society, then yes.

If you believe that right comes from God or religion, then your definition of right is wrong, at least for making laws.

That is what I mean by personal morality. I use it in the religious sense because all of my friends want to legislate their morality that comes from Christianity. This is the basis of their claim, this is the basis of their desired laws.

If they want a non-secular country, move to the middle east.

[turambar85]

My two cents on smoking in public places. Public buildings, I agree with the no
smoking ban. In most cases people must go there to transact business and have
no choice. Restaurants and Bars. It should be up to the owner if he wants to allow
smoking. Those that don't like smokers or whatever are not forced into going
into them. Same with owners that ban smoking. Smokers don't have to go there.
I am not going to really comment on the perils of second hand smoke. There are
arguments on both sides of the issue.

Gays - marriage and adoption. Dealers choice. I only see the marriage as part
of an age old tradition that some want to destroy and twist. But again that is
my opinion and I have expressed it to my political representatives. I am quite
sure when I become a minority I will lost the argument. Until then, I have won
the argument, legally.


Well, there are many age-old traditions that people have tried to twist Mr. X-ray.

1. That women stay at home, in their own personal sphere, because this is desired by God.

2. That blacks are slaves, and are inherently inferior.

3. That only white land owners can vote.

4. That women not work.

And there are many more. All of these views were looked at as sacred traditions, and the people trying to change them as trying to subvert the morality and way of life of decent people.

There is no difference in the rights for women, the rights for blacks, and the rights for gays and lesbians.

[ChumpDumper]

Why would it be a miserable failure, Chump? If the Government makes it a law that all businesses much reach a certain level of ventilation in order for indoor smoking to be legal, then there are no problems.What level? In which area? What would seperate the areas? Who would check the effectiveness? When would the check be made? How many tax dollars would you want to devote to this for every public building in the state?
And it is better than a ban because in any situation where we can make things work for both parties, where neither is inconvenienced, it is the best possible method.:lol A ban actually helps the smokers because they get some exercise going outside. Win-win.
As said, some people go to bars to conduct business. So they should be forced to leave if they choose to smoke? Just because your girlfriend enjoys going in and out does not mean that others do. There are some people who spend hours upon hours at a bar, and having to leave would be a major pain in the ass.Tonight, with her pool league and karaoke, she'll be in the bar for about seven hours. Cry me a river for the folks with two good legs. Their lazy asses can smoke outside.

[BeerIsGood!]

I am a member of Facebook.com, mainly because it is a good way to keep in touch with friends. However, I also use it to try to start debates with friends about their beliefs using the new facebook news feed, which shows everything that all of your friends have done; such as what groups they joined, what they added to their site, and most importantly, what campaign views they promote.

I was looking through some of my friends views, and almost every single one of them contain a few of these, "abolish smoking cigs, against the adoption of kids by gay couples, anti-gay marriage, modest is hottest, george bush rocks, yes on prop 9, protect the sanctity of marriage."

I put the Bush one, the abolish cigs, and the modest is hottest as a joke, those beliefs annoy me, but are not hate inspired like the other 3.

Why do people, especially in the South, have such an issue with these subjects?

I would like to pose these two questions, to put them up for debate.

1. Why should gays not be allowed to adopt?

2. Why should gays not be allowed to marry?

Lets roll.

Gays should be allowed to get married so they can be just as miserable as every other married couple.

[turambar85]

And actually divorce was one of the 1st things about marriage that these heartless bastards did to ruin the sanctity of marriage.

They twisted and distorted a noble tradition set down by God.

The nerve!

[ChumpDumper]

Depends on your definition of right.

If you believe that right is what is in the true best interest of the individual people living in a society, then yes.So where do those beliefs come from?

[turambar85]

What level? In which area? What would seperate the areas? Who would check the effectiveness? When would the check be made? How many tax dollars would you want to devote to this for every public building in the state?:lol

The level designated by the government group designated to test for the safety of the bars patrons, they do it for food, they do it for cleanliness, and they do it for worker safety, no difference.

In all areas. Every place in which people smoke must be checked and certified under these laws.

The above group checks their effectiveness/how much they keep up on a yearly or bi-annual basis.

[turambar85]

So where do those beliefs come from?

Depends on the law. But every good law comes from people trying to decide what works the best in the publics interest. If something truly hurts people, then we hang it...if something truly benefits people, then we introduce it.

But in a country with more than one religion, and a SUPPOSED seperation of church and state, you CANNOT allow people to make laws based on their religious views.

[turambar85]

And if something hurts some people, and helps another, then we compromise.

Hence my smoking proposition.

[ChumpDumper]

The level designated by the government group designated to test for the safety of the bars patrons, they do it for food, they do it for cleanliness, and they do it for worker safety, no difference.

In all areas. Every place in which people smoke must be checked and certified under these laws.

The above group checks their effectiveness/how much they keep up on a yearly or bi-annual basis.:lmao Get back to me with your estimates on how much all this will cost.

Here's my plan: Ban smoking indoors. Cops show up about as often as they do now and make sure folks aren't smoking.

Which plan costs less? Which plan is easier implement? Which plan is easier to verify? Which plan is easier to enforce?

[ChumpDumper]

And if something hurts some people, and helps another, then we compromise.

Hence my smoking proposition.Whom does smoking help again?

[turambar85]

Smoking helps the smokers.

And Duh, we all know smoking actually hurts the smokers, but we know that, they know that. So as long as they are smoking, it helps them to be allowed to do so in places that they frequent.

[ChumpDumper]

So help the smokers hurt the smokers. Good logic.

The smokers can hurt themselves outside.

[turambar85]

The smokers will hurt the smokers regardless, and we can not make laws to help people who dont want to be helped.

It is a wast of both of our time for you to make sophomoric arguments like that.

It is completely irrelevant to the argument, and its only purpose it to take attention off of the true issue by adding in sub-fields for me to argue. It is an argument by attrition, where not all of your ammo is meant to hit the target.

[ChumpDumper]

The smokers will hurt the smokers regardless, and we can not make laws to help people who dont want to be helped.But we can help those who do want to be helped -- the nonsmokers.
It is a wast of both of our time for you to make sophomoric arguments like that.You made the argument. I do agree it was a waste of time.
t is completely irrelevant to the argument, and its only purpose it to take attention off of the true issue by adding in sub-fields for me to argue. It is an argument by attrition, where not all of your ammo is meant to hit the target.What are you talking about? You said you were helping the smokers and I questioned that. If you can't defend your own argument, don't post it.

[turambar85]

And regardless, I had no intention of arguing this topic.

I do not feel strongly enough about smoking indoors to spend this much time convincing someone who will not be convinced of my reasoning.

This thread was made in order to debate legislating morality, and gay marriage/adoption.

Can we get back on target? i feel like I have needlessly lost 2 hours of my life.

[turambar85]

And no, you didnt question the true meaning of helping the smokers, which I agreed that you only do by not making things hard on them, not that cigs actually help them.

You, knowing this, made the stupid argument that we help the smokers kill themselves. You knew this was not what I meant, so it was a complete waste of time.

I said that helping them by means of not making things unreasonably hard on them. If they will do it regardless, why should we make it unecessarily troublesome?

[turambar85]

Now, I don't have time to argue this issue. It is simply not that important.

I have no intention of saying anything else in that regard, at least on this thread, so do not waste your time making more arguments for nobody to counter.

Call it a tie if you will, I simply do not care enough to put off my essay, that is due tommorow, any longer.

[ChumpDumper]

And regardless, I had no intention of arguing this topic. Tough. I'm for all the other crap.
I do not feel strongly enough about smoking indoors to spend this much time convincing someone who will not be convinced of my reasoning.Welcome to SpursTalk.
This thread was made in order to debate legislating morality, and gay marriage/adoption.

Can we get back on target? i feel like I have needlessly lost 2 hours of my life.
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/chirac_white_flag.jpg

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Well, my problem with that is that the law does not care what you want to smell like when you go somewhere.

No, but I have the right not to have my danger of lung cancer increased because you want to smoke a cigarette.


Im assuming aggie is out of commision and out of the race because he is having a hard time wrapping his mind around the fact that I was joking about my friends being stupid for liking Bush, or banning cigs, but that I simply am annoyed by those views.

Half your responses in this thread have been to Chump Dumper on cigarette smoke, tell me again who is having a hard time staying on topic?

I'm not having a hard time grasping anything other than your weird ass post titled "I'm sick and tired of having stupid friends", mentioning cigarette smoking in your thread, and then getting pissed when someone calls you out on it.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I do not feel strongly enough about smoking indoors to spend this much time convincing someone who will not be convinced of my reasoning.

So basically you only like having conversations if you can convince someone to agree with you? Sounds like you need to go hang out at the local Democratic party meetings. That, and maybe an elementary school and then maybe you can convince them to agree with you about Pokeman and all that shit.

[ChumpDumper]

http://megghy.com/immagini/animated/pokemon/2.GIF

[jochhejaam]

I said I do not think theyre stupid for the reasons including cig banning, I think they are stupid for the hate inspired views pertaining to gay marriage and adoption.

Why do you assume their views are hate inspired? Have you asked them what their reasoning is and if it's based on hate?

