Some controversial issues to debate

[Camarorulz]

For my English class I had to choose several different "resolutions" and respond to them with my opinion. Here are my arguments. I just thought it would be interesting to debate them. I am prepared to back my opinions. If you decide to voice your opinion, please keep it civil. No name-calling, etc. [img]smile.gif[/img]

BTW: Have fun trying to decide if I'm conservative or liberal. LOL.

Resolved: Marijuana use should be legalized by the Federal government.


Those supporting the legalization of marijuana could argue several good points: for instance, marijuana use is arguably equally or less harmful than cigarrette smoking. Marijuana does not contain the addictive chemicals that cigarrettes do, and it causes less dramatic mind-altering effects than alcohol. A certain stigma accompanies marijuana that it doesn't deserve any more than other substances. Most would consider marijuana a "drug," but few have the same attitude about alcohol. Marijuana is relatively harmless compared to alcohol when considering effects on coordination and judgement, yet alocohol use is socially acceptable and marijuana use is illegal. Could this be considered a double-standard? Conservatives argue that marijuana is a dangerous drug, but go home and have some vodka and a pack of cigarrettes. Maybe hypocrisy should be illegalized instead of marijuana. Of course with the legalization of marijuana some limits should be set : for instance a minimum legal use age of 21 and consequences for driving impaired. Public intoxication (if noticeable) should also be curbed. Perhaps if anyone considers the legalization of marijuana to be unacceptable they should consider the banning of other drugs such as alcohol and cigarrettes. If someone wishes to ruin his/her body through the use of relatively harmless chemicals, it should be the individual's prerogative.


Resolved: Gay Marriage should be constitutionally illegal.

Respect for the institution of marriage has dwindled significantly in the United States in recent years. With skyrocketing divorce rates, marriage is no longer considered the hallowed union it once was. The introduction of gay marriage into the equation complicates this startling social trend further by introducing controversy. The term "gay marriage" itself is an oxymoron. It contradicts itself because the definition of marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Homosexuality is unnatural: if everyone was homosexual, our species would not survive. Those supporting gay marriage argue that the decision to marry (and the specifics related to it) should be left to the individual and not curtailed by society. However, two institutions support marriage: the government and the church. Legally, gay and lesbian couples should not receive the benefits of marriage due to their inability to reproduce. The church continues to fight its own battles related to these issues and it should be allowed to resolve its conflicts. If the church decides to recognize these kinds of unions then that should be allowed, but not with the benefits of marriage under the law. However, this circumstance is unlikely considering the conservative power base in most Christian churches in the United States.

Resolved: Internet censorship should be enacted

The first and only question I have for this resolution is: why? If a child sees inappropriate material on the internet, then the parent or guardian is to blame, not the individual(s) who posted the material. The internet is a forum for free speech and expression. Any parent that allows their child free access to the internet without supervision should know the risks involved. Most censorships contradict the spirit of freedom with which the constitution was written. Of course, public television is censored and I could say the exact same thing about it, that parents should not allow their children to watch TV without supervision. However, the internet is the largest source of knowledge on Earth, if we start to censor it then we risk undermining its purpose. That means accepting the good with the bad: Before long if we censor pornography sites, etc. then people will want to censor sites about new ideas that may be considered controversial. The main good quality of the internet is that it proliferates the spread of knowledge. If we censor it, then we can't go halfway, EVERYTHING will have to be censored. If a crazy paranoid mother doesn't want her child to see something, then she will gather a bunch of other crazy paranoid moms to make a petition to have it banned, then where will we be? Censoring the internet is synonymous with censoring knowledge. The very practicality of internet censorship comes into question as well: it would be fruitless for the federal government to hire people simply to hunt down illegal internet sites considering the size and scope of the internet. The costs would be astronomical as well. Let's face it, internet censorship would be one huge waste of money.

Resolved: Handgun ownership should be prohibited by law.

