Some controversial issues to debate

[ReodDai]

Originally posted by LD:
here we go again :rolleyes:

I've said my peace I'm not jumping into this "discussion" lol

[phoenix64]

The vast majority of people that oppose the death penalty, like myself, oppose it not because they want the guilty to live, but because we can't live with the fact that something like 1 out of 3 that get the death penalty are innocent or didn't get a fair trial. In my oppinion 1 innocent person in 100 is too many, but 1 in 3 is ****ing crazy.

And only a fool would buy a handgun to protect his family. Sawed of 12 gauge pump is safer, easier to handle, and far more effective.

[speedracer95v6]

Marijuana = tax money

gay union /= marriage...marriage is a he/she thing, union can be a he/he she/she thing...its a definitional thing when you get down to it.

internet cencorship = possibly unconstitutional to totalitarian

handgun ban = handgun crime...see also UK

Just my thoughts. [img]smile.gif[/img]

oh yeah, death penalty. If the crime is blatantly clear, it should be enforceable. If there is even a slight question, life in prison. (that of course is in reference to capital crimes).

[cassie]

As far as the marijuana goes, you forgot one important poing: NO ONE has EVER died from an "overdose" or from smoking marijuana.

[95fbirdkid]

saying marijuana is a gatway drug because some people move on to other drugs is BS. Sure some people do, but no all. thats like saying pizza is a gateway to heroin b/c most people who are on heroin have eaten pizza at some point befor they got hooked on heroin.

the only way marijuana is close to being a gateway is it can put you around people who might use other drugs.

As far as the marijuana goes, you forgot one important poing: NO ONE has EVER died from an "overdose" or from smoking marijuana.

this was true up untill last year. there is now 1 case of someone dieing from prolonged marijuana uses. but the man reportedly smoke 5-7 j's a day, for 50+ years, so the avg smoker doesnt really have much to worry about [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[imported_admin]

Originally posted by Blazing_Firebird:
I don't care what you blame it on. The fact is, it exists.

Just because homosexuality exists does not mean it is right. Murder, child pornography, domestic violence, emotional abuse... all of these exist too. Just because something exists and will not go away does not mean it is right. So that argument is invalid. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

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

Yes, that's true... but a few doing wrong should not make the rest of society suffer.

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

She should not be able to do that either. Two wrongs don't make a right. Bad example.

Originally posted by Blazing_Firebird:
Just because she can reproduce means nothing.

On the contrary, the ability to reproduce means EVERYTHING in this debate.

In every society in human history, marriage laws have existed to define, protect, and preserve the family unit--always including at least a nuclear family and often extended as well. A homosexual family is not medically possible. How can two homosexual men have children? Why should they be given the same benefits as a married couple who has children/plans to have children?

If two homosexuals choose to be partners then that's fine, that's their choice. But since it is not possible for them to have children of their own, they should not and are not considered to be a family--therefore they should not and are not allowed to marry. Its really very simple.

And don't play the adoption card... being able to adopt does not make someone a family. If two homosexuals are allowed to adopt, why stop there? What about my college fraternity? We call one another "brothers", why can't we legally adopt children and form a commune? Where do you draw the line on who can adopt and who cannot? What about lesbian three-somes? Why can't the three of them all marry one another and adopt children? The list goes on. Adoption is only legal for married male/female couples for this reason. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and if it is not drawn at the level of heterosexual married couples only, it will never be drawn.

No offense to anyone, just stating some arguments. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[imported_admin]

Originally posted by cassie:
As far as the marijuana goes, you forgot one important poing: NO ONE has EVER died from an "overdose" or from smoking marijuana.

But if they get stoned and drive high then hit a minivan filled with blind orphan children killing all of them there is no way to prove that they were high. Pot is only illegal because short of blood tests there is no easy/convenient way for a police officer to stop someone who is driving stoned. Alcohol is legal because police have ways of knowing that you're driving drunk--but with pot that enforcement capability does not exist. And don't say people drive fine when they're stoned, that's bull. Saying "people can drive fine when they're high" is really going to go far on Capitol Hill when the bill to legalize it comes up to a vote...