[TreeWhisperer]

Ok, in reply

Joch, I assume this because I have talked to them. They believe that "fags" are an abomination, and that half of their arguments include the belief that it is simply disgusting.

Aggie, I love having conversations where people disagree with me. However, I will not spend 2 hours doing so when I have an essay due in the morning. And it is not that he wont agree, it is that he wont stay on a particular point, but wants to keep expanding it every time I make a reply. It is simply a waste of time, and not getting anywhere. If it were developing, and moving forwards as most arguments do, then it would be a different matter. But fact is that I am too busy to do it right now, if I didnt have an essay things might be different.

And again for Aggie, half of my posts have been in response to him because he is the only person responding to me. Dear lord man, thats simple mathematics. If I put out a post, and only 1 person responds, and then I respond to him in fashion and form as an argument, then most of my posts will be towards him. The fact that even 1/3 of my posts are related to anything different is a mark on my desire to move the topic along.

I mentioned my friends being stupid, and within 2-3 posts pointed out that half of the reasons were in jest, and told you the real reasons. Now, if you are too simple minded to grasp that reality then it is no fault of mine, and I am truly sorry for you.

And finally, Chump. This is no occasion of my waving a white flag. It is simply a case of me having to leave, so I can not spend all day hammering out an argument that I dont even feel that strongly about anyway. It is simply not a big deal to me, I argued it at 1st simply to hear the opposing views, but since you arent doing an adequate job of providing those views, and instead resort to pretending to misinterprete my statements, then it is a waste of my time, and failing to achieve the only possible goal that it could have had.

[turambar85]

Sorry, I went to my fiancees house and forgot that she had last been on Spurstalk on this computer. That last message, obviously, was meant to be from this screen name.

[turambar85]

And I would never have that opportunity of speaking to people at the democratic convention because I am not a democrat, at all. I would just as soon slap somebody if they called me a member of either party.

Nothing irks me more than to be lumped in with the simple-minded drones who simply fall into party line and agree with everything that one party puts out, or votes for somebody simply because of the party name he claims.

It was not a matter of me wanting to win the argument, or him agree with me. Rather it was me wanting him to at least concede to me that I was saying what I was saying! lol. It gets tiring for people to see you say one thing, and simply for ammunitions sake try to twist that into something else...something it obviously was not.

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao

"I will never talk about this again.


































For 52 minutes."

Until my next post, I retire.

[turambar85]

And here is, to avoid anymore confusion, my thread and posts in a nutshell.

1. When I said Im sick of having stupid friends, then listed the groups they had joined, I only meant that the ones pertaining to gay marriage, and that mainly being because of why they think what they do, makes them stupid.

I said on numerous occasions that I only put the smoking ban, loving Bush, and hottest is modest as a joke. I do not think them stupid for these views, I merely disagree with them.

2. I made this post wanting to argue the merits of opposing gay marriage and adoption. I think it fine that we argued cig bans, but I would prefer to at least touch on the other topic.

The reasons I dropped the cig ban argument was because of 3 reasons.
i. I had to write my essay, so it wasn't worth pursuing.
ii. I do not believe stronly enough about that issue to waste hours arguing it when I have other things to do.
iii. I also did not pursue the argument not because Chump would not agree, but was arguing by attrition, simply throwing out shit that wasn't relevant to the issue, and repeating the same things regardless of whether or not I had addressed them. The main problem being that he would also twist my statements for no other reason than being a pain in the ass, obviously knowing what I meant. lol.

Now this does not mean that I have a problem with Chump, I do not. It is just that I, being on a time budget, did not wish to pursue that particular style of argument on this particular subject at this particular time. If any of the 3 problems were changed, or I had more time, I would have been all over it.

I hope this clears some things up.

[turambar85]

:lmao

"I will never talk about this again.

































For 52 minutes."

Until my next post, I retire.

I said I would not argue cig. bans in this thread anymore, than does not mean I wont discuss what went on in the debate.

[ChumpDumper]

You really have to ask yourself if anyone gives a shit.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

The best argument for banning smoking in bars is the public health issue - the health of non-smoking patrons, but MORE IMPORTANTLY, the health of the BAR WORKERS. Why should they be forced to work in dangerous conditions? That is why we have occ health and safety laws.

As for reason and religion not getting along... seriously brother, religion is about FAITH and has nothing to do with reason. Don't expect the two to marry...

Concerning gay marriage - someone said "it's just a title". No, it's not. There are very serious legal, financial and taxation consequences that change when you get married. As for me, I figure that anything that makes people happy and doesn't hurt others is a good thing. Let gay people marry! Hell, is their love somehow less because they're gay? Don't like the word using the word "marriage" for same-sex couples, use another term like "civil union" to distinguish hetero and homo union.

Why are your friends so blinkered? Sounds like they have very narrow worldviews, like most people. If you morally object to their narrow and myopic view of the world, sounds like you you need some new friends.

Good luck with that.

[jochhejaam]

As for me, I figure that anything that makes people happy and doesn't hurt others is a good thing. Let gay people marry! Hell, is their love somehow less because they're gay? Don't like the word using the word "marriage" for same-sex couples, use another term like "civil union" to distinguish hetero and homo union.

Could your philosophy be construed as narrow-minded? I'm wondering if it's fair to examine a certain lifestyle based on the consequences it would have if everyone lived the same lifestyle?
If everyone were homosexual the human race would be extinct in roughly 100 years.

[jochhejaam]

As for me, I figure that anything that makes people happy and doesn't hurt others is a good thing.

Sorry about breaking this up into two separate posts. I hit the wrong button and accidently submitted the last post in mid-sentence, then had to edit to complete the sentence

With that philosophy, if others are hurt by their friends or family being homosexual then that lifestyle should be considered "not a good thing", right?

[ChumpDumper]

I'm wondering if it's fair to examine a certain lifestyle based on the consequences it would have if everyone lived the same lifestyle?Not really in this case.
If everyone were homosexual the human race would be extinct in roughly 100 years.Nah, I would invest in sperm banks though.

[ChumpDumper]

[SIZE=1]With that philosophy, if others are hurt by their friends or family being homosexual then that lifestyle should be considered "not a good thing", right?Define "hurt."

[jochhejaam]

Not really in this case.
Why not?

[ChumpDumper]

Why not?There would have to be a possibility of its happening.

[jochhejaam]

Define "hurt."
I'll defer to RuffnReadyOzStyle since he brought it up, then we'll move forward from there.

[jochhejaam]

There would have to be a possibility of its happening.
Hypothetically speaking.

[smeagol]

1. When I said Im sick of having stupid friends, then listed the groups they had joined, I only meant that the ones pertaining to gay marriage, and that mainly being because of why they think what they do, makes them stupid.

I said on numerous occasions that I only put the smoking ban, loving Bush, and hottest is modest as a joke. I do not think them stupid for these views, I merely disagree with them.

So you are sure their views on gay marriage and gays being able to adopt are based on hatred?

Or is it that you think that anybody who is against gay marriage or gay adoption rights, is stupid and bases his/her views on hate?


The reasons I dropped the cig ban argument was because of 3 reasons.
i. I had to write my essay, so it wasn't worth pursuing.
ii. I do not believe stronly enough about that issue to waste hours arguing it when I have other things to do.
iii. I also did not pursue the argument not because Chump would not agree, but was arguing by attrition, simply throwing out shit that wasn't relevant to the issue, and repeating the same things regardless of whether or not I had addressed them. The main problem being that he would also twist my statements for no other reason than being a pain in the ass, obviously knowing what I meant. lol.

:lol It was fun to read how chump kicked you ass on this argument.

He was not arguing by attrition. He refuted every single point you made until you had pretty much nothing to say.

And when the fuck did he twist your arguments?

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Could your philosophy be construed as narrow-minded? I'm wondering if it's fair to examine a certain lifestyle based on the consequences it would have if everyone lived the same lifestyle?
If everyone were homosexual the human race would be extinct in roughly 100 years.

No, jo, I don't agree because it's a specious argument. The entire human race is never going to be homosexual, nor is homosexuality ever going to threaten the continuation of the species. Homosexuality runs at about 8% of the population.

(jokingly) If anything, we need a significant increase in homosexuality to reduce the numbers of humans on the planet!

As for your second post, as CD said, it depends on your definition of "hurt". If someone else chooses to feel "hurt" because of your choice concerning what you do in your bedroom, which I think most will agree should only be the business of those taking part, then the person who is "hurt" is choosing to be so about something that they really have no right interfering with. There is no direct hurt or detriment to other people caused by homosexuality as it concerns sexuality which is an entirely individual characteristic.

As a caveat, I am not homosexual, so either way this issue doesn't really affect me - it just seems like racism to me. It is a case of irrational descrimination based on a characteristic which doesn't affect other people (just like skin colour). It's just narrow-minded bigotry. I know a number of gay couples and their relationships, their love, are just the same as heterosexual couples. Why should they not be allowed to formalise that love and commitment like the majority? It's a case of majority suppressing the rights of a minority group IMHO.

[leemajors]

You go to bars, people enjoy smoking in bars, thus, people smoke in bars.

Now, lets change that to....