The Constitution of the United States asserts each citizen's right to bear arms. This central argument against gun control becomes redundant at times, and just because the Constitution says I have the right to bear arms doesn't mean I should, right? Considering that the resolution discusses handguns alone and not automatic weapons, assault rifles, etc. , the self-protection argument is valid: many citizens choose to own a handgun as a way to protect their homes. Criminals won't acknowledge gun control laws: if they can find drugs, they can find guns. Gun control robs good citizens of a way to protect themselves. Reiterating the point that ONLY handguns are the issue, the constitution gives every citizen the right to protect him/herself through the use of arms. Most common citizens only wishing to protect their families don't own automatic weapons or even shotguns. The handgun is one of the most basic forms of protection for the home and ought to be allowed.

Resolved: The death penalty should be abolished on the national level.

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth....anyone who believes in this saying cannot argue against the death penalty, which persists in United States, albeit in a more humane way than in the past, to this day. The state of Texas provides a perfect example of how to enforce the death penalty (if you support it) and why it should be abolished (if you don't.) They serve out death sentences on a silver platter and follow through swiftly. This, in my opinion, is how things should be done. Simply put, most murderers deserve to be put to death. Murder in the first degree is not a crime for which an offender should be shown any mercy. Granted, there are exceptions, but that's why our criminal justice system doles out lifetime sentences. Asking a death penalty opponent if Timothy McVeigh should have lived might raise what some would consider an appalling response: "he deserves a lifetime sentence, not death. I don't believe in the death penalty." To this I would respond:
"What about the people that died in the Murrah Building, why do they deserve to be dead while their killer lives?"
This sums up my opinion. McVeigh bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995, and less than ten years later he was convicted and executed. I'm not in any way saying that death sentences should be held lightly and given on a whim, but they should be given when deserved and carried out quickly. After all, shortening their incarceration time saves the taxpayers some money.

[Blazing_Firebird]

Resolved: Gay Marriage should be constitutionally illegal.

Respect for the institution of marriage has dwindled significantly in the United States in recent years. With skyrocketing divorce rates, marriage is no longer considered the hallowed union it once was. The introduction of gay marriage into the equation complicates this startling social trend further by introducing controversy. The term "gay marriage" itself is an oxymoron. It contradicts itself because the definition of marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Homosexuality is unnatural: if everyone was homosexual, our species would not survive. Those supporting gay marriage argue that the decision to marry (and the specifics related to it) should be left to the individual and not curtailed by society. However, two institutions support marriage: the government and the church. Legally, gay and lesbian couples should not receive the benefits of marriage due to their inability to reproduce. The church continues to fight its own battles related to these issues and it should be allowed to resolve its conflicts. If the church decides to recognize these kinds of unions then that should be allowed, but not with the benefits of marriage under the law. However, this circumstance is unlikely considering the conservative power base in most Christian churches in the United States.

I respect your opinion, but I'm giving you mine.

To begin with, you are not to define normality. Just because the majority is heterosexual does not mean there will not be others who are not.

Blame it on genetics, be in the dark and blame it on choice, which again, being gay, I reiterate, is NOT, or blame it on society.

I don't care what you blame it on. The fact is, it exists.

If you want to get down to it, heterosexuals are to blame for the decline of "morality" in marriage.

Britney Spears can get married for 24 hours, yet two 65 year old men/women who've been together all their lives cannot?

That is what's wrong. Just because she can reproduce means nothing.

And another note. Church is not supposed to be part of the government benefits. Marriage, then, is no more of a theological title than anything else. The rights and benefits are governmental; somewhere the church needs to keep their grubby paws off of.

Call it marriage, call it a union, I don't care. Homosexuality exists, has existed, and will never go away, no matter how much people hate or disagree.

You know how civil rights work. It may not happen right now, but it will happen eventually. Maybe not marriage, but civil unions with full benefits will happen eventually.

I, however, believe it should be left up to each individual state.

And there is a place in Mass. that allows two canines to be legally married by the catholic church. I can't remember what issue of my Church's magazine it was from, but it's true.

I smell hypocracy [img]smile.gif[/img] .

