Politics

WhoDat · 07-20-2004, 02:42 PM

I skipped a lot, but I have to throw a few things in here:

First:

I\'ve managed to avoid this \'til now, but I absolutely positively agree with you whodat...110%.

Everybody stop. A moment of silence please to honor this moment. Maybe i\'m not the miserable person Saintfan thought I was outside of the Brooks/Haz debate!

I always thought that we thought alike Saintfan - great minds usually do. Now if I could just get you off the sunshine laced tang that Billy\'s got you hooked on... :P

Now, I gotta get a little ticked.

canucksaint -- Marriage in the US has always been for people of the opposite sex. Define marriage however you want, but that\'s the way it is.

Since you don\'t object to gay marriage, is there anything you object to that you think is morally wrong? What about incest? What about having multiple wifes or husbands? What about sexual relationships between adults and childern? Who has the right to say this isn\'t OK? Me, for one. Just like gays. You got to draw the line somewhere. It\'s not natural to sleep with your sister and it\'s not natural for a man to sleep with a man. Of course, an arguement could be made to justify all of \'em.

1. Comparing gay marriage to incest shows ignorance of the subject matter. That\'s sad Billy - do you know any gays. Really, do you have a single gay who is truly your friend, or who you have ever gotten to know? If you had you wouldn\'t make those kinds of ridiculous comments.

2. Unfortunately, you\'re half wrong here and it is the half that matters. In practice, marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Hoewever, that is not always the way it is defined in law, which is why gays CAN marry in certain places. Its those laws (and the impending challenges of those laws) that will eventually allow gays to be married in every state in this country within the next 20 years.

3. There are NO grounds for disallowing marriage between gays in law. Marriage in this country is DEVOID of religious signifigance (separation of church and state). Thus it is simply a civil contract between two people. Marriage, for the position of the state, is nothing more than that. As we all know discrimination on race, sex, age after majority, etc. is illegal in this country, as well it should be. So is discrimination based on sexual preference. There are a plethora of reasons why gay marriage should not be banned and very few other than a \"religious\" argument for why it should be. Fortunately, religion AND majority view mean very little in this country when it comes to civil liberties and personal freedoms.

4. THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING: One person please give me any reason whatsoever as to why gays should not be married THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE \'morals\', \'ethics\', or \'religion\'. What threat does the idea pose to American society? None. Plain and simple. The bottom line here is fear. People who oppose gay marriage generally know very little about gay people and that ignorance makes them scared. Religion is another major contributor - thankfully our government does not legislate morals.

Gay should have the right to be married, and they most certainly will have that right sooner rather than later. George Bush\'s decision to make this an issue now may serve to act as a wedge amongst Democrats and help him win another election, but he is doing it at the cost of \'his cause.\' Bringing the issue to the forefront has only shortened the time frame until gays can be married. States like MS, GA, LA, and other bible belt states will be quick to pass laws outlawing gay marriage. Gays will take legal action and eventually this will sit in front of the Supreme Court - who will decide that it is unconstitutional to bar a citizen of rights afforded other citizens based solely on sexual preference. Thanks George, what might have taken 30 or even 50 years may now only take 10.

canucksaint · 07-20-2004, 04:38 PM

We can disagree on an issue so emotionally charged as abortion and still be friends, right?

Yea, but don\'t tell me that Brooks is a good QB, cause them fightin\' words

ScottyRo · 07-20-2004, 06:08 PM

Gay should have the right to be married, and they most certainly will have that right sooner rather than later. George Bush\'s decision to make this an issue now may serve to act as a wedge amongst Democrats and help him win another election, but he is doing it at the cost of \'his cause.\' Bringing the issue to the forefront has only shortened the time frame until gays can be married. States like MS, GA, LA, and other bible belt states will be quick to pass laws outlawing gay marriage. Gays will take legal action and eventually this will sit in front of the Supreme Court - who will decide that it is unconstitutional to bar a citizen of rights afforded other citizens based solely on sexual preference. Thanks George, what might have taken 30 or even 50 years may now only take 10.

Although I don\'t agree that religious or moral reasons for disallowing gay marriage should be left out of the discussion, there is at least one purely sociological argument. That being that allowing gay marriage will continue the trend of the deteriorating the family system in America. It has been shown many times that children perform best and are better psychologically when raised in a home that contains a mother (female) and a father (male). The ease of obtaining a divorce was the first major blow to this. You haven\'t noticed how over the past 30+ years that child discipline has seemed to become such a large problem? Allowing gay marriage will only increase this and other problems.

As far as states such as LA passing laws banning gay marriage...as I said above, LA already has in its civil code the statement that a marriage is between a man and a woman. There should be no need for another law.

Moreover, this isn\'t a civil rights issue. Gays are not being stopped by the prohibition of gay marriage from doing anything except attain married status. If they can attain this status just because they wish it, then I wish to be considered a senior citizen and start receiving my social security now.

JKool · 07-20-2004, 07:48 PM

Wow, you guys have been working hard here.