You go to bars, people enjoy not showering before going to bars, thus, people in bars smell like rancid body odor.

So, should people adopt that policy and view, should we ban the practice because it causes you to smell?

in california you can't smoke in bars/restaurants, in austin you can't smoke in bars/restaurants. it's awesome, and no one is terribly inconvenienced by it. get ready for it, it's going to happen everywhere sooner or later. i am disgusted when i go to restaurants in other towns where there are still smoking sections. it's disgusting having to smell stale cigarette smoke as you eat.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

You can't smoke in bars here either, and it's okay. People just go outside for a smoke.

It's mainly to protect the workers, and fair enough too. What if you said to all the office workers, "you have to spend your 8 hours a day in the office in a cloud of carcinogens"? Imagine the outcry, and rightfully so. Well, bar workers have lived that for decades.

[turambar85]

Joch, I believe that you are using Kant's "Act so that you can will the maxim of your actions to be universal law." Am I correct?

If that is the case, there is one important exception to be noted.

When arguing in that manner you are assuming that the law or decision being made is one that could be translated into an action being done by everybody. Now, if the law was that we should be gay, then yes, the result would be willing all of society to be gay. However, if the law is allowing gay marriage, the universal maxim would be allowing anybody who is gay to marry.

This premis does not lead to more homosexuality, and, thus, does not lead to less of a society. The number of homosexuals will not increase to a global epedemic just because we make marriage legal. The same homosexuals will not breed with straight people regardless, so we lose no babies.

If we are worried about the ill-effects on society then you need to ban being gay, or require making babies, not ban marriage!

[turambar85]

Ok, I had decided to not post anymore about cig banning, but I can't stand by and have Smeagol pretend to know the situation.

Chump decided that we should ban it because it hurts the lungs of bar patrons.

I decided we should require a ventilation system.

Chump believes that this will be ineffective because not all bars can do this.

Well, if not all bars can do this, then not all bars will allow smoking. By making this law you give the bar owners the choice to allow smoking by getting the required changes, or they simply dont allow smoking. This sort of action should be done on an individual basis. There is no need for the government to make more laws and increase its bloated size.

Why doesnt everybody who doesnt want 2nd hand smoke to protest and not frequent bars who allow it, then we will have some bars that cater to smokers, and some that cater to people who want to avoid the practice.

It is a simple solution, one that does not permit the government to needlessly ban a practice.

And my ass was not kicked, sorry.

[ChumpDumper]

Your "solution" is completely discriminatory against smaller establishments and single-room venues that are the lifeblood of the live entertainment industry in Austin at the very least. You're saying if your venue is big enough AND configured correctly AND you have enough money, you can enjoy a decisive competitive advantage over those places that cannot meet any one of those three requirements.
Why doesnt everybody who doesnt want 2nd hand smoke to protest and not frequent bars who allow it, then we will have some bars that cater to smokers, and some that cater to people who want to avoid the practice.Why don't smokers just go outside when they want to smoke? That way everyone can go to every bar in town.

[jochhejaam]

Turambar, I'm not quite sure about your friends position, do they hate the act of homosexuality because they consider it an "abominable" sin, or do they hate the person and the act? It's important to differentiate. If it's the latter, and they are claiming to be taking the moral high road, then they are in error (are they Christians?).
Loving your neighbor as youself, is the second of the two greatest commandments cited by Christ. Hating homosexuals is a violation of that commandment. Christ came in his first advent to free man from the bondage of sin, whatever that sin might be. He died for all sinners (that would be everyone of us) and in doing so expressed an immense love for the very people that some despise.

I have gay relatives and friends and being in a service oriented workplace I have contact (not physical :) ) with gays on an almost daily basis. They are treated with genuine respect they are deserving of and they respond with the same.
On the other hand, I have extreme contempt for the actions of activists who attempt to normalize a lifestyle that God clearly says leads people to hell.

Synopsis? Make it very evident that you love the person but not the sin.

[turambar85]

Your "solution" is completely discriminatory against smaller establishments and single-room venues that are the lifeblood of the live entertainment industry in Austin at the very least. You're saying if your venue is big enough AND configured correctly AND you have enough money, you can enjoy a decisive competitive advantage over those places that cannot meet any one of those three requirements.Why don't smokers just go outside when they want to smoke? That way everyone can go to every bar in town.

I'm sorry, but I do not believe that the size of the establishment will make that large of a difference in terms of being able to ventilate.

The smaller establishments will not require as much ventilation, yet will have slightely less room to work with.

IF your argument is money, that is different, and in my opinion, almost as irrelevant.

If it comes down to either

A. protecting the freedoms of the masses

or

B. Making a few businesses make more or less money

then I will always choose option A because it is not the governments job to ban things that can be worked out, and businesses can always find a way to make more money or adapt. They always make more money, they dont always make more freedoms.

[smeagol]

Ok, I had decided to not post anymore about cig banning, but I can't stand by and have Smeagol pretend to know the situation.

Pretend to know the situation? Huh? Not that difficult of a situation that I have to pretend to understand it.

I read the entire thread, analyzed Chump’s and your POVs and concluded your arguments were not enough to convince me people should be allowed to smoke in close environments, bothering the hell out of other customers.

Even with ventilation systems, if there is a guy smoking right beside me, I will be inhaling smoke. If there are a bunch of guys smoking beside me, fuck your ventilation system, I want those guys to go blow smoke outside.


Chump decided that we should ban it because it hurts the lungs of bar patrons.

No, read your own thread. That was our friend from down under.


I decided we should require a ventilation system.

I’ve addressed this above. A ventilation system does not always work. Maybe in big restaurants, but certainly not in bars and clubs.


Chump believes that this will be ineffective because not all bars can do this.

Even if all bars can do it would be ineffective.


And my ass was not kicked, sorry.

Yes it was. Sorry.

And let me ask you a question? Why is it wrong for smokers to have to smoke outside? Does this infringe their rights as smokers?

[turambar85]

For the same reason that it was wrong for Blacks to not be allowed to eat in the same restaurants as whites because it bothered them.

For the same reason that it is not ok to demand that people who smell not ride busses.

Because you can not demand that someone change their actions because it bothers you.

You aren't that important.

[101A]

I'm sorry, but I do not believe that the size of the establishment will make that large of a difference in terms of being able to ventilate.

The smaller establishments will not require as much ventilation, yet will have slightely less room to work with.

IF your argument is money, that is different, and in my opinion, almost as irrelevant.

If it comes down to either

A. protecting the freedoms of the masses

or

B. Making a few businesses make more or less money

then I will always choose option A because it is not the governments job to ban things that can be worked out, and businesses can always find a way to make more money or adapt. They always make more money, they dont always make more freedoms.

OK, College Boy...

The freedom of the masses is nearly ALWAYS protected. The point of this country's founding was to protect the freedom of the INDIVIDUAL!!!!

Also, to HELL with you spouting about "Ones morality not influencing which laws should be enacted, etc.., etc..." Every damned law ever passed is based on someone's morality, and it is damn well evident that you have a personal morality you would wish to impose on the rest of us; it obviously includes gay rights.

Finally, the constitution of this US does NOT mention separation of Church and State as an absolute. Nowhere can you find a Supreme Court argument which argues that religion cannot influence, tradition or even be the impetus or inspiration for laws which might be presented, debated and even (gasp) enacted!

The constitution and all court decisions on its interpretation have a specific POINT about religion and the state, and their relationship in THIS country. Get back to us when you are finished writing your philosophy essay about Kant, and have time to look it up in your poli-sci 101 textbook.

BTW, why am I against Gay Marriage? Because I don't believe society should condone that lifestyle, or normalize it beyond the levels it already has been. I believe it to be wrong. My bible teaches me that, and any reasonable interpretation of evolution teaches the exact same damned thing. Think about it.

[johnsmith]

For the same reason that it was wrong for Blacks to not be allowed to eat in the same restaurants as whites because it bothered them.

For the same reason that it is not ok to demand that people who smell not ride busses.

Because you can not demand that someone change their actions because it bothers you.

You aren't that important.

I haven't read this entire thread so this may be way off base, but you say that "you aren't that important", but indeed "you" are when "you" are making up a vast majority of the population (non-smokers).

People that smell on buses do not directly affect your chances of getting cancer either.

[johnsmith]

Oh, and WHO FUCKING CARES IF GAY PEOPLE WANT TO BE MARRIED? Just my opinion though.

[turambar85]

OK, College Boy...

The freedom of the masses is nearly ALWAYS protected. The point of this country's founding was to protect the freedom of the INDIVIDUAL!!!!

Also, to HELL with you spouting about "Ones morality not influencing which laws should be enacted, etc.., etc..." Every damned law ever passed is based on someone's morality, and it is damn well evident that you have a personal morality you would wish to impose on the rest of us; it obviously includes gay rights.

Finally, the constitution of this US does NOT mention separation of Church and State as an absolute. Nowhere can you find a Supreme Court argument which argues that religion cannot influence, tradition or even be the impetus or inspiration for laws which might be presented, debated and even (gasp) enacted!