[imported_admin]

Originally posted by Blazing_Firebird:
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."

Blazing and everyone who's debating the gay thing--there are two completely different arguments here.

1. Gay people are people too and have feelings and should be accepted in our society

2. Gay people should be legally allowed to marry

The original post was about point number 2, though of course, several people here (anti-gay people here) are bringing up number 1. Go figure. Try to keep the debate centered around the original question--number 2. The issue was legal ramifications, not social acceptance.

[imported_admin]

Regarding guns, everyone seems to get this one wrong.

In the United States, guns are not in the Constitution because Americans have a right to protect themselves against intruders in their homes. They are in the Constitution because Americans have a right to protect themselves against an oppressive government!

This is why assault rifles are legal! The Founding Fathers didn't give a rat's *** about someone breaking into your house. They were concerned about freedom. They wanted an armed population. That way, if the government stepped out of line and leaned toward totalitarianism, the (armed) people could rise up in revolt, overthrow the government, and establish it "for the people, by the people" again.

In that regard, George Washington would WANT every American household to have an assault rifle and anti-tank missile. It has nothing to do with defending your family. Its about defending the free way of life.

But the government and mass media today twists that and makes it sound like you're a cold-blooded serial killer if you own two machine guns. They make it sound like the government is always right, totalitarianism could never exist here, and the only guns ever needed are small handguns to defend against a burglar and hunting rifles for sportsmen. Um, no.

Are you "un-American" if you don't trust the government? Well, then I guess George Washington and the rest of the Founding Fathers were "un-American" too.

[speedracer95v6]

Originally posted by Stefan:
Regarding guns, everyone seems to get this one wrong.

In the United States, guns are not in the Constitution because Americans have a right to protect themselves against intruders in their homes. They are in the Constitution because Americans have a right to protect themselves against an oppressive government!

This is why assault rifles are legal! The Founding Fathers didn't give a rat's *** about someone breaking into your house. They were concerned about freedom. They wanted an armed population. That way, if the government stepped out of line and leaned toward totalitarianism, the (armed) people could rise up in revolt, overthrow the government, and establish it "for the people, by the people" again.

In that regard, George Washington would WANT every American household to have an assault rifle and anti-tank missile. It has nothing to do with defending your family. Its about defending the free way of life.

But the government and mass media today twists that and makes it sound like you're a cold-blooded serial killer if you own two machine guns. They make it sound like the government is always right, totalitarianism could never exist here, and the only guns ever needed are small handguns to defend against a burglar and hunting rifles for sportsmen. Um, no.

Are you "un-American" if you don't trust the government? Well, then I guess George Washington and the rest of the Founding Fathers were "un-American" too.

yep yep.

And I believe next week the assault weapons ban will quietly fade away. [img]graemlins/rock.gif[/img]

[95fbirdkid]

supposed to be fading pretty soon, septerber 14th 2004 is a date i've heard thrown around alot.

[memphis_raines]

Good point Stefan. That adoption thing is total BS. Think about when that kid starts school and most of the other kids have a mom AND dad. You think they're not gonna make fun of him/ her? And then after years of heckling from the other kids, he/ she finally explodes and goes to school on a shooting rampage. Hypothetically, that situation is a little extreme, but "family" situations like that are IMO a risk to a child's mental and psychological well-being.

If it were meant to be like that, God would have made Adam and STEVE....

The answer to the handgun controversy lies in one simple statement: Guns don't kill people. People kill people. If a person wants to kill someone bad enough, they're gonna do it regardless of their weapon of choice. Sh*t like this shows how ignorant our government really is. Say you flip on the TV tomorrow and see that a guy killed another guy by stabbing him in the neck with a pencil. Are they gonna try to ban pencils? If so, let me know and I'll go stock up now......

[LD]

Originally posted by Stefan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Blazing_Firebird:
I don't care what you blame it on. The fact is, it exists.

Just because homosexuality exists does not mean it is right. Murder, child pornography, domestic violence, emotional abuse... all of these exist too. Just because something exists and will not go away does not mean it is right. So that argument is invalid. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

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

Yes, that's true... but a few doing wrong should not make the rest of society suffer.