Normally, I don\'t share my veiws on these things, but since this has been going so amicably, I think I\'ll say a few things:

(1) I\'m Canadian, so I cannot vote in your election. I\'m not terribly upset about that, since I think it is obvious that this will be a tough election. I think though, Bush has proven himself to be of questionable integrity - his life before becoming President should be enough to show this, but this whole \"we believed they had weapons of mass destruction and chemical/biological weapons\" stuff is utter carp! I think he has done a lot to drive your county\'s good name through the mud with many other, normally congenial, countries.

(2) On the abortion issue. Here is an argument I\'ve always thought was interesting. We believe that sometimes right to the use of our bodies and minds outweighs others\' right to life. There are tons of examples: we don\'t spend a lot of time or money to save people dying of hunger right here in the US, we don\'t take the time to volunteer with organizations that save lives in third world contries, we don\'t take the time to help look for missing children, etc. All of this demonstrates that we think our right to the use of our own body (and time) outweighs so many others\' right to life. Thus, what is the difference in the abortion case? Women have the right to choose whether to use their bodies to \"save\" a fetus/child or not - the same way I get to choose if I\'ll spend 99 cents a day to feed/\"save\" a starving child. Furthermore, if you claim that the difference is that the woman made a choice in starting the life of the child, there are two problems: (1) most women made a choice that involved a very minute chance of a child resulting (failed birth control, etc.) and should thus not be held accountable (the same way no one should be held accountable if they take proper precautions - think a mail carrier could still slip on your stairs even if you\'ve carefully cleared them of snow), and (2) I made some choices that allow children to be born into a world where I will not feed them (e.g. I chose to vote for so and so, who passed laws that aren\'t sufficient to educate potential mothers, feed the hungry, and so on).

(3) On the issue of whether or not morality is nothing more than individual opinion, I\'d have to say that is dead wrong. Here is a quick argument. If I am the cause of my moral system (that is, if I am the sole thing that creates right and wrong FOR ME), then I could never make a morally incorrect judgement (for in deciding to do something, I would be deciding that it was morally good). However, I know when I think back, I think that I have done some morally bad things - I am ashamed to admit it, but it is true. This shows that morality is not created by me for me - in order to be wrong, there must be some other cause of things moral OTHER THAN MYSELF. This is the most basic argument against moral subjectivism (the view that things are morally good or morally bad based on the individuals opinion/view).

Cheers.

JKool · 07-20-2004, 07:52 PM

Oh yeah,

(4) On the gay marriage thing: I don\'t understand why people squable over the definition of marriage - law making, as well as right and wrong, has nothing to do with defining.

I thought I\'d share this amusing idea: there was a comic in one of the papers a few days back. There are a bunch of women sitting around discussing gay marriage. They say that they don\'t think that it is gay marriage, or the possibility of bestiality, or whathaveyou that brings down the value of their marriages - it is all the hot, single women who do!

ScottyRo · 07-20-2004, 11:06 PM

(2) All of this demonstrates that we think our right to the use of our own body (and time) outweighs so many others\' right to life. Thus, what is the difference in the abortion case? Women have the right to choose whether to use their bodies to \"save\" a fetus/child or not - the same way I get to choose if I\'ll spend 99 cents a day to feed/\"save\" a starving child.

You make a good observation J, but let me answer your question. The difference is that one is passive the other is aggressive. Not contributing to feeding hungry children is not a very good thing to do and I am as guilty as anyother of this, but it is a passive act. I think this is infinitely less harmful than if I were out there killing all the hungry children. Also, one mistake does not mean we should commit an even greater error.

Furthermore, if you claim that the difference is that the woman made a choice in starting the life of the child, there are two problems: (1) most women made a choice that involved a very minute chance of a child resulting (failed birth control, etc.) and should thus not be held accountable (the same way no one should be held accountable if they take proper precautions - think a mail carrier could still slip on your stairs even if you\'ve carefully cleared them of snow), and (2) I made some choices that allow children to be born into a world where I will not feed them (e.g. I chose to vote for so and so, who passed laws that aren\'t sufficient to educate potential mothers, feed the hungry, and so on).

About women\'s right to choice, the fact is, she did. She had sex. Who should bear the burden if the protection was not adequate? The chiild who will give up an entire life (possibly 100 years of life), or the mother who could only have to be pregnant for nine months?

Unfortunately, we cannot protect everyone. Some in North America are going to go hungry by being born into tough situations. But does being born and having to live as a hungry child, worse than never having been born. I say no, death is worse. Furthermore, the law presumes this to be true. A child, even one that is born with a birth defect, is better off alive than dead.

Everyone of us born after 1970 are lucky that our mothers chose to give birth to us. When you consider whether a mother has a right to kill her unborn child, consider it as though it is you on the chopping block or someone you love. Then you\'ll finally give the death its proper weight. It is so easy to dismiss the unborn child as a non-person and it is therefore easily done away with.