The constitution and all court decisions on its interpretation have a specific POINT about religion and the state, and their relationship in THIS country. Get back to us when you are finished writing your philosophy essay about Kant, and have time to look it up in your poli-sci 101 textbook.

BTW, why am I against Gay Marriage? Because I don't believe society should condone that lifestyle, or normalize it beyond the levels it already has been. I believe it to be wrong. My bible teaches me that, and any reasonable interpretation of evolution teaches the exact same damned thing. Think about it.

Ok, I have no qualms with chump, he simply disagrees with me, and thats fine. But you, my friend, are a complete jackass and a waste of the gift of reasoning with which God has blessed you.

1. Dont argue that the freedoms of the masses are oft-protected in order to promote your views on not defending them. It is counter-productive.

2. This is not my personal morality. I do not believe homosexual sex to be a preferred moral way of life, I simply believe that it is not our job to try to hinder it.

And the evolution argument, give me a break man. As I stated before, we are not trying to make a law that will lead to more gay sex, in fact, you could argue that through natural selection, at worst, it leads to less gay sex.

If, as you obviously believe, allowing gay marriage will allow more gays to come out of the closet, leading to them no longer reproducing with heterosexuals, and leading to less babies, then you have two options.

i. If you believe it is genetically influenced then we will, by natural selection and having less mate unwillingly with heteros, have less gays.

ii. If you don't believe that, then we will have a slight increase in homosexuals that are out of the closet for one generation, then a future stabilization.

Now, that is assuming that it leads to more homosexuals. This is a very shaky premise. In order for this to happen it would require that there is a sufficiently large population of homosexuals who are reproducing with heterosexuals simply because it is the only way that they can get married. Again, a shaky premise, one that even if you agree with it, leads to minimal changes which can occur in either direction.

3. The constitution does reflect a general seperation of church and state, and supreme court decisions have backed this up for years. The only question is if the state can do things such as fund parochial schools on the basis of increased educational goods, or if they should refrain because it is funding a church organization. In no way is this a question of whether or not we can make laws that ban certain practices based on one groups religious views.

4. I have never written an essay on Kant, and I am sorry, but my educational experiences are not something that can be used as an insult. You will have to come up with something better.

5. Now, you are against gay marriage because your bible tells you that homosexuality is wrong. You could not believe how un-intelligent that makes you sound. Jesus Christ himself said to give unto caesars that which is caesars. Sounds simple enough to me as a basis for seperation of church and state. Also, it says homosexuality is wrong, but it is going to be here regardless. We are talking about allowing them to simply say that they are married, whoopty fucking do. The bible also says that:

Divorce is bad- make it illegal
Drinking is bad- make it illegal
Pre-marital sex is bad- make it illegal
Worshipping other Gods is VERY BAD- make it illegal, and kill all transgressors due to the serious nature of the offense.
and says that
Lying is bad- Lets make that a crime too.

These are just a few examples of things that the Bible says are wrong, yet are legal. And my guess is that you practice at least one of two of them.

Your religious beliefs are not relevant, nor are mine. Not everybody shares you views, and even if they did that is not cause to make them law, only something that is between you and God.

God does not want you to follow him because you are required to, he wants you to obey his commands because it is your decision, so making Gods commands laws takes away the role of the human being as a free moral agent, and makes obeying God a requirement.



Think before you speak. Please.

[turambar85]

I haven't read this entire thread so this may be way off base, but you say that "you aren't that important", but indeed "you" are when "you" are making up a vast majority of the population (non-smokers).

People that smell on buses do not directly affect your chances of getting cancer either.

Again, this collapses into the fact that ventilation eliminates the slim cancer threat, so you are left only with the bad smell.

Also, as before, why can't non-smokers petition and protest bars that allow smoking, and go to bars that dont. Make this a bar-by-bar decision, not a law.

[johnsmith]

Ok, I have no qualms with chump, he simply disagrees with me, and thats fine. But you, my friend, are a complete jackass and a waste of the gift of reasoning with which God has blessed you.

1. Dont argue that the freedoms of the masses are oft-protected in order to promote your views on not defending them. It is counter-productive.

2. This is not my personal morality. I do not believe homosexual sex to be a preferred moral way of life, I simply believe that it is not our job to try to hinder it.

And the evolution argument, give me a break man. As I stated before, we are not trying to make a law that will lead to more gay sex, in fact, you could argue that through natural selection, at worst, it leads to less gay sex.

If, as you obviously believe, allowing gay marriage will allow more gays to come out of the closet, leading to them no longer reproducing with heterosexuals, and leading to less babies, then you have two options.

i. If you believe it is genetically influenced then we will, by natural selection and having less mate unwillingly with heteros, have less gays.

ii. If you don't believe that, then we will have a slight increase in homosexuals that are out of the closet for one generation, then a future stabilization.

Now, that is assuming that it leads to more homosexuals. This is a very shaky premise. In order for this to happen it would require that there is a sufficiently large population of homosexuals who are reproducing with heterosexuals simply because it is the only way that they can get married. Again, a shaky premise, one that even if you agree with it, leads to minimal changes which can occur in either direction.

3. The constitution does reflect a general seperation of church and state, and supreme court decisions have backed this up for years. The only question is if the state can do things such as fund parochial schools on the basis of increased educational goods, or if they should refrain because it is funding a church organization. In no way is this a question of whether or not we can make laws that ban certain practices based on one groups religious views.

4. I have never written an essay on Kant, and I am sorry, but my educational experiences are not something that can be used as an insult. You will have to come up with something better.

5. Now, you are against gay marriage because your bible tells you that homosexuality is wrong. You could not believe how un-intelligent that makes you sound. Jesus Christ himself said to give unto caesars that which is caesars. Sounds simple enough to me as a basis for seperation of church and state. Also, it says homosexuality is wrong, but it is going to be here regardless. We are talking about allowing them to simply say that they are married, whoopty fucking do. The bible also says that:

Divorce is bad- make it illegal
Drinking is bad- make it illegal
Pre-marital sex is bad- make it illegal
Worshipping other Gods is VERY BAD- make it illegal, and kill all transgressors due to the serious nature of the offense.
and says that
Lying is bad- Lets make that a crime too.

These are just a few examples of things that the Bible says are wrong, yet are legal. And my guess is that you practice at least one of two of them.

Your religious beliefs are not relevant, nor are mine. Not everybody shares you views, and even if they did that is not cause to make them law, only something that is between you and God.

God does not want you to follow him because you are required to, he wants you to obey his commands because it is your decision, so making Gods commands laws takes away the role of the human being as a free moral agent, and makes obeying God a requirement.



Think before you speak. Please.


Lights out, 101A is done.

[101A]

These are just a few examples of things that the Bible says are wrong, yet are legal. And my guess is that you practice at least one of two of them.

Think before you speak. Please.

What a sophomoric debating style you bring to the table.

Take an argument, raise it to the extreme and debate THAT.

I stated why I was against Gay marriage, in succinct terms. You state that is an invalid position. There are no invalid positions, I get to believe what I believe, for whatever reason I believe it. You want to ban people from voting, or debating if their points are somehow founded in scripture? (see I can use your sophomoric style as well; not very productive, is it?)

Also, regarding infidelity and the other biblical transgressions you cite; I don't believe society should CONDONE those, either. I think people who practice such acts should not be normalized or championed. I don't think the mistress should have the same standing as the wife. I thnk that the child born out of wedlock is an unfortunate soul. Do I think we should make infidelity illegal, and throw adulterers in jail; no. Does that help clarify my position on gay marriage?

[101A]

Lights out, 101A is done.

Impressed by long posts that don't address specific issues, are you?

[johnsmith]

Impressed by long posts that don't address specific issues, are you?

More impressed by his then I was the crap you just spit out at 8:28.

[turambar85]

What a sophomoric debating style you bring to the table.

Take an argument, raise it to the extreme and debate THAT.

I stated why I was against Gay marriage, in succinct terms. You state that is an invalid position. There are no invalid positions, I get to believe what I believe, for whatever reason I believe it. You want to ban people from voting, or debating if their points are somehow founded in scripture? (see I can use your sophomoric style as well; not very productive, is it?)

Also, regarding infidelity and the other biblical transgressions you cite; I don't believe society should CONDONE those, either. I think people who practice such acts should not be normalized or championed. I don't think the mistress should have the same standing as the wife. I thnk that the child born out of wedlock is an unfortunate soul. Do I think we should make infidelity illegal, and throw adulterers in jail; no. Does that help clarify my position on gay marriage?

The difference is very extreme.

I say that you can never make laws based on scripture, and use some things that the bible find equally wrong, and mention how they are legal.

You are taking my view that you can not make laws based on religion, and saying that I would like to keep these people from speaking or voting, which is....here we go...making a law based on religion.

I want to silence nobody, or make any laws hindering their speech, I only want to eliminate the use of religion in making laws, and prove how insane it is in principle.

Again, sit down, you didnt counter anything I said, just pretended that I was conflating the issue.

[101A]

The difference is very extreme.

I say that you can never make laws based on scripture, and use some things that the bible find equally wrong, and mention how they are legal.

You are taking my view that you can not make laws based on religion, and saying that I would like to keep these people from speaking or voting, which is....here we go...making a law based on religion.

