Martin Luther King Day

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Isn't this a lot of effort simply to clarify terminology? I don't see this kind of passion for linguistic clarity when I talk with evangelicals and creationists about things like Proof, Theories, Evolution, Logic and Logical Fallacies, "you people", etc.

My thought was that it is a middle ground between the two positions. On the one hand, you would be protecting the sanctity of marriage in many peoples minds by not changing its meaning and, on the other hand, you would not be denying other people who do not want to be discriminated against legally by being denied health benefits etc. I am sure that people on either side of the coin would probably disagree with me and say that I must compitulate either way or forget it. However, we have to live together, no?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
IF you define marriage as heterosexual, THEN such a plan would discriminate against homosexuals by giving handouts to straight people.

Not if you changed the laws so that both heterosexuals and homosexuals are given the same rights as couples under the law.

Originally posted by whodey
So are you an anarchist? Do you think the world would be a better place without laws?

There is a difference between trying to allow people free will and then allowing them to impeede your own free will in the process or those around you. I am sure you would agree. For example, if I came into your home and shot you dead and stole all your money, should ...[text shortened]... engage in? As a society, should we care that others are harming themselves or others around us?

So are you an anarchist? Do you think the world would be a better place without laws?

No. Why do you say "so..."? You imply my post implies what you wrote, but I don't understand why.

There is a difference between trying to allow people free will and then allowing them to impeede your own free will in the process or those around you.

How does the sex life of Buddy and Jose impede anyone's free will? How does whether I smoke marijuana or not impede anyone's free will?

Your position is inconsistent with the political, evangelical Christian one I am familiar with. You seem to be on my side of this.

Also there is the issue of people harming themselves.

It's a violation of my human rights to interfere with my suicide, body piercing, tattoos, drug use, prostitution and other such things Christians and related religions have chosen to define as "self harm".

To be honest, whether these things are legal or not is of no consequence to many who do them anyway.

Except for dangerous product on the street, having to treat the police and fellow citizens as enemies, more expensive product, overcrowded jails, etc etc etc - oh yes - AND WE CAN'T GET JOBS!!!!

As a society, should we care that others are harming themselves or others around us?

You're making a leap from caring to "we must be authoritarians for their own good". In my book, caring about someone leads to respecting their choices and giving them freedom, not in following them around chastising them for every little thing my cult disapproves of.

Originally posted by whodey
My thought was that it is a middle ground between the two positions. On the one hand, you would be protecting the sanctity of marriage in many peoples minds by not changing its meaning and, on the other hand, you would not be denying other people who do not want to be discriminated against legally by being denied health benefits etc. I am sure that people o ...[text shortened]... and say that I must compitulate either way or forget it. However, we have to live together, no?

Why is it the government's job to protect the "sanctity" of anything? That's a religious term. Especially protecting the sanctity of something in peoples' minds?! Talk about Big Brother and the Thought Police!

on the other hand, you would not be denying other people who do not want to be discriminated against legally by being denied health benefits etc.

What? You referred to married people getting specific benefits for being married.

Whodey: Why should married folks not get tax benefits or any other benefits? Why is this moral judgment of yours "good"?

You could have written something like this but you chose not to:

Why should married or civilly unified folks not get...

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
How does the sex life of Buddy and Jose impede anyone's free will? How does whether I smoke marijuana or not impede anyone's free will?

Your position is inconsistent with the political, evangelical Christian one I am familiar with. You seem to be on my side of this.

Peoples sex lives are of interest to society if it negativly effects society. I am sure you will agree that there are such negative effects depending on your paritucular fetish such as pedifiles etc. The big question then becomes, which sex lives need curtailing for the overall health of a particular society? Also an issue that comes to mind is the gay community when AIDS first broke out. Many were defiant when it was suggested that "Bath houses" should be closed down because of the frequent unsafe sex practices that it seemed to attract. The same could be said for prostitution. Promiscuity simply increases the risk for negativly effecting the sexual health of a society whether or not these practices are conducted "safely". Also, what of adultery and divorce. The negative effects of such "sins" are well documented. Society then has to step up to the plate and adress them on an individual basis as to do something about it or not do something about it.

As far as marijuana, I will conceed that it is one of the least harmful illegal drugs out there, however, for those under age its negative effects are magnified in a developing brain in comparison to that of an adult. Free will is curtailed in a damaged brain. Also would you want a pilote using it? Would you want your surgeon using it? Would you want your taxi driver using it etc? There are negative consequences in society for using such drugs and our laws should reflect that.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]Why is it the government's job to protect the "sanctity" of anything? That's a religious term. Especially protecting the sanctity of something in peoples' minds?! Talk about Big Brother and the Thought Police!

As I said before, our laws reflect our moarlity as a society. Therefore, should the morals of the majority reign supreme or should the minority? My effort was to look after both. Perhaps I was being niave in thinking I could do both.

Originally posted by whodey
Peoples sex lives are of interest to society if it negativly effects society. I am sure you will agree that there are such negative effects depending on your paritucular fetish such as pedifiles etc. The big question then becomes, which sex lives need curtailing for the overall health of a particular society? Also an issue that comes to mind is the gay com re negative consequences in society for using such drugs and our laws should reflect that.

Peoples sex lives are of interest to society if it negativly effects society.