WhoDat · 07-21-2004, 10:26 AM

Although I don\'t agree that religious or moral reasons for disallowing gay marriage should be left out of the discussion, there is at least one purely sociological argument. That being that allowing gay marriage will continue the trend of the deteriorating the family system in America. It has been shown many times that children perform best and are better psychologically when raised in a home that contains a mother (female) and a father (male). The ease of obtaining a divorce was the first major blow to this. You haven\'t noticed how over the past 30+ years that child discipline has seemed to become such a large problem? Allowing gay marriage will only increase this and other problems.

FINALLY, a decent argument. One that I think is generally inaccurate, but your point is well-taken Scotty.

Many people argue that allowing gays to marry will further destroy the crumbling American family. Scotty also suggested that children perform/develop better in a two parent system. However, Scotty suggests that this is a MOTHER AND FATHER system. I\'m not sure that\'s entirely the case.

It seems that research has shown that children perform better in a family structure that is supportive, nurturing, with parents that encourage and love one another. Can gays not provide that environment?

Generally speaking, families with gay parents work BETTER than the AVERAGE American family. The reason - gays have to fight SO HARD to get and keep children that you know they are truly dedicated to being good parents. MANY people have suggested that there shold be a test to be a parent - for gays, there basically is.

How often do you hear of gay families in which there is abuse? Never. Why? Unlike \'normal\' families, children cannot come without planning. Additionally, gays tend to be inherently more accepting and supportive.

Quite frankly, the American family argument is entirely unpersuasive. The ease at which a person can enter into marriage and then dissolve it affects the American family system FAR MORE than gay marriage does or ever will. But I don\'t see anyone fighting or making an issue out of toughening divorce laws or marriage laws. In fact, Louisiana just made it EASIER for out-of-state parties to marry in LA by reducing the time period before which a marriage license takes affect. It used to be three days, not it\'s one, just like Las Vegas.

As far as states such as LA passing laws banning gay marriage...as I said above, LA already has in its civil code the statement that a marriage is between a man and a woman. There should be no need for another law.

You\'re 100% right. That doesn\'t mean that a gay couple won\'t eventually come along and challenge that law. They can easily challenge it in FEDERAL appeals court, which would take the issue out of the State\'s hands.

Moreover, this isn\'t a civil rights issue. Gays are not being stopped by the prohibition of gay marriage from doing anything except attain married status. If they can attain this status just because they wish it, then I wish to be considered a senior citizen and start receiving my social security now.

This isn\'t true. They are being barred from entering a contract that other people can enter. It is like me telling you that you cannot enter into a loan agreement b/c you\'re NOT gay.

The only type of factor for civil rights in this country that is allowable is age. Obviously, minors do not have certain rights. Likewise, programs like SS (which has a purpose of providing disability/retirement funding) is only allowed to people above a certain age. It is NEED based. Thus, you can make a reasonable argument as to why a 65 year old man with no income and no savings who contribute to SS for his whole life DESERVES SS, as compared to a 25 y/o person with 40 more years of earnings potential. Of course, if you broke your back and that earnings potential was lost, you would collect disability, which is SS.

There are NO grounds for stopping people of the same sex from entering into a civil contract. Currently, the grounds being employed are sexual preference. We all know that is invalid. You may think it is valid b/c you\'re not gay and in the majority, but if you stop and think about it you\'ll know that it is wrong to deny someone rights on those grounds. 50 years ago if you were white you would have been in the majority class of people who often suggested that blacks shouldn\'t be afforded the same rights as whites. Now we look at that time and wonder how the people who came before us could have ever been so ignorant. Same applies here. Allowing gays to be married is about as dangerous to American society as was the decision to allow women suffrage or minorities the same rights afforded whites.

JKool · 07-21-2004, 12:37 PM

Nice points ScottyRo.

Here are two arguments that stike me off the top of my head:

(1) The active/passive distinction is flimsy at best. Here is a famous example. Imagine two guys, Smith and Jones. Smith and Jones both have a nephew who is going to inherit their respective family\'s fortune (but Smith and Jones are next in line to their respective nephews). Each of Smith and Jones plan to kill thier nephews. One night Smith sneaks into the bathroom and drowns the bathing nephew - all the while thinking how great the family fortune will be. Jones on the other hand sneaks into the bathroom where his nephew is bathing. Unlike Smith though, Jones\' nephew slips in the tub just as Jones enters and drowns - all the while Jones waits with glea (ready to drown the child if he regains consciousness) for the child to drown. Smith actively kills his nephew, but Jones seems no less morally reprehensible while merely allowing the child to die! At any rate, this is a somewhat compelling reason to think that the active/passive distinction has little to no weight in moral judgements.

(2) In making choices, there is a simple distinction between \"intention\" and merely \"forseen consequences\". Take for example the following - yesterday I intended to go to work, but it was raining, so I got wet. While I fully intended to go to work, I did not intend to get wet - that was merely a foreseen consequence of my going to work. Thus, in the case of failed birthcontrol, the woman may foresee that there is some very small risk of getting pregnant, but it is not an intended consequence. Generally, people feel that you should be held accountable for your intended actions (and sometimes for foreseen consequences - depending on how dumb the intention was), but usually not the full scope of the foreseen consequences. Here is an example: imagine I don\'t tie my shoe because I think that is cool. There is a chance (albeit small) that I will trip at some point during the day. Let say I\'m passing a bus stop when I trip and accidentally knock a would be passenger in front of the stopping bus. No one thinks that I am morally depraved for not tying my shoe, even though this COULD happen.