I want to silence nobody, or make any laws hindering their speech, I only want to eliminate the use of religion in making laws, and prove how insane it is in principle.

Again, sit down, you didnt counter anything I said, just pretended that I was conflating the issue.


I absolutely disagree with you, as would anyone who believes the notion that the most basic freedom of all is: "freedom of thought".

A free society cannot exist if you try to censor WHY somebody wants a specific law passed, or WHY a person beleive what he/she believes.

Would you have us run every law proposed up against a "religious smell" test, that if you could find that one of its proponents was a proponent of it in some part because of religious beleifs, that that somehow makes that law invalid? (tough sentence to write on the fly, sorry) That is a slippery slope I don't believe society could stand very long on.

[turambar85]

If you want to be taken seriously, go back and counter every one of my comments in that post, then I won't just assume that you are completely blown over.

[turambar85]

I absolutely disagree with you, as would anyone who believes the notion that the most basic freedom of all is: "freedom of thought".

A free society cannot exist if you try to censor WHY somebody wants a specific law passed, or WHY a person beleive what he/she believes.

Would you have us run every law proposed up against a "religious smell" test, that if you could find that one of its proponents was a proponent of it in some part because of religious beleifs, that that somehow makes that law invalid? (tough sentence to write on the fly, sorry) That is a slippery slope I don't believe society could stand very long on.

Hah, no. There is no basis for these laws besides religious views. There are laws that have biblical similarities, but they are fine because they address actual issues, and right wrongs in society.

I don't see why it is absurd of me to assume a similarity between banning gay marriage based on the Bible, or banning other religions, divorce, cheating, or pre-marital sex based on these same teachings!!!

[101A]

If you want to be taken seriously, go back and counter every one of my comments in that post, then I won't just assume that you are completely blown over.

I don't have to do that to be taken seriously on this board.

Coming from a chump whose already been dumped in this very thread, I thought you'd be grateful I gave you another life after you were so pwned.

Nor do I have time to respond point by point to your diabtribe stereotyping me as some knee-jerk homophobe. Just because John Smith bought into your act, and is impressed with big words, doesn't mean I did, or am.

Answer my question - do you think that people with a religious agenda should not be allowed to vote, or propose laws in this country? It sounds like that is what you are espousing.

[turambar85]

I don't have to do that to be taken seriously on this board.

Coming from a chump whose already been dumped in this very thread, I thought you'd be grateful I gave you another life after you were so pwned.

Nor do I have time to respond point by point to your diabtribe stereotyping me as some knee-jerk homophobe. Just because John Smith bought into your act, and is impressed with big words, doesn't mean I did, or am.

Answer my question - do you think that people with a religious agenda should not be allowed to vote, or propose laws in this country? It sounds like that is what you are espousing.


I did, you pitiful jackass. I said very clearly that I have no desire to silence their vote, but that all laws must have a grounding that includes some non-Christian rationale.

[101A]

Hah, no. There is no basis for these laws besides religious views. There are laws that have biblical similarities, but they are fine because they address actual issues, and right wrongs in society.

I don't see why it is absurd of me to assume a similarity between banning gay marriage based on the Bible, or banning other religions, divorce, cheating, or pre-marital sex based on these same teachings!!!


So, you would have no problem with polygemy? I would have a problem with it. Part of the reason I would have a problem with it is biblically based, the other reason is because I think it is generally bad for society, and is behavior which ought not be condoned. Very similar to my beliefs on gay marriage, actually.

Again, I would not make infideltiy or gay relations illegal. Nor would I have society specifically put its seal of approval on those behaviors by making polygamy and/or gay marriage legal.

[101A]

I did, you pitiful jackass. I said very clearly that I have no desire to silence their vote, but that all laws must have a grounding that includes some non-Christian rationale.

We posted at the same time; I will ignore the name calling if you could recognize that I re-asked the question while you were answering.

Stop trying to bully, you seem to be intelligent enough to post without such tactics.

[Extra Stout]

1. With regard to "banning cigarettes," people can smoke in their personal spaces, or outside. The idea that we should ban smoking entirely is excessive. Secondhand smoke has been proven to cause lung cancer and other respiratory diseases. Even if patrons have the freedom to come and go to smoke-filled establishments as they please, employees of those establishments do not. There are workplace standards for air quality. Developing an HVAC system to meet those requirements so that smoking can be permitted would be very expensive and wasteful, because it would require something approaching once-through cooling of 100% outside air. It also would be cumbersome and expensive for the authorities to ensure compliance.

The alternative is to insist that people go outside to smoke.

2) With regard to gay adoption, it's not as if people are lining up to take custody of state-ward children. Which is better, orphans in perpetual state or foster care, or children being raised by gays? Even if one regards a gay household as sub-ideal, isn't it still better than no home at all?

If we ever get to a situation where straight couples are getting on waiting lists to adopt black crack babies, then maybe we can re-visit the question of whether gay families are best for kids.

3) With regard to gay marriage, we don't have the right to discriminate against people's relationships, but that doesn't mean the government has to force moral affirmation on us.

We should not withhold tax, insurance, inheritance, or other benefits from a household because we do not like its morality. If some creep divorces his devoted wife when she falls ill in order to marry his plastic-enhanced young secretary, he still gets to file his taxes as "married."

But neither do we have to accept a committed homosexual relationship as the same as a committed heterosexual relationship, any more than we should have to accept that a man is a woman or vice versa. We call the sexes different names because we recognize that there are fundamental differences.

[turambar85]

We posted at the same time; I will ignore the name calling if you could recognize that I re-asked the question while you were answering.

Stop trying to bully, you seem to be intelligent enough to post without such tactics.

yes, I can, but I have a small problem with you based on the attitude of your 1st post in response to me. You jumped into the fray insulting me in your very 1st post. I usually try to refrain from name-calling, but I admit that you had me a little upset.

I will make a better effort to keep name-calling our of my posts, but it is more difficult to respect somebody who refuses to respect you.

[101A]

yes, I can, but I have a small problem with you based on the attitude of your 1st post in response to me. You jumped into the fray insulting me in your very 1st post. I usually try to refrain from name-calling, but I admit that you had me a little upset.

I will make a better effort to keep name-calling our of my posts, but it is more difficult to respect somebody who refuses to respect you.

touche, hadn't had my coffee, yet - also, you mentioned Kant; I hated Kant.

[turambar85]

touche, hadn't had my coffee, yet - also, you mentioned Kant; I hated Kant.


Lol, I am a fan of Kant, at least that principle. I believe that if you "act so that you can will the maxim of your actions to be universal law," that you are doing very well for yourself and the people around you.

And I was up until 3:00 writing an essay, and had to wake up at 6 30. Yesterday my car broke down so Im bumming rides drom my fiancee. It's a rough day. lol.

[101A]

"act so that you can will the maxim of your actions to be universal law,"


...it's that crap I hated. :lol

[turambar85]

Oh come on, you weren't kind enough to give me a true reason why it is different to legislate gay marriage, and not cheating/worshiping other Gods, so at least tell me what Kant ever did to you. :lol

I have yet to find an instance in which acting in accord with that philosophy does not lead to a better world, both in theory and reality.

[turambar85]

Its application to this thread is that if we make a law based soley on a Christian view, then we should admit that it is ok to make laws based on all other Christian laws, and that other religions should be able to make laws as well.

[101A]

Oh come on, you weren't kind enough to give me a true reason why it is different to legislate gay marriage, and not cheating/worshiping other Gods, so at least tell me what Kant ever did to you.

Actually, I did, I think; Polymamy IS illegal (the gay marriage equivalent of cheating). Worshipping other gods is STRICTLY religion based, and I have not argued that any law should be considered as such.


I have yet to find an instance in which acting in accord with that philosophy does not lead to a better world, both in theory and reality.

As I said, I hated Kant, and haven't studied him in nearly 20 years, and then only as a freshman, and I need you to explain to me what you think that means before I can say whether or not I think I ought to live my life that way.

Myself? I think if people would follow the golden rule (I know, not sexy or anything), the world would be a better place.

[101A]

Its application to this thread is that if we make a law based soley on a Christian view, then we should admit that it is ok to make laws based on all other Christian laws, and that other religions should be able to make laws as well.


I think we have debated without seeing each other's point. I don't want laws based on religion, but I don't see how you can keep laws from being proposed and espoused that aren't influenced by one's religion - nor do I feel that would necessarily be an ideal.

[turambar85]

Well, personally I am not entirely sold on why polygamy should be illegal.

This IS NOT me trying to argue this, I sincerely wish for you to enlighten me.

I have asked my fiancee, and she said because polygamy can lead to the exploitation about young girls. However, those are two conflated issues. If there are age laws, polygamy should be considered a different issue.

So, what are the societal problems with occasional cases of polygamy?

[101A]

Well, personally I am not entirely sold on why polygamy should be illegal.

This IS NOT me trying to argue this, I sincerely wish for you to enlighten me.

I have asked my fiancee, and she said because polygamy can lead to the exploitation about young girls. However, those are two conflated issues. If there are age laws, polygamy should be considered a different issue.

So, what are the societal problems with occasional cases of polygamy?