But like I said, this is just my view, you are entitled to yours.

I agree with most of your other points entirely though, keep up the good work.

[ABH]

Yes, Larry King, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Henry Ford II, Jennifer Lopez, etc are all shining examples of morality. All straight, all married 3 or more times. Then we have Bill Clinton, Thomas Jefferson, JFK. Straight people who married once yet cheated. Yep, they sure upheld the code of morality.

Here is a tidbit about full faith and credit in the Constitution of the US.


The full-faith-and-credit clause has been noted for its application involving orders of protection, for which the clause was expounded upon by the Violence Against Women Act, child support, for which the enforcement of the clause was spelled out in the Federal Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Act, and its possible application to same-sex marriage, civil union and domestic partnership laws and cases , as well as the controversial Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment. The clause has been the chief constitutional basis for the repeated attacks on the DOMA. Regardless of whether DOMA is constitutional, most legal scholars recognize that it is more probably superfluous given the public policy exception. For even if DOMA is deemed unconstitutional, the long precedence of the public policy exception weighs in against the recognition of same-sex marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships in states whose public policy prohibits it. As of early 2004, 39 states have passed their own laws nearly all of which specifically reject same-sex marriages recognized in other jurisdictions. Many of these laws have been passed in the last few years. By taking a legal stance on the issue these states have helped inform the Supreme Court what the public policy of the various states are before the Court takes up the issue and it is left to review the constitutionality of those policies.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stated in his dissenting opinion to the landmark Lawrence v. Texas decision that he feared application of the full faith and credit clause to the majority’s decision in that case might destroy "the structure . . . that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions." If Scalia's dissentiing opinion held true, the majority ruling could potentially negate the DOMA and create a legal loophole allowing same-sex marriages and obliging all other states to recognize them.

Likewise, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case of Goodridge et al. v. Department of Public Health is being eyed by observers on both sides of the issue because of similar concerns stemming from this clause.

Supporters of the DOMA, however, have claimed that the clause could very well be used to defend the law. They say that the clause’s explicit language spelling out the role of Congress is precisely what makes the law Constitutional, without the further need for the Federal Marriage Amendment. They point out that Congress has made several laws, including those on firearms controls and safety standards, employment discrimination, disability, and rights to unionization, and environmental protection, which have all withstood Constitutional attacks on the basis of full faith and credit.

[ September 05, 2004, 11:35 PM: Message edited by: ABH ]

[DARK SDE '02]

I agree with you on EVERY argument!! I generally consider myself conservative except when it comes to marijuana legalization and censorship. I'm a strong believe in personal responsibility and rights yet I believe homosexuality is wrong and immoral (yes, I am a walking contradiction but isn't everyone?)

[95fbirdkid]

I agree with you on EVERY argument!! I generally consider myself conservative except when it comes to marijuana legalization and censorship. I'm a strong believe in personal responsibility and rights yet I believe homosexuality is wrong and immoral (yes, I am a walking contradiction but isn't everyone?)

pretty much sum's it up for me. I'm fairly conservative, but I smoke weed. I'd like to see it legalized, but i dont really push the issue much, i'll keep doing it one way or the other. People who spend their lives trying to get it legalized annoy me as much as the people who are die hard against it b/c of no reason than "facts" the govn't has issued. And they do lie about stuff like that, the report the govn't issued about extacy rotting your brain was bassed of a study involiving the drug "mda" instead of "mdma" which is a completely different drug. the govn't released this information knowing the wrong chemical was used.

[ReodDai]

Gay marriages shouldn't be an issue. Let them marry. It doesn't effect anyone or anything. I wish the country would pay attention to REAL issues instead of getting distracted by things that don't matter. Abortion, gay marriages, gun control. None of that actually matters. Poverty, unemployment, health care, education, TUITION, war, crime. All those matter. Yes I understand gun control can be tied into crime, however, the criminals will get guns no matter what you do the only thing your doing is making it harder for a law abiding citizen to get a gun.