Ok, I lied, there is a third point.

(3) I\'m not sure that we should be so quick to equate \"the value of death\" between an unborn child and a fully grown living person with a life history. This IS a tough question, but I always thought that the \"value of death\" was the loss to those who go on living of that person. That is, of course, extremely controversial - especially since it is basically the claim that some people are more valuable than others. I think I\'m willing to defend this veiw, but I\'ll have to think a bit harder. Maybe you guys have some thoughts?

ScottyRo · 07-21-2004, 03:22 PM

Again, thanks for the level-headed discussion guys. WhoDat, my response to you is going to have to wait a whaile as I find the abortion debate more compelling. Not to mention the no-gay marriage argument is harder to make than no abortion.

JK on point (1): Jones is not as passive as you would like me to believe. His intent was to kill the child. He was fortuitous enough not to have to touch the child, but is culpable nonetheless. Jones had the power to act, but refused because it fit his intended purpose.

In the hunger scenario, Jones did not remove the child\'s food nor did he hope that the child would go without food. He simply does not act. However, this inaction does not fulfill any purpose of Jones\'. It simply occurs. Nor is Jones in a position to cure the problem of hunger unlike the situation where he could have saved the drowning boy. He certainly can help by sending 99 cents a day, but it wont cure the problem.

This one is tough and I might have to come back to it later.

Point (2): I\'m gonna expound on your raining scenario to fit the abortion debate more fully. You will play the baby. You intend to go to work. It is raining. You put on a raincoat that guarantees the wearer 99.9% effectiveness in preventing rain from getting in. Unfortunately, you got wet. Your boss under federal law may shoot you for for coming to work wet to avoid the inconvenience of having a wet employee smear the ink on the office\'s paperwork. You could have stayed home but you would not have received your paycheck (gratification) if you had. Should you die? No, the consequence of your death does not equal the inconvenience of smeared paperwork.

Did you intend to get wet? Yes. A ruling in law says that \"the intent follows the bullett.\" This means that if I wanted to shoot WhoDat, but you were standing behind him and I shot you instead, I intended to shoot you. Thus, if you go in the rainand get wet, you intended to get wet even if you aimed to stay dry.

On your shoe tying scenario: You might be found guilty of negligent homicide. You were aware of the risks of tripping, but refused to tie your shoes. Also, it is foreseeable that you could trip and fall into someone and injure that person.

Let\'s go further and say 45 million people have died since 1970 because of people who failed to tie their own shoes. I guarantee there would be a law making it a crime to not tie your shoes. Then if you didn\'t tie your shoes and tripped as described, you might be found guilty of manslaughter, if not murder.

Point (3): The value of life cannot simply be judged by who is left behind. If it were, then you would say that a man who has no friends, no family could be killed without consequence because there is no one alive to grieve for him. Has that man not lost something even though he is no longer around to complain of his loss? Death does not mean we never existed and never had the right to continue living.

WhoDat · 07-21-2004, 05:32 PM

This means that if I wanted to shoot WhoDat, but you were standing behind him and I shot you instead, I intended to shoot you.

Why am I getting shot in this scenario?

I think you may be a bit off Scotty. As I understand it, here\'s how intent works.

If you and I get in an argument, and I say, \"I\'m going to shoot you,\" then I walk over to m car, get my gun, come back, walk up to you and shoot you, that\'s premeditation and intent - First degree.

If we\'re fighting and I\'m furious and pull out my gun and shoot you there may be no premeditation, so that could be 2nd degree.

If I pull out my gun, try to shoot you, miss and hit Jkool, there\'s a gray line, but that\'s usually 2nd degree as well.

If I pull out the gun to threaten you, start waving it around, it accidentally discharges and hits JKool - I believe that\'s manslaughter.

Again, I\'m not 100% on all these - Gator, our resident legal expert, is the best person to ask.

In any case, I\'m not sure how that relates to abortion. you can drill down all you want, but it boils down to a question of when a life is a life. I\'m not sure on that. If I give another person the right to choose that does not mean I intend to harm anyone or that I am an accomplice to the \'crime\'.

Here\'s a question - if a family member of yours was in a terrible car accident, ended up in the hospital in a coma, and stayed that way for 20 years, would you feel justified in eventually pulling the plug? That is what we\'re talking about here. Just as many seriously injured people cannot live without a machine, even a fairly mature fetus cannot survive outside of the womb. It is no more \'alive\' than the person on life support. Why do people feel it is justified to make a decision when it comes to the LIFE of an injured person, but not when it comes to a DEVELOPING LIFE?