Actually, now that I think about it, I'm not really sure. Maybe ugly, short guys would never get laid?

[turambar85]

lol, I guess you are right.

[clambake]

Does anyone really think that heterosexuals are quietly sitting back and waiting for gay marriage to be legalized so that they can become gay? That would be a complete misunderstanding of what being gay is. The attraction and love is the same for gay and straight. Too many people want to pass judgement on other peoples lifestyles.

Chump is just trying make you understand that ventilation systems do not work. Not the idea of ventilation systems. I smoke. My vice that I would never expose on anyone else, ever. I live in a city where smoking has been banned from the entire city, including outdoors. It's one of my favorite laws ever passed.

[Extra Stout]

So, what are the societal problems with occasional cases of polygamy?
Polygamy traditionally has involved the subjugation of women. Look at FLDS practices. Allowing polygamy would permit the resurgence of those subcultures.

You may be alluding to free-thinking polyamorous groups. I'm not aware of any real push for polyamorous group households to receive state recognition. Such people would be much more likely to eschew the concept of marriage in the first place.

So while hte theoretical concept of allowing polygamy might make sense in the cloistered world of an academic free-thinker, practically, it would be a deleteriously regressive move for society.

[Extra Stout]

I did, you pitiful jackass. I said very clearly that I have no desire to silence their vote, but that all laws must have a grounding that includes some non-Christian rationale.
And why is a Christian rationale any worse than a non-Christian rationale?

Earlier, you said that laws should be based upon what is "right" for society, that is, what benefits individuals the most. In other words, you defined what "right" is. In other words, you established a moral basis by which laws should be promulgated.

Logic and reason alone are not sufficient to define a system of law without first establishing a moral basis, whatever that might be. I could quite reasonably argue the utility of killing off the old and sick without the means to be cared for. It would save the rest of society a lot of money that could better be used for more productive people. However, one of the moral bases of our society is the value of individual lives, so such an argument would be beyond the pale.

And a religiously-informed moral basis is not a bad thing. Say somebody wants to help the poor because Jesus taught people to show compassion. Is their view invalid unless they can logically demonstrate the socioeconomic benefits of helping the poor?

However, I don't really think you meant that as it came across. I believe you meant something along the lines that those coming from a Christian-infomed moral view need something beyond religious dogma in order to justify political positions that would curtail personal freedom.

[101A]

The attraction and love is the same for gay and straight.

I disagree. (as politically incorrect as that might be)

[101A]

Polygamy traditionally has involved the subjugation of women.

(playing devil's advocate here, ES)

But hasn't polygamy been illegal since long before it was considered a bad thing to subjugate women?

Are you arguing that a law which one might have been religiously based could now be something more than that?

[ChumpDumper]

It's funny that Extra Stout approves of orphan's being raised by gay couples but would prefer that those families be put at a decided disadvantage regarding spousal benefits that marriage or civil unions would provide. It's an odd kind of discrimination and one that doesn't hold up under logic just because one finds their consentual sexual practices distasteful. It's saying these folks are good enough to be your parents, but altogether you are legally prohibited from being a family.

[Extra Stout]

(playing devil's advocate here, ES)

But hasn't polygamy been illegal since long before it was considered a bad thing to subjugate women?

Are you arguing that a law which one might have been religiously based could now be something more than that?
Societies have tended to decide long ago that polygamy was a bad idea. The dynamic that develops is of wealthy older men dominating several young women. There are many attendant social problems, such as prevalence of uneducated young widows, inheritance problems, and lots of violent crime as a surplus of young men compete for scarce young women.

And it is not clear that "religious" proscription of polygamy has always held. Following the Reformation, Protestants were relatively soft on polygamy. Luther allowed it. The city of Nuremburg is famous for allowing polygygny of up to ten wives following the Thirty Years' War (since there were so few men left to procreate).

But before long, Protestants too decided that polygamy was a bad idea.

[Extra Stout]

It's funny that Extra Stout approves of orphan's being raised by gay couples but would prefer that those families be put at a decided disadvantage regarding spousal benefits that marriage or civil unions would provide. It's an odd kind of discrimination and one that doesn't hold up under logic just because one finds their consentual sexual practices distasteful. It's saying these folks are good enough to be your parents, but altogether you are legally prohibited from being a family.
You fail reading comprehension.


We should not withhold tax, insurance, inheritance, or other benefits from a household because we do not like its morality.

[ChumpDumper]

Ah, I read everything too quickly. So, is this an approval of civili unions?

[Yonivore]

I am a member of Facebook.com, mainly because it is a good way to keep in touch with friends. However, I also use it to try to start debates with friends about their beliefs using the new facebook news feed, which shows everything that all of your friends have done; such as what groups they joined, what they added to their site, and most importantly, what campaign views they promote.

I was looking through some of my friends views, and almost every single one of them contain a few of these, "abolish smoking cigs, against the adoption of kids by gay couples, anti-gay marriage, modest is hottest, george bush rocks, yes on prop 9, protect the sanctity of marriage."

I put the Bush one, the abolish cigs, and the modest is hottest as a joke, those beliefs annoy me, but are not hate inspired like the other 3.

Why do people, especially in the South, have such an issue with these subjects?

I would like to pose these two questions, to put them up for debate.

1. Why should gays not be allowed to adopt?

2. Why should gays not be allowed to marry?

Lets roll.
I'm with AH. Why are your friends stupid just because they disagree with you? Ever consider it's you that's stupid?

1) Why should gays not be allowed to adopt?

The natural order of things is that heterosexual people have intercourse, the female of the species becomes pregnant, and the couple raises the resulting offspring using the template of their values, morals, and worldview. That's the natural order of things.

And, until we have definitively settled the question of nature vs. nurture, I'm only in favor of children being raised by families that fit that template and share those values, morals, and worldview. This could include heterosexual couples unable to bear children and single heterosexual persons who, due to premature death of a spouse or divorce, are not married to a person of the opposite sex.

It does not include homosexual men or women. Now, if it is ever determined - to my satisfaction - that homosexuality is entirely genetic and not engendered, in any way, by environmental circumstances, I would change this opinion. But, I remain unconvinced.

2) Why should gays not be allowed to marry?

I really don't think that is the issue -- except maybe with some religious zealots that are caught up on semantics.

I'm not opposed to homosexuals entering into life-long relationships that are contractually sealed in a ceremony that is called marriage. The two things I oppose are:

* Any attempt to force churches -- opposed to such unions -- to perform them, and;

* All government entitlements and benefits that are contingent upon marriage; thus making the insitution of marriage desirable for political reasons and not because two people just want to be togther for eternity. Marriage has historically been a religious institution and it was only when there were bureaucratic advantages to being married did anyone else decide they wanted to become so.

Just as I think government should get out of the charity business, I also believe they should be out of the marriage business.

Most of the complaints about gays not being allowed to marry come from the premise that they do not enjoy the same government "perks" as do married couples. I agree. Therefore, let's do away with the "perks."

If you want to insure your dependents, you pay for it. It doesn't matter if you're insuring your wife, husband, life partner, child, or the homeless guy under the bridge on IH-35.

Same with the tax benefits and whatever else is allowed simply because two people have a marriage contract. I think such bargains have only sullied the institution of marriage.

Now, I wouldn't prohibit private companies from including dependents on insurance coverage based on whatever criteria they chose but, I wouldn't force them include coverage for anyone beyond the employee.

Ideally, I think employers should not be involved in providing health insurance to employees anyway. They should pay employees a salary commensurate with the job and without deducting anything from their pay. It only confuses people like cherylsteele.

Employees should provide for their own retirement account, their own insurance, and devise their own method for making sure they've saved enough to pay their taxes every April 15.

I think such a system would make people truly appreciate just how much of their money is sucked up by the government to be spent on foolish government entitlements.

[/rant off]

[ChumpDumper]

1) Why should gays not be allowed to adopt?

The natural order of things is that heterosexual people have intercourse, the female of the species becomes pregnant, and the couple raises the resulting offspring using the template of their values, morals, and worldview. That's the natural order of things.

And, until we have definitively settled the question of nature vs. nurture, I'm only in favor of children being raised by families that fit that template and share those values, morals, and worldview. This could include heterosexual couples unable to bear children and single heterosexual persons who, due to premature death of a spouse or divorce, are not married to a person of the opposite sex.

It does not include homosexual men or women. Now, if it is ever determined - to my satisfaction - that homosexuality is entirely genetic and not engendered, in any way, by environmental circumstances, I would change this opinion. But, I remain unconvinced.There have got to be some studies of children raised by gay parents. If those parents gave them with gay, you'd think that would be a talking point for the opponents of adoption by gays.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

I absolutely disagree with you, as would anyone who believes the notion that the most basic freedom of all is: "freedom of thought".

A free society cannot exist if you try to censor WHY somebody wants a specific law passed, or WHY a person beleive what he/she believes.

never ceases to amaze me how someone can quote "freedom of thought" and end to censorship all the while arguing for denying the freedoms of others.

[101A]

never ceases to amaze me how someone can quote "freedom of thought" and end to censorship all the while arguing for denying the freedoms of others.

...never ceases to amaze how someone can enter a 6 page thread, pull a single sentence out of context and think they can make a point with it...

[johnsmith]

:lmao
...never ceases to amaze how someone can enter a 6 page thread, pull a single sentence out of context and think they can make a point with it...
:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

[MaNuMaNiAc]

...never ceases to amaze how someone can enter a 6 page thread, pull a single sentence out of context and think they can make a point with it...was that not what you were doing? claiming you should be afforded the freedom to think and say what you want, all the while advocating for denying gays the freedom to marry?

[Yonivore]

was that not what you were doing? claiming you should be afforded the freedom to think and say what you want, all the while advocating for denying gays the freedom to marry?
The two issues don't equate.

For one, there is a specific right, enumerated in the constitution, that people are free to express themselves so long as such expression doesn't deny another their constitutional rights. And, I'm not even sure "freedom of thought" can be influenced one way or the other.

There is no constitutional right to marriage, not even gay marriage.

[smeagol]

For the same reason that it was wrong for Blacks to not be allowed to eat in the same restaurants as whites because it bothered them.

You think your friends are stupid and you come up with this analogy?

So for you, the color of the skin (or religion, or gender, or which ever dumb analogy you come up with next) is the same as somebody blowing smoke in my face, something that in the long run might actually kill me?

Unless you prove me right, I gave you more credit than what you deserve.


For the same reason that it is not ok to demand that people who smell not ride busses.

Another poor analogy (but better than the last one). Cero for two.


Because you can not demand that someone change their actions because it bothers you.

It depends on the actions of that certain someone. That’s why there are laws to stop people from doing things that harm other people. It’s pretty straight forward


You aren't that important.

I ever said I was.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

The two issues don't equate.

For one, there is a specific right, enumerated in the constitution, that people are free to express themselves so long as such expression doesn't deny another their constitutional rights. And, I'm not even sure "freedom of thought" can be influenced one way or the other.

There is no constitutional right to marriage, not even gay marriage.by that line of thought it would be alright to deny blacks or hispanics the right to marry, since the right to marry isn't enumerated in the constitution?

EDIT: I can see that this whole argument boils down to wether or not you believe homosexuality is genetic or simply a choice.

[ChumpDumper]

Because you can not demand that someone change their actions because it bothers you.Sure you can. What about noise ordinances? HOA regulations?

[Yonivore]

by that line of thought it would be alright to deny blacks or hispanics the right to marry, since the right to marry isn't enumerated in the constitution?
Yep. You're right.

[Phenomanul]

On the subject of cigarettes (if that is still a valid digression of this thread) ... I'm surprised no one ever mentioned the quality of life aspect.

Furthermore, I have a tougher question. What about parents who subjugate their children to second-hand smoke and show complete disregard for their health? Should the consent of children who don't know any better be neglected? Should it matter that this is going on in the personal 'sanctity' of that smoker's home?

[johnsmith]

by that line of thought it would be alright to deny blacks or hispanics the right to marry, since the right to marry isn't enumerated in the constitution?

EDIT: I can see that this whole argument boils down to wether or not you believe homosexuality is a genetic or simply a choice.


I used to think it was genetic because why would anyone choose to have so much stress, pressure, controversy, etc in their life. Then I met Boutons, he clearly has made a choice on this one.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Yep. You're right.you can't be serious

[johnsmith]

On the subject of cigarettes (if that is still a valid digression of this thread) ... I'm surprised no one ever mentioned the quality of life aspect.

Furthermore, I have a tougher question. What about parents who subjugate their children to second-hand smoke and show complete disregard to their health? Should the consent of children who don't know any better be neglected? Does it matter that this is going on in the personal 'sanctity' of that smoker's home?


That's a good point.

"Won't someone please think about the children"?
-Mrs. Lovejoy

[ChumpDumper]

I'm surprised no one ever mentioned the quality of life aspect.I mentioned not stinking.

[Yonivore]

On the subject of cigarettes (if that is still a valid digression of this thread) ... I'm surprised no one ever mentioned the quality of life aspect.
If you're talking about smoking ordinances, I believe this question rests on how one views private property rights. If, as a property owner, I want to allow smoking -- a legal practice -- on my premises, that should not be subject to government regulation.

I would, however, say that government can require me (if my premises are open to the general public) to post appropriate signage at my entries stating that such practice is allowed on the premises.

People patronize business establishments by choice. They are not forced to enter any place of business so, if smoking bothers them and if they are properly warned that it could be encountered in a specific business, they are free to take their business elsewhere.


Furthermore, I have a tougher question. What about parents who subjugate their children to second-hand smoke and show complete disregard to their health? Should the consent of children who don't know any better be neglected? Does it matter that this is going on in the personal 'sanctity' of that smoker's home?
That's a tough question that can only be addressed once government is willing to emphatically state that second-hand smoke poses a definite health risk to people. Anectdotally, this has been established and I believe it to be true but, until it is a matter of policy, there's not much you can do.

However, once established, I believe you can make a criminal neglect case in much the same way as you can with pregnant mothers who use crack cocaine resulting in so-called "crack babies" and mothers who drink excessively, during pregnancy, resulting in fetal alcohol syndrome.

But, I do believe the two issues are separate; one related to what consenting adults do with a legal product on private property and the second being what legal obligations a parent has to safeguard their child.

[101A]

you can't be serious


He is serious, but what he didn't mention is that you can't discriminate based on race, and that is now enumerated in the constitution, so while you were banning blacks and hispanic from marrying, you would also be banning everybody else.

Homosexual's rights are not enumerated, and they are not seen by the constitution as a protected class. It's not that gays can't marry, it's that no man can marry any other man, nor can a woman marry another woman, gay or not (see it's not discriminatory); heterosexual men can't marry each other, either.

[Yonivore]

you can't be serious
I didn't say the practice was right. Just that it would, for lack of a constitutional prohibition, be permissible. By the way, gays are not denied the "right" to get married, they just can't get government to redefine marriage in a way that recognizes gay unions in such a way that employers are forced to give them the same advantages as married heterosexuals.

I advocate abolishing the government and employment advantages that are derived by being married. Period.

As for marriage discrimination; many Catholic Churches refuse to marry divorced or non-catholic people. Jewish Synogogues don't marry non-Jews. There's a lot of discrimination in church. We came up with the "courthouse marriage" because some people were finding it hard to get a church to marry them and, damnit, they wanted to claim those benefits as well.

Look, if you buy my argument that government has no business in the marriage business at all, then people would be left to seek marital covenants in the place where they originated. The church.

Obviously, if this were the case, I find it hard to believe that blacks, hispanics, or even gays, would find it difficult to find a place by which to enter into a marriage. Why? because there are a multitude of religions that now cater to specific demographics, including all races, nationalities, and sexual orientations.

This isn't about marriage, it's about entitlements and the government needs to quit making it financially beneficial to be married if they aren't going to allow everyone to be married. Unfortunately, employers and insurers couldn't afford the cost of such a determination.

I personally don't care. If not for the government benefits derived from marriage, I doubt anyone else would care either.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

I didn't say the practice was right. Just that it would, for lack of a constitutional prohibition, be permissible. By the way, gays are not denied the "right" to get married, they just can't get government to redefine marriage in a way that recognizes gay unions in such a way that employers are forced to give them the same advantages as married heterosexuals.

I advocate abolishing the government and employment advantages that are derived by being married. Period.

As for marriage discrimination; many Catholic Churches refuse to marry divorced or non-catholic people. Jewish Synogogues don't marry non-Jews. There's a lot of discrimination in church. We came up with the "courthouse marriage" because some people were finding it hard to get a church to marry them and, damnit, they wanted to claim those benefits as well.

Look, if you buy my argument that government has no business in the marriage business at all, then people would be left to seek marital covenants in the place where they originated. The church.

Obviously, if this were the case, I find it hard to believe that blacks, hispanics, or even gays, would find it difficult to find a place by which to enter into a marriage. Why? because there are a multitude of religions that now cater to specific demographics, including all races, nationalities, and sexual orientations.

This isn't about marriage, it's about entitlements and the government needs to quit making it financially beneficial to be married if they aren't going to allow everyone to be married. Unfortunately, employers and insurers couldn't afford the cost of such a determination.

I personally don't care. If not for the government benefits derived from marriage, I doubt anyone else would care either.I see your point. From that perspective, I agree to some extent

[Yonivore]

He is serious, but what he didn't mention is that you can't discriminate based on race, and that is now enumerated in the constitution, so while you were banning blacks and hispanic from marrying, you would also be banning everybody else.
I actually believe that outside government, racial discrimination should not be illegal.

A faithful reading of the constitution and of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 will find that racial discrimination is only prohibited on the question of the denial of a person's constitutional rights.

I'll stipulate that decades of bad law -- affirmative action and abuse of the interstate commerce clause -- have diluted this fact but, it is a fact none-the-less.

While unpopular, and while I personally wouldn't patronize such a business, I believe a private citizen has the inalienable right to refuse to do business with anyone, for any reason, at any time -- including for reasons of race -- except when they are the government or when they are acting as an agent of the government or when they engage in any business with the government.


Homosexual's rights are not enumerated, and they are not seen by the constitution as a protected class. It's not that gays can't marry, it's that no man can marry any other man, nor can a woman marry another woman, gay or not (see it's not discriminatory); heterosexual men can't marry each other, either.
Well, that's a different way to see it.

[101A]

A faithful reading of the constitution ...

:spin

[thispego]

because there would be too much trouble drawing the line between respectable gays and flambouyant gays. Personally, I dont think gays should be allowed to adopt, but if they must, it seems like there are SOME gay couples that woule have less of an adverse effect on children than others

[thispego]

He is serious, but what he didn't mention is that you can't discriminate based on race, and that is now enumerated in the constitution, so while you were banning blacks and hispanic from marrying, you would also be banning everybody else.

Homosexual's rights are not enumerated, and they are not seen by the constitution as a protected class. It's not that gays can't marry, it's that no man can marry any other man, nor can a woman marry another woman, gay or not (see it's not discriminatory); heterosexual men can't marry each other, either.
excellent post

[turambar85]

[QUOTE=smeagol]You think your friends are stupid and you come up with this analogy?

So for you, the color of the skin (or religion, or gender, or which ever dumb analogy you come up with next) is the same as somebody blowing smoke in my face, something that in the long run might actually kill me?

Unless you prove me right, I gave you more credit than what you deserve.

Another poor analogy (but better than the last one). Cero for two.QUOTE]

I didn't use those two analogies to form a direct distinction, I used them to force Chump to say that the reasons for a ban on smoking have nothing to do with the fact that someone smoking bothers us, because in those situations we are also bothered by a practice that we would never (again) try to make illegal.

After doing that I believed that it would be simpler to argue that either a ventilation system, or simply having non-smokers not frequent bars that allow smoking, resulting in a divide between the two typs of bars for the two types of patrons.

So, those were not meant to form a direct analogy, Jesus. Stop trying to attempt to understand, and subsequently to demean others arguments.

[turambar85]

I'm with AH. Why are your friends stupid just because they disagree with you? Ever consider it's you that's stupid?
government entitlements.

[/rant off]

Another example of somebody jumping into a 6 page discussion, obviously reading portions, and pretending to understand what has developed.

I have said, almost half a dozen times, that they are not stupid for disagreeing with me, but for having views which they, admittedly, can not explain without the bible and are based on bigotry and hate.

[turambar85]

And 101A, the rights of women were also not enumerated, it is simply that there is no need to make a distinction. We do no continue to subjugate women based on this fact, and we should not continue allowing the absence of laws to allow us to assume the creation of laws.

The sole job of the government is to provide for the needs of the people and keep the people safe from both foreign and domestic threats. A wholsale ban on gay marriage is not under this criteria.

Maybe, maybe you could argue for the ability for this issue to be decided by the states on the basis that the constitution is silent on its legality, since that is the proper channel for laws as far as our constitution goes (so long as the matter cannot too easily be traced back to the economic benefit of the nation, which would be a massive stretch in this situation).

[101A]

Another example of somebody jumping into a 6 page discussion, obviously reading portions, and pretending to understand what has developed.

I have said, almost half a dozen times, that they are not stupid for disagreeing with me, but for having views which they, admittedly, can not explain without the bible and are based on bigotry and hate.


So, ultimately, we all agree.

You have stupid friends.

[101A]

And 101A, the rights of women were also not enumerated, it is simply that there is no need to make a distinction. We do no continue to subjugate women based on this fact, and we should not continue allowing the absence of laws to allow us to assume the creation of laws.

The sole job of the government is to provide for the needs of the people and keep the people safe from both foreign and domestic threats. A wholsale ban on gay marriage is not under this criteria.
Maybe, maybe you could argue for the ability for this issue to be decided by the states on the basis that the constitution is silent on its legality, since that is the proper channel for laws as far as our constitution goes (so long as the matter cannot too easily be traced back to the economic benefit of the nation, which would be a massive stretch in this situation).

The rights of women ARE now enumerated, the rights of gays are not.

Please explain to me where this definition of the role of the US govt. is described. It sure could be helpful in many disagreements.

[turambar85]

So, ultimately, we all agree.

You have stupid friends.

All of us with the exception of Yonivore.

And let me take some steps to fix this situation. I do not mean to cast them all it that light. It was a sensational "Headline" meant to help grab attention, especially of the people who might avoid entering a straight up gay marriage thread.

I am dissapointed in their lack of reasoning in these matters, and was further upset by the fact that they all get furious with me for, though I have yet to yell or do anything other than simply ask for non-biblical reasons, not agreeing that since the issue has been decided by God and the bible, then it is wrong to even debate its morality.

I will never think somebody stupid for dissagreeing, but I will have a hard time refraining once they reach the point of the dogmatic stupor where they even accuse other people of sin just because they question their views on legislating the Bible.

[turambar85]

The rights of women ARE now enumerated, the rights of gays are not.

Please explain to me where this definition of the role of the US govt. is described. It sure could be helpful in many disagreements.

Well, I just happen to be from the Locke-ian school that the only concievable way that government ever came about was simply for the good of the people. Also, even if you disagree with that, when we live in a democracy the only role of the government is professed to be of either helping or protecting the populace. There is no room for anything which does not fall within one of those two categories.

[turambar85]

So, then why not have the rights of gays enumerated? This seems to be a circular issue.

1. We can't let gets marry because their rights aren't enumerated.
2. If gays can get married, they will have equal rights.
3. We can't let them marry until they have these equal rights that the marriage law is designed to provide.

The same people who oppose gay marriage will just the same oppose legislation that grants equal rights to all, regardless of sexual preferences.

And you cannot say that it would be wrong to now have their rights enumerated unless you believe it was wrong to do so for women, not unless you have some hidden argument that I have yet to be privy to.

[turambar85]

Also, I still need to learn how this should not be, at best, something to be decided by the states.

[101A]

Well, I just happen to be from the Locke-ian school that the only concievable way that government ever came about was simply for the good of the people. Also, even if you disagree with that, when we live in a democracy the only role of the government is professed to be of either helping or protecting the populace. There is no room for anything which does not fall within one of those two categories.

I would argue that our government, regardless of how it was conceived, now exists above and outside of the people, it is the single largest organization in the universe, and to pretend that it exists "for the good or protection of the people alone", is altuistic, naive and not very constructive in a debate. In a political theory course, sure, but in reality, nope.

I would argue more and more each day that the people of this country exist for the government; to pay taxes to support it, and to be manipulated by its myriad tentacles in ways that even the most paranoid conspiracy theorist would shudder to consider.

[101A]

So, then why not have the rights of gays enumerated? This seems to be a circular issue.

1. We can't let gets marry because their rights aren't enumerated.
2. If gays can get married, they will have equal rights.
3. We can't let them marry until they have these equal rights that the marriage law is designed to provide.

The same people who oppose gay marriage will just the same oppose legislation that grants equal rights to all, regardless of sexual preferences.

And you cannot say that it would be wrong to now have their rights enumerated unless you believe it was wrong to do so for women, not unless you have some hidden argument that I have yet to be privy to.

Again, I do not have a problem with gays getting married. I just dont think men or women should marry people of their own gender.

[turambar85]

Those are simply examples of our government not working properly. And you happen to be a fan of things being in our Constitution and being relevant, or not being there and thus not fitting into this system...well, those aspects of our government do not support the Constititutional ideal, nor the ideal of any of the founding fathers.

They wrote this Constitution based, in part, on Lockes ideas, and this idea of a government that does not exist for the people is completely at odds with everything that it, and they, stood for.

My views are not high-minded ideals, but the basis of this country. And maybe your right, maybe it is operating contrary to the Constitution...well, if that is the case then we need a new government, but so long as any aspect of the old school rule exists, we do not need to make laws based on these changes. We do not need to simply cower, give in, and accept the fate of our twisted mockery of a democratic government.

[turambar85]

Again, I do not have a problem with gays getting married. I just dont think men or women should marry people of their own gender.


Hah, you know what I mean, now re-answer having substituted homosexual marriage if it makes you feel better.

[turambar85]

And also, if the rights of gays are not enumerated, then I would suppose that means that, at least in your view, they have no rights. So if you use that argument to deny homosexual marriage, then you should have to, by reasonable extrapolation, say that anything can be done to them, and they can have nothing, based on their lack of enumeration.

Correct me if I am wrong.

[101A]

And also, if the rights of gays are not enumerated, then I would suppose that means that, at least in your view, they have no rights. So if you use that argument to deny homosexual marriage, then you should have to, by reasonable extrapolation, say that anything can be done to them, and they can have nothing, based on their lack of enumeration.

Correct me if I am wrong.

They have no more, or fewer, rights than you or I.

[turambar85]

They have no more, or fewer, rights than you or I.

Well, I would have to say that, according to what you said, Constitutionally they have fewer rights.

And I can think of one right I have that they don't, the right to marry who I love.

[turambar85]

lol, I never expected to be the only person championing this cause on this thread. I have had one or two people halfway agree by default, but they dont care enough to argue the point, and still find it necessary to disagree and argue the cig. ban.

Jeez, I'm getting worn out. I started this thread because I love to argue, but Im getting my fill. :drunk