What does that mean? "Negatively affects society"? Is that a technical term in sociology or something? We're clear that you're committed to careful and precise definitions of terminology based on the "marriage" discussion, so help me out here please. Do we need to have Congress define it to your satisfaction, so your preconceptions about the word aren't threatened by outside ideas?

I feel authoritarianism negatively affects society.

I am sure you will agree that there are such negative effects depending on your paritucular fetish such as pedifiles etc.

No, in that case there is a negative effect on the children who are abused.

The big question then becomes, which sex lives need curtailing for the overall health of a particular society?

None. Nothing needs to be done for "society". Sex lives which harm others against their consent need to be curtailed.

Nobody except the owner has a right to shut down a business because people have loose sex there. The "many" you refer to are the authoritarians I oppose. The same for prostitution.

Also, what of adultery and divorce.

Depends on how marriage is defined. If it's a religious or cultural thing, then the law stays out of it. If it's a contract, then the contract must be adhered to, and should be written up in legalese ahead of time.

As far as marijuana, I will conceed that it is one of the least harmful illegal drugs out there, however, for those under age its negative effects are magnified in a developing brain in comparison to that of an adult.

That's a comment about age of consent. It has nothing to do with prohibition of drugs to consenting adults any more than pedophilia is analogous to healthy sex between adults or child labor is analogous to being employed. Same thing with other people who are unable to consent for one reason or another. It's a completely different topic.

Also would you want a pilote using it?

Again, poor analogy. Do you advocate alcohol prohibition, cigarette prohibition, firearms prohibition, automobile prohibition, lye prohibition simply to keep these things out of the hands of certain people at specific times (like when on the job)?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
That's a comment about age of consent. It has nothing to do with prohibition of drugs to consenting adults any more than pedophilia is analogous to healthy sex between adults or child labor is analogous to being employed. Same thing with other people who are unable to consent for one reason or another. It's a completely different topic.

Interesting. So a child needs the consent of the adult? How about for abortions? Seems it should work that way as well, no? Oh thats right, NOTHING should interfer with the right to choose abortion. My bad. 😞

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]Peoples sex lives are of interest to society if it negativly effects society.

What does that mean? "Negatively affects society"? Is that a technical term in sociology or something? We're clear that you're committed to careful and precise definitions of terminology based on the "marriage" discussion, so help me out here please. Do we ...[text shortened]... rd aren't threatened by outside ideas?

I feel authoritarianism negatively affects society.

Thats why we have laws. Society determains what is "good" and what is "bad" for society. I was not attempting to lay out laws concerning sex, rather, I was merely saying that there are laws needed, as we have today, that deal with sexual issues.

As far as authoritarianism negatively effecting society, I would agree that it can as well.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
No, in that case there is a negative effect on the children who are abused.

Are children not part of society?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Again, poor analogy. Do you advocate alcohol prohibition, cigarette prohibition, firearms prohibition, automobile prohibition, lye prohibition simply to keep these things out of the hands of certain people at specific times (like when on the job)?[/b]

I was not attempting to outlaw anything. I was merely showing the need to have laws on the books that prevent certain uses of marijiana. For example, some people think that those who are terminally ill should be able to use it in order to decrease nausea etc.

Originally posted by whodey
Also, what of adultery and divorce. The negative effects of such "sins" are well documented.

Actually, the negative effects of staying in a marriage (for religious, social or other reasons) which should rightly end in divorce are also well documented.
Your implication in your post was that divorce is always negative when compared to not divorcing and that such a conclusion is well documented. That is false.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually, the negative effects of staying in a marriage (for religious, social or other reasons) which should rightly end in divorce are also well documented.
Your implication in your post was that divorce is always negative when compared to not divorcing and that such a conclusion is well documented. That is false.

I never said that there were never valid reasons for divorce. In fact, if you are being abused it would behoove you to leave a marriage. However, divorce is NEVER the ideal outcome of a marriage and when the divorce rate is well over 50% of the population then perhaps society should begin addressing issues as to why this is so predominant. After all, the family unit is the foundation of a society and it seems that the foundation is on some shaky ground.

Originally posted by whodey
I never said that there were never valid reasons for divorce. In fact, if you are being abused it would behoove you to leave a marriage.

So you admit that the implication of your post was wrong? Are you also saying that it might behoove you to sin? Would you legislate against divorce?

However, divorce is NEVER the ideal outcome of a marriage
I disagree, but then 'ideals' are relative.

and when the divorce rate is well over 50% of the population then perhaps society should begin addressing issues as to why this is so predominant.
I agree, but legislation against divorce, is not the solution.

After all, the family unit is the foundation of a society and it seems that the foundation is on some shaky ground.
No it is not 'the foundation of a society'. Societies can exist without family units and according to you, 50% of it, already does.

Originally posted by whodey
Interesting. So a child needs the consent of the adult? How about for abortions? Seems it should work that way as well, no? Oh thats right, NOTHING should interfer with the right to choose abortion. My bad. 😞

Interesting. So a child needs the consent of the adult?

No more than a child can have sex or do tequila shots with an adult's permission. Children are an entirely different topic and you're avoiding the issue by bringing it up.

If you want to discuss what minors should be allowed to do that adults are allowed to do, I think that's a new topic.

Abortion? What are you talking about?