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

She should not be able to do that either. Two wrongs don't make a right. Bad example.

Originally posted by Blazing_Firebird:
Just because she can reproduce means nothing.

On the contrary, the ability to reproduce means EVERYTHING in this debate.

In every society in human history, marriage laws have existed to define, protect, and preserve the family unit--always including at least a nuclear family and often extended as well. A homosexual family is not medically possible. How can two homosexual men have children? Why should they be given the same benefits as a married couple who has children/plans to have children?

If two homosexuals choose to be partners then that's fine, that's their choice. But since it is not possible for them to have children of their own, they should not and are not considered to be a family--therefore they should not and are not allowed to marry. Its really very simple.

And don't play the adoption card... being able to adopt does not make someone a family. If two homosexuals are allowed to adopt, why stop there? What about my college fraternity? We call one another "brothers", why can't we legally adopt children and form a commune? Where do you draw the line on who can adopt and who cannot? What about lesbian three-somes? Why can't the three of them all marry one another and adopt children? The list goes on. Adoption is only legal for married male/female couples for this reason. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and if it is not drawn at the level of heterosexual married couples only, it will never be drawn.

No offense to anyone, just stating some arguments. [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]thats really sick to lump homosexuality in with Murder, child pornography, domestic violence, emotional abuse
where is the connection between those
all those are illegal, homosexuality is not
all those hurt other people, homosexuality does not
and what is this **** about making the rest of society suffer? how does me marrying who I want make you suffer? because you arent getting your way?
well tell you what, you dont care about making me suffer, then I dont care about making you suffer.

and I have asked this question before but nobody will answer it, you say homosexual couples cannot reproduce so they cant get married, I ask what about men with low sperm counts or women with internal problems, or women that have had surgery, or the many other straight people that cannot reproduce (or choose not too) how come they can get married?

Originally posted by memphis_raines:
Good point Stefan. That adoption thing is total BS. Think about when that kid starts school and most of the other kids have a mom AND dad. You think they're not gonna make fun of him/ her? And then after years of heckling from the other kids, he/ she finally explodes and goes to school on a shooting rampage. Hypothetically, that situation is a little extreme, but "family" situations like that are IMO a risk to a child's mental and psychological well-being.

If it were meant to be like that, God would have made Adam and STEVE....

oh no
the poor children are going to get made fun of
wake up
if they dont make fun of them for their parents then they will make fun of them for their wight/looks/clothes/car/anything they can think of
kids get made fun of in school
big deal
and about the last comment... God didn't make Adam and Steve? then who the **** did?

I hate these discussions so much, I really shouldnt read them since they get me so worked up, but I did so oh well

[ABH]

Kids are going to get teased. Period. For any reason you care to name.

As far as the Bible goes, tell me, who was Cain's woman who bore him a son. As the population of the world was 3, who was she?

How many times Adam knows Eve after that, or how many more wives Adam knows, is unknown, but he begets "sons and daughters" for eight hundred more years. (Gen. 1:26-5:5) It seems Adam kept Eve quite barefoot and pregnant.

Now as all human life is supposed to stem from Adam and Eve, did Cain bed his mother? Or one of his sisters?

Later "Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch." This wife is a mystery woman, since at the time of Cain's birth the whole world's population totaled only three (being, of course, Cain and his parents Adam and Eve). Remarkable also is Cain's founding of a city, which implies a considerable number of inhabitants.

The best explanation for such a population explosion from one created couple is the obvious one: inbreeding was originally extensive, indeed unavoidable. And all the other descendants of Adam, from Seth to Noah, marry sisters or cousins. (Gen. 4:1-17 )

[memphis_raines]

[/qb][/QUOTE]oh no
the poor children are going to get made fun of
wake up
if they dont make fun of them for their parents then they will make fun of them for their wight/looks/clothes/car/anything they can think of
kids get made fun of in school
big deal
and about the last comment... God didn't make Adam and Steve? then who the **** did?
[/QB][/QUOTE]

You obviously didn't understand. I meant if God had intended for people to be gay, it would have been Adam and Steve instead of Adam and Eve....