[DARK SDE '02]

ReodDai I agree those things aren't the biggest issues with the US but we can't just let them go unaddressed either, they DO matter...

One thing my parents always complain about though is how they seemed to have gotten bigger tax returns when they were single/engaged than after they got married... is that true cuz if so wtf is the benefit of being married?

[Camarorulz]

The gay marriage thing is definitely the most controversial as of lately.

I don't disapprove of homosexuality, I disaprove of gay couples being able to marry and get all the benefits of a married couple.

I never said the church should be part of legal benefits: I simply said that if the church wants to recognize gay marriages as unions within the church then thats all good, I just don't want the government to be a part of it by giving the couple benefits. Maybe I didn't clarify that well enough.

Yes, heterosexuals have been responsible for the decline of marriage, but many of us still take marriage very seriously. I believe that allowing gay marriage will contribute to this bad social trend.

Gay couples should not be entitled to the same legal benefits of marriage that heterosexual couples are. Part of the reasoning behind those benefits is that these are people settling down to start a family, raise children, etc. Granted, gay couples can adopt, but they can't produce children, therefore they shouldn't be considered on an equal playing field in regard to marriage.

Legal benefits of marriage are like society rewarding couples for reproducing, being productive citizens. Gay couples don't contribute to society through their union. They may contribute to society in other ways, but not this one.

I don't believe that in most cases homosexuality is genetic. Yes, there are a very few cases in which a person naturally feels like they should be a member of the opposite sex, but this does not comprise all or even most of homosexuals. I believe homosexuality results in many cases from abuse: a girl grows up with an abusive father, she learns to hate all men, she becomes a lesbian. Maybe a boy grows up with an overbearing mother: he is effeminate and intimidated by women, he was made fun of by girls in high school. He becomes gay.

If you don't believe me on this consider it from another point of view. What kind of women do you find attractive? Society teaches us what we should find attractive. By pictures in magazines, TV commercials, movies, we are taught exactly what should be sexy. So is this attraction that we feel toward a model on the cover of some magazine natural or learned? Well, it's a little bit of both. Maybe if Maxim or Playboy featured models that were a little bit heavier, not "model thin" as it is sometimes phrased, we would consider that more attractive. Personality traits also come into play: if I was the child with the overbearing mother I will most likely react to her parenting later on in one of two ways: I will look for a woman who is just as overbearing as my mother was, or I will look for one that is ridiculously feminine and submissive because I always hated that authoritarian bit**. Either way the attraction is learned, not natural.

My point is that more traits in human behavior are learned than one might think. Not everything is natural. We learn how to think and act, and in many cases WHAT to think. How does this relate to homosexuality? Well, as I said, if everyone was homosexual then the human race would not survive. This means that in my opinion genuine, natural homosexuality could be considered a defect, like my ridiculously bad eyesight. However this is RARE. Very few people are born homosexual, they are made that way through experiences, just as I learn through experience what traits in women I find attractive. Some people, granted, naturally have more of a tendency toward homosexuality, but a lot of their sexuality results from learned behavior. Maybe you find my opinion bigoted, I don't know. It's just what I believe and I apologize to any homosexuals who read this and are offended.

As I hinted in my first post, I'm not conservative when it comes to certain issues, but it seems on this one that I'm hardcore right wing. Again, I'm sorry if you're offended.

[Camarorulz]

I agree with DARK SDE: Gay marriage isn't THE most important issue, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be addressed. For my assigment I had the choice of discussing the war in Iraq, but I was tired of the subject. To tell the truth I don't know what to think about it anymore, it happened and there isn't any turning back now. We can't just withdraw because we already have our hand in. Turning back would be making a big mess and leaving without cleaning it up.

The economy is an issue too, but it's less of an opinion thing. If I started talking about economics on this board I would get too many dumb responses from people who know nothing about economics. Before you go asking me what I know I'm the son of an accountant and an accounting major myself, I know a little bit. [img]smile.gif[/img] Gay marriage, marijuana legalization, etc. are all more opinion based and therefore more debatable because they require only raw intelligence and literacy to debate.

