user1991

You know what? This actually seems like a good solution that will favour all parties. Of course, heterosexual and homosexual spouses should have the same benefits and what not, but yeah, good idea. State and church should be separate anyway If this were what gays wanted they could have had it long ago. What they want is for it to be recognized by the Church. If the Church is going to reserve the right to choose who they can and cannot marry then they should start paying taxes.

Why? It's consensual and both parties enjoy it. What's wrong with that? I meant marriage, not whoopee. The same argument stands.

It has nothing to do with religion, it just isn't natural. The bilological purpose of sex is reproduction, the fact that it feels good is just an incentive. homosexuality is natural though, it can happen by a gene, is naturally occurring in humans, and can be caused by traumas experienced in someone's life. Reproducing feels good to you, but to homosexuals, it can be just as weird as you think it is for them to like it in a different sense. but do you realize the prostate is the male equivalent to the [bleep]oris, and it feels better for men when they have anal sex? and with lesbianism, woman can do pretty much the same men can do to them. The fact is gay sex might seem weird to you, but to them it's normal, and your normal forms of intercourse, could be considered weird to them. Also, if you look at the fetishes people have, It is deemed to be normal by society(to an extent of what the [specialInterest] itself is, but fetishes in general are accepted), it's the same thing with homosexuality, but most people don't think of it in the same way. I know I screwed something I said in there up, but im not sure what. There is no "homosexual gene." If there were, it would constitute a genetic mutation; which is a disease, and one could infer that homosexuality is a disease. As it is, there are fools do try to make that chimeric argument. How does there not being a homosexuality gene make it a choice? I know you didn't say those words, but if that isn't what you're saying then it isn't relevant to the issue whatsoever. To the others, he is talking about harmful mutations

Natural, from what I meant by it, is something occurring without any outside influence toward it. Well by that definition, we can observe absolutely nothing natural. Observer effect?

What does "natural" even mean in this sense? Normal for the majority of cases or occurring in nature?

I have my beliefs, you have yours. God is a reality to me just as much as He isn't to you. I like my beliefs, and while it's clear I'm in the minority here in this vogue of rabid conversion atheism on these boards, I'm sticking to them. And that's fine just don't try to put them into the systems of law and education.

It has nothing to do with religion, it just isn't natural. The bilological purpose of sex is reproduction, the fact that it feels good is just an incentive. What does marriage have to do with procreation?

Cmon man, you know better. Give the list a go* *i) No "there is no separation of Church and state"

In my opinion, there is no such thing as an objective right or wrong. Humanity places value onto things by our very nature, but outside of our consciousness I see no reason to believe that "right" or "wrong" actually exist. Now if what we're calling "morals" are actually "things which most people in society consider to be necessary for a stable society with a stable population and a decent standard of living," these aren't really different to laws or rules. Admittedly, whilst the law may not always represent the will of the people, most of the basic things that most people consider to be "morals" are illegal because we do not think society would be able to function without such a system of "right" and "wrong". In my opinion, "right" and "wrong" is a stupid concept and highlights just how terrible the English language really is. Of course, religious morals should play no part in the law whatsoever (note: common morals may be the same as religious morals in which case that is entirely different) because of the first amendment of the constitution. This is what I think the issue of "morality" comes down to. Outside of our own value systems there is no such things as right or wrong, they are simply concepts we have created to explain certain beliefs that most people consider beneficial/necessary for society. Even if it is evolutionarily embedded in us to not kill others or to consider it "wrong", this doesn't make it objective because outside of our own existence this does not apply. So rules/laws, generally express the "morals" of the people, and it is pointless to talk of things such as "should rules be based on morals?" because the concept makes no sense whatsoever.

Stop defending the guy. The sort of stuff the guy is saying is not far off from what the anti gay marriage crowd actually say. They just say it more eloquently and with more spin and less obvious fallacies. Plus, most people aren't that stupid when they're twelve. When I was 12 and at school we could at least write understandable sentences and think through an argument to the point where it actually made sense. It really isn't that much to ask.

Lets not get into the whole existence of God debate. But mustang, from the way you type and the way your sentences are structured, as well as the terrible content of what you're actually saying, I think you might have some sort of mild mental [developmentally delayed]ation. Not even joking here, your arguments are absolutely ridiculous and have no place in any sort of intelligent discussion on any matter whatsoever. You can call me arrogant if you like, and to be honest I usually don't attack the intelligence of people so viciously, but you really have no idea what you're talking about. It's because of people like you that all the secular humanists dismiss every religious person as an idiot. (which they aren't) Just shut up. Also, I'd just like to remind everyone that these people that call themselves "conservatives" who are typically against gay marriage, are mostly neo conservatives who are actually only social conservatives considering they don't believe in the ideas of freedom (suspension of habeas corpus, patriot act) and the free market, which in turn makes them authoritarian douche bags. I'm not a conservative myself but there is a certain stigma against the term, which I can understand is frustrating for those actual conservatives, who are typically libertarians and constitutionalists, who are generally much more intelligent than the neo con bible bashers.