07-20-2004, 02:42 PM	#31
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	Politics I skipped a lot, but I have to throw a few things in here: First: I\'ve managed to avoid this \'til now, but I absolutely positively agree with you whodat...110%. Everybody stop. A moment of silence please to honor this moment. Maybe i\'m not the miserable person Saintfan thought I was outside of the Brooks/Haz debate! I always thought that we thought alike Saintfan - great minds usually do. Now if I could just get you off the sunshine laced tang that Billy\'s got you hooked on... :P Now, I gotta get a little ticked. canucksaint -- Marriage in the US has always been for people of the opposite sex. Define marriage however you want, but that\'s the way it is. Since you don\'t object to gay marriage, is there anything you object to that you think is morally wrong? What about incest? What about having multiple wifes or husbands? What about sexual relationships between adults and childern? Who has the right to say this isn\'t OK? Me, for one. Just like gays. You got to draw the line somewhere. It\'s not natural to sleep with your sister and it\'s not natural for a man to sleep with a man. Of course, an arguement could be made to justify all of \'em. 1. Comparing gay marriage to incest shows ignorance of the subject matter. That\'s sad Billy - do you know any gays. Really, do you have a single gay who is truly your friend, or who you have ever gotten to know? If you had you wouldn\'t make those kinds of ridiculous comments. 2. Unfortunately, you\'re half wrong here and it is the half that matters. In practice, marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Hoewever, that is not always the way it is defined in law, which is why gays CAN marry in certain places. Its those laws (and the impending challenges of those laws) that will eventually allow gays to be married in every state in this country within the next 20 years. 3. There are NO grounds for disallowing marriage between gays in law. Marriage in this country is DEVOID of religious signifigance (separation of church and state). Thus it is simply a civil contract between two people. Marriage, for the position of the state, is nothing more than that. As we all know discrimination on race, sex, age after majority, etc. is illegal in this country, as well it should be. So is discrimination based on sexual preference. There are a plethora of reasons why gay marriage should not be banned and very few other than a \"religious\" argument for why it should be. Fortunately, religion AND majority view mean very little in this country when it comes to civil liberties and personal freedoms. 4. THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING: One person please give me any reason whatsoever as to why gays should not be married THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE \'morals\', \'ethics\', or \'religion\'. What threat does the idea pose to American society? None. Plain and simple. The bottom line here is fear. People who oppose gay marriage generally know very little about gay people and that ignorance makes them scared. Religion is another major contributor - thankfully our government does not legislate morals. Gay should have the right to be married, and they most certainly will have that right sooner rather than later. George Bush\'s decision to make this an issue now may serve to act as a wedge amongst Democrats and help him win another election, but he is doing it at the cost of \'his cause.\' Bringing the issue to the forefront has only shortened the time frame until gays can be married. States like MS, GA, LA, and other bible belt states will be quick to pass laws outlawing gay marriage. Gays will take legal action and eventually this will sit in front of the Supreme Court - who will decide that it is unconstitutional to bar a citizen of rights afforded other citizens based solely on sexual preference. Thanks George, what might have taken 30 or even 50 years may now only take 10.
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. ThatÃ¢Â€Â™s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans SaintsÃ¢Â€Â™ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse \"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\" he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"

07-20-2004, 04:38 PM	#32
canucksaint 100th Post Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 227	Politics We can disagree on an issue so emotionally charged as abortion and still be friends, right? Yea, but don\'t tell me that Brooks is a good QB, cause them fightin\' words

07-20-2004, 06:08 PM	#33
ScottyRo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Williamsburg, VA (ugh, the food here) Posts: 1,704	Politics Gay should have the right to be married, and they most certainly will have that right sooner rather than later. George Bush\'s decision to make this an issue now may serve to act as a wedge amongst Democrats and help him win another election, but he is doing it at the cost of \'his cause.\' Bringing the issue to the forefront has only shortened the time frame until gays can be married. States like MS, GA, LA, and other bible belt states will be quick to pass laws outlawing gay marriage. Gays will take legal action and eventually this will sit in front of the Supreme Court - who will decide that it is unconstitutional to bar a citizen of rights afforded other citizens based solely on sexual preference. Thanks George, what might have taken 30 or even 50 years may now only take 10. Although I don\'t agree that religious or moral reasons for disallowing gay marriage should be left out of the discussion, there is at least one purely sociological argument. That being that allowing gay marriage will continue the trend of the deteriorating the family system in America. It has been shown many times that children perform best and are better psychologically when raised in a home that contains a mother (female) and a father (male). The ease of obtaining a divorce was the first major blow to this. You haven\'t noticed how over the past 30+ years that child discipline has seemed to become such a large problem? Allowing gay marriage will only increase this and other problems. As far as states such as LA passing laws banning gay marriage...as I said above, LA already has in its civil code the statement that a marriage is between a man and a woman. There should be no need for another law. Moreover, this isn\'t a civil rights issue. Gays are not being stopped by the prohibition of gay marriage from doing anything except attain married status. If they can attain this status just because they wish it, then I wish to be considered a senior citizen and start receiving my social security now.

07-20-2004, 07:48 PM	#34
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Politics Wow, you guys have been working hard here. Normally, I don\'t share my veiws on these things, but since this has been going so amicably, I think I\'ll say a few things: (1) I\'m Canadian, so I cannot vote in your election. I\'m not terribly upset about that, since I think it is obvious that this will be a tough election. I think though, Bush has proven himself to be of questionable integrity - his life before becoming President should be enough to show this, but this whole \"we believed they had weapons of mass destruction and chemical/biological weapons\" stuff is utter carp! I think he has done a lot to drive your county\'s good name through the mud with many other, normally congenial, countries. (2) On the abortion issue. Here is an argument I\'ve always thought was interesting. We believe that sometimes right to the use of our bodies and minds outweighs others\' right to life. There are tons of examples: we don\'t spend a lot of time or money to save people dying of hunger right here in the US, we don\'t take the time to volunteer with organizations that save lives in third world contries, we don\'t take the time to help look for missing children, etc. All of this demonstrates that we think our right to the use of our own body (and time) outweighs so many others\' right to life. Thus, what is the difference in the abortion case? Women have the right to choose whether to use their bodies to \"save\" a fetus/child or not - the same way I get to choose if I\'ll spend 99 cents a day to feed/\"save\" a starving child. Furthermore, if you claim that the difference is that the woman made a choice in starting the life of the child, there are two problems: (1) most women made a choice that involved a very minute chance of a child resulting (failed birth control, etc.) and should thus not be held accountable (the same way no one should be held accountable if they take proper precautions - think a mail carrier could still slip on your stairs even if you\'ve carefully cleared them of snow), and (2) I made some choices that allow children to be born into a world where I will not feed them (e.g. I chose to vote for so and so, who passed laws that aren\'t sufficient to educate potential mothers, feed the hungry, and so on). (3) On the issue of whether or not morality is nothing more than individual opinion, I\'d have to say that is dead wrong. Here is a quick argument. If I am the cause of my moral system (that is, if I am the sole thing that creates right and wrong FOR ME), then I could never make a morally incorrect judgement (for in deciding to do something, I would be deciding that it was morally good). However, I know when I think back, I think that I have done some morally bad things - I am ashamed to admit it, but it is true. This shows that morality is not created by me for me - in order to be wrong, there must be some other cause of things moral OTHER THAN MYSELF. This is the most basic argument against moral subjectivism (the view that things are morally good or morally bad based on the individuals opinion/view). Cheers.
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

07-20-2004, 07:52 PM	#35
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Politics Oh yeah, (4) On the gay marriage thing: I don\'t understand why people squable over the definition of marriage - law making, as well as right and wrong, has nothing to do with defining. I thought I\'d share this amusing idea: there was a comic in one of the papers a few days back. There are a bunch of women sitting around discussing gay marriage. They say that they don\'t think that it is gay marriage, or the possibility of bestiality, or whathaveyou that brings down the value of their marriages - it is all the hot, single women who do!
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

07-20-2004, 11:06 PM	#36
ScottyRo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Williamsburg, VA (ugh, the food here) Posts: 1,704	Politics (2) All of this demonstrates that we think our right to the use of our own body (and time) outweighs so many others\' right to life. Thus, what is the difference in the abortion case? Women have the right to choose whether to use their bodies to \"save\" a fetus/child or not - the same way I get to choose if I\'ll spend 99 cents a day to feed/\"save\" a starving child. You make a good observation J, but let me answer your question. The difference is that one is passive the other is aggressive. Not contributing to feeding hungry children is not a very good thing to do and I am as guilty as anyother of this, but it is a passive act. I think this is infinitely less harmful than if I were out there killing all the hungry children. Also, one mistake does not mean we should commit an even greater error. Furthermore, if you claim that the difference is that the woman made a choice in starting the life of the child, there are two problems: (1) most women made a choice that involved a very minute chance of a child resulting (failed birth control, etc.) and should thus not be held accountable (the same way no one should be held accountable if they take proper precautions - think a mail carrier could still slip on your stairs even if you\'ve carefully cleared them of snow), and (2) I made some choices that allow children to be born into a world where I will not feed them (e.g. I chose to vote for so and so, who passed laws that aren\'t sufficient to educate potential mothers, feed the hungry, and so on). About women\'s right to choice, the fact is, she did. She had sex. Who should bear the burden if the protection was not adequate? The chiild who will give up an entire life (possibly 100 years of life), or the mother who could only have to be pregnant for nine months? Unfortunately, we cannot protect everyone. Some in North America are going to go hungry by being born into tough situations. But does being born and having to live as a hungry child, worse than never having been born. I say no, death is worse. Furthermore, the law presumes this to be true. A child, even one that is born with a birth defect, is better off alive than dead. Everyone of us born after 1970 are lucky that our mothers chose to give birth to us. When you consider whether a mother has a right to kill her unborn child, consider it as though it is you on the chopping block or someone you love. Then you\'ll finally give the death its proper weight. It is so easy to dismiss the unborn child as a non-person and it is therefore easily done away with.

07-21-2004, 10:26 AM	#37
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	Politics Although I don\'t agree that religious or moral reasons for disallowing gay marriage should be left out of the discussion, there is at least one purely sociological argument. That being that allowing gay marriage will continue the trend of the deteriorating the family system in America. It has been shown many times that children perform best and are better psychologically when raised in a home that contains a mother (female) and a father (male). The ease of obtaining a divorce was the first major blow to this. You haven\'t noticed how over the past 30+ years that child discipline has seemed to become such a large problem? Allowing gay marriage will only increase this and other problems. FINALLY, a decent argument. One that I think is generally inaccurate, but your point is well-taken Scotty. Many people argue that allowing gays to marry will further destroy the crumbling American family. Scotty also suggested that children perform/develop better in a two parent system. However, Scotty suggests that this is a MOTHER AND FATHER system. I\'m not sure that\'s entirely the case. It seems that research has shown that children perform better in a family structure that is supportive, nurturing, with parents that encourage and love one another. Can gays not provide that environment? Generally speaking, families with gay parents work BETTER than the AVERAGE American family. The reason - gays have to fight SO HARD to get and keep children that you know they are truly dedicated to being good parents. MANY people have suggested that there shold be a test to be a parent - for gays, there basically is. How often do you hear of gay families in which there is abuse? Never. Why? Unlike \'normal\' families, children cannot come without planning. Additionally, gays tend to be inherently more accepting and supportive. Quite frankly, the American family argument is entirely unpersuasive. The ease at which a person can enter into marriage and then dissolve it affects the American family system FAR MORE than gay marriage does or ever will. But I don\'t see anyone fighting or making an issue out of toughening divorce laws or marriage laws. In fact, Louisiana just made it EASIER for out-of-state parties to marry in LA by reducing the time period before which a marriage license takes affect. It used to be three days, not it\'s one, just like Las Vegas. As far as states such as LA passing laws banning gay marriage...as I said above, LA already has in its civil code the statement that a marriage is between a man and a woman. There should be no need for another law. You\'re 100% right. That doesn\'t mean that a gay couple won\'t eventually come along and challenge that law. They can easily challenge it in FEDERAL appeals court, which would take the issue out of the State\'s hands. Moreover, this isn\'t a civil rights issue. Gays are not being stopped by the prohibition of gay marriage from doing anything except attain married status. If they can attain this status just because they wish it, then I wish to be considered a senior citizen and start receiving my social security now. This isn\'t true. They are being barred from entering a contract that other people can enter. It is like me telling you that you cannot enter into a loan agreement b/c you\'re NOT gay. The only type of factor for civil rights in this country that is allowable is age. Obviously, minors do not have certain rights. Likewise, programs like SS (which has a purpose of providing disability/retirement funding) is only allowed to people above a certain age. It is NEED based. Thus, you can make a reasonable argument as to why a 65 year old man with no income and no savings who contribute to SS for his whole life DESERVES SS, as compared to a 25 y/o person with 40 more years of earnings potential. Of course, if you broke your back and that earnings potential was lost, you would collect disability, which is SS. There are NO grounds for stopping people of the same sex from entering into a civil contract. Currently, the grounds being employed are sexual preference. We all know that is invalid. You may think it is valid b/c you\'re not gay and in the majority, but if you stop and think about it you\'ll know that it is wrong to deny someone rights on those grounds. 50 years ago if you were white you would have been in the majority class of people who often suggested that blacks shouldn\'t be afforded the same rights as whites. Now we look at that time and wonder how the people who came before us could have ever been so ignorant. Same applies here. Allowing gays to be married is about as dangerous to American society as was the decision to allow women suffrage or minorities the same rights afforded whites.
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. ThatÃ¢Â€Â™s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans SaintsÃ¢Â€Â™ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse \"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\" he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"

07-21-2004, 12:37 PM	#38
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Politics Nice points ScottyRo. Here are two arguments that stike me off the top of my head: (1) The active/passive distinction is flimsy at best. Here is a famous example. Imagine two guys, Smith and Jones. Smith and Jones both have a nephew who is going to inherit their respective family\'s fortune (but Smith and Jones are next in line to their respective nephews). Each of Smith and Jones plan to kill thier nephews. One night Smith sneaks into the bathroom and drowns the bathing nephew - all the while thinking how great the family fortune will be. Jones on the other hand sneaks into the bathroom where his nephew is bathing. Unlike Smith though, Jones\' nephew slips in the tub just as Jones enters and drowns - all the while Jones waits with glea (ready to drown the child if he regains consciousness) for the child to drown. Smith actively kills his nephew, but Jones seems no less morally reprehensible while merely allowing the child to die! At any rate, this is a somewhat compelling reason to think that the active/passive distinction has little to no weight in moral judgements. (2) In making choices, there is a simple distinction between \"intention\" and merely \"forseen consequences\". Take for example the following - yesterday I intended to go to work, but it was raining, so I got wet. While I fully intended to go to work, I did not intend to get wet - that was merely a foreseen consequence of my going to work. Thus, in the case of failed birthcontrol, the woman may foresee that there is some very small risk of getting pregnant, but it is not an intended consequence. Generally, people feel that you should be held accountable for your intended actions (and sometimes for foreseen consequences - depending on how dumb the intention was), but usually not the full scope of the foreseen consequences. Here is an example: imagine I don\'t tie my shoe because I think that is cool. There is a chance (albeit small) that I will trip at some point during the day. Let say I\'m passing a bus stop when I trip and accidentally knock a would be passenger in front of the stopping bus. No one thinks that I am morally depraved for not tying my shoe, even though this COULD happen. Ok, I lied, there is a third point. (3) I\'m not sure that we should be so quick to equate \"the value of death\" between an unborn child and a fully grown living person with a life history. This IS a tough question, but I always thought that the \"value of death\" was the loss to those who go on living of that person. That is, of course, extremely controversial - especially since it is basically the claim that some people are more valuable than others. I think I\'m willing to defend this veiw, but I\'ll have to think a bit harder. Maybe you guys have some thoughts?
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