[Th3 RiCk]

Originally posted by ReodDai:
Gay marriages shouldn't be an issue. Let them marry. It doesn't effect anyone or anything. I wish the country would pay attention to REAL issues instead of getting distracted by things that don't matter. Abortion, gay marriages, gun control. None of that actually matters. Poverty, unemployment, health care, education, TUITION, war, crime. All those matter. Yes I understand gun control can be tied into crime, however, the criminals will get guns no matter what you do the only thing your doing is making it harder for a law abiding citizen to get a gun.

If I'm not mistaken most crimes committed with guns are with guns that are obtained illegaly.

Originally posted by Camarorulz: Those supporting the legalization of marijuana could argue several good points: for instance, marijuana use is arguably equally or less harmful than cigarrette smoking. Marijuana does not contain the addictive chemicals that cigarrettes do, and it causes less dramatic mind-altering effects than alcohol. A certain stigma accompanies marijuana that it doesn't deserve any more than other substances. Most would consider marijuana a "drug," but few have the same attitude about alcohol. Marijuana is relatively harmless compared to alcohol when considering effects on coordination and judgement, yet alocohol use is socially acceptable and marijuana use is illegal. Could this be considered a double-standard? Conservatives argue that marijuana is a dangerous drug, but go home and have some vodka and a pack of cigarrettes. Maybe hypocrisy should be illegalized instead of marijuana. Of course with the legalization of marijuana some limits should be set : for instance a minimum legal use age of 21 and consequences for driving impaired. Public intoxication (if noticeable) should also be curbed. Perhaps if anyone considers the legalization of marijuana to be unacceptable they should consider the banning of other drugs such as alcohol and cigarrettes. If someone wishes to ruin his/her body through the use of relatively harmless chemicals, it should be the individual's prerogative.

Marijuana is a lot more harmful than cigarettes. It has 10 times the potentency. It has also been said to be a "gateway drug". People will swear up and down that it's not, but I've witnessed it first hand with friends.

So why legalize one more thing that has the potential to make people even more stupid? You might say, well tax it to death. I'm sure the Columbian cartels and Haitian dealers will be gracious to give the American gov't a cut. Don't be stupid people. There's enough ways to kill brain cells legally as it is.

[Th3 RiCk]

Resolved: The death penalty should be abolished on the national level.

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth....anyone who believes in this saying cannot argue against the death penalty, which persists in United States, albeit in a more humane way than in the past, to this day. The state of Texas provides a perfect example of how to enforce the death penalty (if you support it) and why it should be abolished (if you don't.) They serve out death sentences on a silver platter and follow through swiftly. This, in my opinion, is how things should be done. Simply put, most murderers deserve to be put to death. Murder in the first degree is not a crime for which an offender should be shown any mercy. Granted, there are exceptions, but that's why our criminal justice system doles out lifetime sentences. Asking a death penalty opponent if Timothy McVeigh should have lived might raise what some would consider an appalling response: "he deserves a lifetime sentence, not death. I don't believe in the death penalty." To this I would respond:
"What about the people that died in the Murrah Building, why do they deserve to be dead while their killer lives?"
This sums up my opinion. McVeigh bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995, and less than ten years later he was convicted and executed. I'm not in any way saying that death sentences should be held lightly and given on a whim, but they should be given when deserved and carried out quickly. After all, shortening their incarceration time saves the taxpayers some money.

I'm not God so I'm not one to decide whether or not a person should live, but I would think sitting in a padded room starring at the walls all day long for 50 years would be a better punishment. Killing them is the easy way out.

Build a jail with 3x3 rooms. Put someone on suicide watch 24/7, and leave them there until they die.

[Camarorulz]

The problem with incarceration is that it costs more. It's a waste of my tax dollars. Kill them and be done with it.

[Camarorulz]

Marijuana is a lot more harmful than cigarettes. It has 10 times the potentency. It has also been said to be a "gateway drug". People will swear up and down that it's not, but I've witnessed it first hand with friends.