Well, considering god doesn't exist, I don't see how your argument is relevant. Let him believe what he wants. But, anyways. If this 'god' created people, couldn't he just be able to make their ability to think to be straight? I doubt it. It seems if god is real, then he made us have the ability to think for a reason. To choose what we want to do. And, I find PDA very odd anyways. I don't wanna see a guy and a girl flat out making out in the middle of the street. It wouldn't be any different for a gay couple. reason god doesnt control are minds is because he didnt want to make us robots he wanted us to know whats right and wrong and on of the wrongs is not doing sexual stuff with someone of the same gender so basicly its a sin so bea that you atheists. Sorry to say this, but you're an absolute moron. Not even because you believe in God. You're just a moron. Have you thought through what you're saying? Can you please answer/show the following; 1. Euthryphro dilemma 2. Evidence for the Bible being the word of God in the first place 3. Inconsistencies in enforcing certain Biblical passages and not others. 4. Evidence to support the claim that an objective moral standard can only exist if we posit a God 5. Homosexuality occurs throughout nature so by the same reasoning God created homosexuality. This isn't a case of the whole stupid free will thing anyway because as shown thousands of times to you morons, homosexuality isn't a conscious choice. 6. Evidence for the existence of God 7. If *faith* or *the scientific method and/or reason not being applicable to the question of God's existence* is the answer to 6, how this has any place in the laws of an officially secular country deemed so by the first amendment of the constitution. 8. Justification for allowing the Church to discriminate based on genetic traits and how this differs to the anti-miscegenation laws other than the fact that most people don't consider the denying of gays the right to marry as unconstitutional. When you've answered these maybe we'll start listening to you

What does procreation have to do with marriage? By the same standard, are you going to deny the right of the infertile to marry because they cannot have children? Get out of here with that [cabbage]

The reasons we have these words is because we are humans. There will always be topics that offend certain people. The f word has a sexual connotation, and since sex is not entirely an open subject in the public arena there are people who are offended by it. I think the law should have absolutely no religious influence whatsoever, at any point, ever. It is also human nature to find value in things (and therefore there will always be hierarchies). The Marxists never really seem to get this, you can't have a classless society even without money, some other form of value will just take its place. Whilst we have hierarchical systems of power (and not direct democracy), the actual laws will not be based entirely on public opinion, because the way western societies work is with some sort of Burkean representation where a "representative of the people" is voted in based on the policies they want to bring in, yet there is no mandate that forces them to actually bring in those policies. For example, the majority of Americans are against the Patriot act, yet it still remains because the politicians you have voted into power do not want to remove it (yet). It will forever be like this for two reasons; 1) direct democracy is impractical in a country of 304,000,000 people and 2) the nature of coercive government itself is mutually exclusive with the idea of the people having total power over their system of law. Morals are entirely subjective (no arguments from consequence please), even if you could prove God existed 100%, why would his opinions be of any more value than any of ours?

And I'm too lazy to add you to the TIF compass. And I'm too lazy to care. deeeeeeeestroyed

What about the draft? Do you consider that unconstitutional? I didn't say "unconstitutional" But yes, I do. No one should have to fight for a government if they don't want to. You could make a good case for justified totalitarianism in the times of WW2, but we aren't in those times now. (and even if we were, its only a good case. You could also make a good case for the government not having the power to force you to fight for them) This whole "civilian security force" thing just seems a bit disturbing

I wouldn't even care if I was getting paid for it. The government shouldn't be able to force you to do work, no matter what the salary, no matter what the aim of the work, against your will. (prisoners are a different issue so don't even go there) If this were here in the UK I would probably do it anyway, but that doesn't negate the freedom standpoint. EDIT: Not sure if it is mandatory. If it is, then point stands, if not then it doesn't matter.

This is seriously worrying. Who would support something like this? I don't get it. Mandatory work on behalf of the state? "Civilian" police force? Is that like an army or what? Why are they for such huge government? Man, both parties in the USA really are terrible (same here in the UK). On one hand, you had John McCain and the idiot Sarah Palin, but on the other you've got Obama who is pretty much deified without cause by people who don't even understand his policies. Seriously, the amount of support this guy is given for no reason is worrying. So is the whole "change" and "hope" thing. Empty rhetoric, personality cult, blind support, what next? Man I hate this political system

[hide=] Freedom is nice if it does not impose the freedom of others. And that's why safety is taken because not everybody such as yourself is going to resort to peaceful measures. So you're an exception to those who don't impose on other people's freedoms? Like I stated previously, go take it out on the people who give you a bad name. Although when you completely disregard that those type of people exist, it makes you look ignorant instead. I never said that the role of physically taking heroin imposes on others, the actions under the effects do. Unless you want to count the emotional disturbance it imposes on others. I'm unsure whether crime rate would lower or not if it were to be legal though. You've already said several times that people can do whatever they want with their body if it does not impose the freedom of others. However, you keep denying those who impose on others after or during the effects of taking heroin. I don't have an answer? Who are you kidding? I'm probably one of the very few people here who actually studied substance abuse and have worked with both victims and users of substance abuse. People like yourself and other drug users undoubtedly have some exceptional experience to share themselves. It's one thing to read from text books, it's another to be in the moment so for those who don't listen to some of your points because you're a drug user, you're missing out. I agree with the excess power of the government, they do have too much power and the people do need some of it back. I've seen first hand just how corrupt police can be, you're forgetting I'm a part of the largest motorcycle gang in Australia. I hear about people disappearing, being framed, being paid off etc all the time. Not to mention the latest Gold Coast police sham. But in saying that, I also care about the well being of others. I actually don't psychoanalyze anything on these boards unless somebody specifically asks me to, so please don't say that. I enjoy being myself and sharing my experiences rather than having people fear that I'm psychoanalyzing everything they're saying. It's sometimes more of a burden because people try to watch what they say around me in person and I just wish they would relax and be themselves. I've just noticed that during your times on the boards, you get aggressive when people express their thoughts on what's best for other people, in particular drug use. However, this isn't about who has experience, who has no idea what they're talking about, who psychoanalyzes or who get's aggressive on what topics. This is about marijuana (although side tracked to heroin etc). If you can't produce any new points other than "the government has no right to tell me what to do" for my counter-argument "the government can tell you what to do if it affects others" then it's time to agree to disagree. Going in circles brings nothing new to the table other than who wants to be right. You could inject coca cola in to your body for all I care but if you impose on the freedoms of others when you take the coca cola, I do. Others don't need to suffer just because of your beliefs. [/hide] The things you do on the drug are irrelevant when considering the actual physical taking of the drug. So, I believe that someone has the right to do whatever they want to their body. Since you can not conclusively demonstrate that taking the drug and going on to impose on the freedoms of others necessarily go together, (obviously they don't) - I don't think you can deny people the right to do what they want to themselves simply because some people may go on to do something stupid (again, I don't see how the taking of the drug and the actual end result of the person's actions are even related in this sense when we're talking about the legality of actually taking it) I'm not denying that addicts and hard drug using criminals exist. I never denied their existence. I don't mention them because quite frankly I think they're irrelevant to the matter. There are so many things that could potentially lead to imposing on the freedoms of others that it is stupid to even take them into account. The whole drug issue has been blown wayyyy out of proportion. The physical act of taking the drug itself harms noone but yourself. The effects are irrelevant after this. I know I keep saying this, but people own their own bodies. Somehow it has become common practice that force and coercion are used against people who are doing something to themselves, apparently for the betterment of a system which they didn't even consent to being in in the first place. I didn't know you were in a motorcycle gang. What does being in a motorcycle gang entail? On topic, of course marijuana should be legal. I think a lot of the population are waking up to the fact that it isn't even nearly as dangerous as our governments would have us believe (don't get me wrong, there are dangers, but they're so much less than most of the drugs/legal OTC drugs out there).

Hopefully they'll ddos Australia's government to teach them a lesson for trying this whole censorship thing

You do so by living here. If you don't like it, leave. I was born here. Look, the point here is - the government shouldn't be able to use coercion or force unless it is against someone who has used coercion or force, and has consented to be part of the system in the first place. If you don't want to be part of the system, you don't get any of the benefits of the system. It is simple. If someone takes heroin in their own home and is physically forced into a cell, that is unjustifiable. To be honest, the dangers of the drug are completely irrelevant to me. What is "better for society"* is irrelevant to me in this instance (not always, so don't brand me as some sort of insane individualist). I own my own body. I have the right to put whatever I want into it. That's pretty much it. The dangers to myself are irrelevant, the things that I could "potentially" do are irrelevant, because the actual physical act of putting heroin into my body only involves me. To say that the majority/state can tell you what you can and cannot do to yourself is basically the same as saying "we own you." Quit with your arguments from consequence already. Drugs were legal for thousands of years and there were never any of these ridiculous problems people talk about. The whole thing with making them a huge deal is partly what leads to the problem. * The drug war has been an epic failure so far. Lots of the problems that they use to justify it being illegal are actually caused by it being illegal in the first place. 1) Criminal association. If I am buying from a street dealer, there is no age regulation, and they can push harder drugs onto people too like coke and h. 2) In a regulated system drugs aren't cut and laced with poisons/other more dangerous drugs. In a regulated system, you know the exact potency of the drug you're taking so you can easily avoid overdose, control the type of high you are looking for. If you buy it from a dealer, you really have no idea. It could be any strength. 3) Drugs being illegal means that the cartels and gangs have to take more risk, which means that they can charge higher prices. This means that i) someone is more likely to resort to stealing to get money and ii) gangs can use drugs as their main source of funding for other, more serious criminal endeavors. 4) Police can spend their time on more important issues, which in turn will lower crime rates in other areas as well as free up billions of pounds/dollars etc in tax money that went towards futile drug laws. This money can go towards education and other more important areas as to try to educate the people properly instead of scaring them with propaganda. An educated populace is the key to getting rid of these problems. 5) Tax money gained from the regulated sale of drugs will give more money that can go towards more important things. 6) Drugs being illegal adds to social stigma which makes it harder for people with addiction and problems to speak out for fear of being judged by society. Also, the illegality means that it is hard for people to get the help they need because they fear being prosecuted. 7) It isn't the role of government to tell you what you can and cannot do to yourself.

Everybody knows your argument, trust me. "It's my body, I can do what I want" get over it sometimes people can't do what they want because it imposes other freedoms. Just because you don't impose other freedoms does not mean for even one, single second that others in your category don't and won't. Those who nit pick on the people who smoke in their backyards and earn an honest living need to get real but it's not like you're specifically being targeted, people's problems are with those bloody idiots who do impose on others after they do whatever they want to their own bodies. People aren't going to make it legal just because there is a minority like yourself who doesn't get in to trouble. You have a real problem with people telling you what to do, I hope you get over that someday but it's not all about you, it's about other people too who can't control themselves. Take your frustrations out on those who can't control themselves, not the people protecting innocent people from those who can't control themselves. I feel your frustration, but I think you're totally taking it out on the wrong people. If people didn't act like they did while they were under the influence then just maybe more studies and people in general would support legalization of harsher drugs. When you have a spare half hour - an hour go to googlescholar.com and do some homework. Freedom > safety So your answer to my argument is.. get over it? Sounds like somebody doesn't have an answer. What is the role of government? The act of physically taking the heroin doesn't impose on others' freedoms. To the guy who said "oh suicide bombing should be legal then huh", no, because the act of bombing is an outward action aimed at other people and designed specifically to kill people. I never consented to this government's control. The fact that they can use force and coercion against the people when we cannot use it against them is telling of the excessive power of government. Goddess, quit trying to psychoanalyze everything I'm saying, "you have a problem with people telling you what to do." No, I have a problem with people in an unjustifiable position of control telling me what to do. If I'm on a plane and the pilot tells everyone to put on their oxygen masks I have no problem doing it because the pilot is in a position of justifiable authority. The government however, is not.

[hide=] ...Except Epicurus wasn't an atheist. ...And what happened in 33 AD? ...And didn't we totally go over this pages upon pages ago? [/hide] Its only a motivational man. It doesn't matter what is discussed in this thread and what arguments are posted, it is inevitable that the same subject will be brought up a few pages later.

No. They should all be legal. The state has no justification to tell you what you can and cannot do to yourself. It's not just what you're doing to yourself. It's what you're doing to others around you as well, especially in the case of these hardcore drugs. That type of drug use should be discouraged at all times. And while marijuana is illegal, it doesn't give the state much credence when it comes to what drugs are bad. If marijuana is legalized there will be a tangible standard to go by and it will serve to show the public, illegal = bad, legal = okay. You aren't listening to the argument. If I choose to take heroin, I am doing it to myself. There is no-one else involved. As long as I do not impose on the freedoms of anyone else, how can the state/majority possibly justify telling me what I can and cannot do to my OWN body. I did not consent to the state's control. I own my body. I have the right to do WHATEVER I want to it, and as long as it does not impose on the freedoms of anybody else it is not the business of you, or anyone to tell me whatI can or can't do it. The state/majority telling you what you can and cannot do to yourself is tyranny.

Well, Americans in general-even what appear to be extreme left- or right-wingers-are very close to the center in the global sense. Which is why, though Obama may appear as an extreme socialist to some Americans, he does not now, nor will he ever, have nothin' on Marx. Obama is just as much a corporate puppet as Bush/Clinton. The genuine frustration against the neo-con fascist machine that was the Bush/Cheney administration is being manipulated and abused by Obama's corporate interests (and no this isn't a big conspiracy, just look at the names of his admin.) It's right out in the open, yet the mainstream media seem to be ignoring it completely. I guess its only a coincidence that the same people who own the mainstream media are the people who are connected to all these private bankers and government officials. And wow, Robert De Sable, have you heard of freedom? You might want to check it out sometime. Jesus Christ, how authoritarian can you be? It isn't even the right wing stuff that annoys me. The fact that you are that high up on the vertical scale is just worrying.