07-21-2004, 03:22 PM	#39
ScottyRo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Williamsburg, VA (ugh, the food here) Posts: 1,704	Politics Again, thanks for the level-headed discussion guys. WhoDat, my response to you is going to have to wait a whaile as I find the abortion debate more compelling. Not to mention the no-gay marriage argument is harder to make than no abortion. JK on point (1): Jones is not as passive as you would like me to believe. His intent was to kill the child. He was fortuitous enough not to have to touch the child, but is culpable nonetheless. Jones had the power to act, but refused because it fit his intended purpose. In the hunger scenario, Jones did not remove the child\'s food nor did he hope that the child would go without food. He simply does not act. However, this inaction does not fulfill any purpose of Jones\'. It simply occurs. Nor is Jones in a position to cure the problem of hunger unlike the situation where he could have saved the drowning boy. He certainly can help by sending 99 cents a day, but it wont cure the problem. This one is tough and I might have to come back to it later. Point (2): I\'m gonna expound on your raining scenario to fit the abortion debate more fully. You will play the baby. You intend to go to work. It is raining. You put on a raincoat that guarantees the wearer 99.9% effectiveness in preventing rain from getting in. Unfortunately, you got wet. Your boss under federal law may shoot you for for coming to work wet to avoid the inconvenience of having a wet employee smear the ink on the office\'s paperwork. You could have stayed home but you would not have received your paycheck (gratification) if you had. Should you die? No, the consequence of your death does not equal the inconvenience of smeared paperwork. Did you intend to get wet? Yes. A ruling in law says that \"the intent follows the bullett.\" This means that if I wanted to shoot WhoDat, but you were standing behind him and I shot you instead, I intended to shoot you. Thus, if you go in the rainand get wet, you intended to get wet even if you aimed to stay dry. On your shoe tying scenario: You might be found guilty of negligent homicide. You were aware of the risks of tripping, but refused to tie your shoes. Also, it is foreseeable that you could trip and fall into someone and injure that person. Let\'s go further and say 45 million people have died since 1970 because of people who failed to tie their own shoes. I guarantee there would be a law making it a crime to not tie your shoes. Then if you didn\'t tie your shoes and tripped as described, you might be found guilty of manslaughter, if not murder. Point (3): The value of life cannot simply be judged by who is left behind. If it were, then you would say that a man who has no friends, no family could be killed without consequence because there is no one alive to grieve for him. Has that man not lost something even though he is no longer around to complain of his loss? Death does not mean we never existed and never had the right to continue living.

07-21-2004, 05:32 PM	#40
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	Politics This means that if I wanted to shoot WhoDat, but you were standing behind him and I shot you instead, I intended to shoot you. Why am I getting shot in this scenario? I think you may be a bit off Scotty. As I understand it, here\'s how intent works. If you and I get in an argument, and I say, \"I\'m going to shoot you,\" then I walk over to m car, get my gun, come back, walk up to you and shoot you, that\'s premeditation and intent - First degree. If we\'re fighting and I\'m furious and pull out my gun and shoot you there may be no premeditation, so that could be 2nd degree. If I pull out my gun, try to shoot you, miss and hit Jkool, there\'s a gray line, but that\'s usually 2nd degree as well. If I pull out the gun to threaten you, start waving it around, it accidentally discharges and hits JKool - I believe that\'s manslaughter. Again, I\'m not 100% on all these - Gator, our resident legal expert, is the best person to ask. In any case, I\'m not sure how that relates to abortion. you can drill down all you want, but it boils down to a question of when a life is a life. I\'m not sure on that. If I give another person the right to choose that does not mean I intend to harm anyone or that I am an accomplice to the \'crime\'. Here\'s a question - if a family member of yours was in a terrible car accident, ended up in the hospital in a coma, and stayed that way for 20 years, would you feel justified in eventually pulling the plug? That is what we\'re talking about here. Just as many seriously injured people cannot live without a machine, even a fairly mature fetus cannot survive outside of the womb. It is no more \'alive\' than the person on life support. Why do people feel it is justified to make a decision when it comes to the LIFE of an injured person, but not when it comes to a DEVELOPING LIFE?
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. ThatÃ¢Â€Â™s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans SaintsÃ¢Â€Â™ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse \"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\" he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"