There are also plenty of people that smoke weed and haven't and don't wish to do any other drugs. Marijuana may be a lot more potent that cigarrettes, but at least you can quit if you want to. Weed isn't addictive.

[Blazing_Firebird]

Legal benefits of marriage are like society rewarding couples for reproducing, being productive citizens. Gay couples don't contribute to society through their union. They may contribute to society in other ways, but not this one.

I don't believe that in most cases homosexuality is genetic. Yes, there are a very few cases in which a person naturally feels like they should be a member of the opposite sex, but this does not comprise all or even most of homosexuals. I believe homosexuality results in many cases from abuse: a girl grows up with an abusive father, she learns to hate all men, she becomes a lesbian. Maybe a boy grows up with an overbearing mother: he is effeminate and intimidated by women, he was made fun of by girls in high school. He becomes gay.

1.) They don't contribute to society through their unions? Excuse me, where is the shell you're living in? There are childern that are in foster care that are adopted by LOVING gay couples, who do not "fill their minds with immoral babble", but provide them with a loving home which, otherwise, they would not have. Look a little bit deeper, bud, the contributions are there, just not as you may see.

2.) Nothing is farther than the truth. That is exactly the kind of BS Focus on the Family feeds some of you guys. The APA (American Psychological Association) has had homosexuality removed from the DSM-IV since the 1970's. In addition to that, reparitive therapies and things like that have minimal to NO success rates. The APA released a report showing that there was only a 13% "cure" rating, with those "Cured" still claiming to have to resist the INNATE urge for the same sex.

There is nothing un-genetic about that.

My parents were nothing but loving parents. I went to camp, did car things, and STILL do with my father, and I love my mother. There has NEVER been any abuse whatsoever in my family at all. Nothing has outwardly caused my "disorder" as many would put it.

I did a report on this for AP Psychology last year. I did my absolute best to remain neutral when writing it, and to present both sides.

Ultimately, what I concluded was that there are several very believable reasons as to why homosexuality IS in fact, genetic. However, very few of the results were conclusive. Rather, I found that that the environment and society DO play a large impact on it, but subconsciously, I believe. Overall: I think its a mixture of both. Take it or leave it, I don't really care.

But the bottom line is. You are straight. I am gay. You can say whatever you want about what you "think" causes it, but have no place to make statements concluding what it "is" or "isn't", as you've never been there before.

Do I think some people that think they are gay aren't erally gay? Of course I do. But that doesn't mean they all do. And I couldnt help but notice you mention the feminity. Not all gay men are effeminate.

The bottom line is, these people are human beings, and ultimately want nothing more than for some of you to treat them as such, rather than saying, "well, I think you're a good person, BUT". No. No buts. "I think you're a good person." Being gay is just ONE SMALL aspect of a person's life, and means absolutely nothing. What does it matter what someone does behind closed doors. It certainly doesn't affect you, and if it does, well, you can hire a psychologist to figure that one out.

Most of you say, "I actually don't like gays. I think they are immoral." yet you provide absolutely no proof whatsoever to back this statement. While I respect your opinion, I just can't help but get irritated at your seeming lack of knowledge. Do you even know a gay person, or more than one?

If you did, you would know what I'm talking about. Some gay people are NOT that bad. In fact, I'm sure some of the people you interact with on a day-to-day basis are gay and you don't even know it. If knowing that would chagne the way you think about them, then you are a sad, sad person, whether you are religious or not. There are bad ones out there, but there are bad "straight" people, too. That's because they are both humans.

What I'm rying to say is: give people a chance. You can't judge outwardly on people. I'm not asking you to "accept it". I'm asking you to give them a chance. Stop brooding hate. The next generation doesn't need that...

Christ, we're at war right now overseas, but we've got a war in our own country over this...that's erally sad.

Sorry if anyone has an issue with my posting about this, but I figure since it was an issue he mentioned, I'd give my two cents on it. Besides, I agree with everythign else he's saying [img]smile.gif[/img] .

[LD]

here we go again :rolleyes: