Q&A For Everyone

[enjolras]

I've started to respond to numerous posts tonight, and I realized that I'm having tremendous trouble with certain issues. As such I decided to put together a little survey.. my hope here is that by presenting these issues I can better understand something that seems so obvious to so many on this board. The purpose of this isn't to be condescending, but to give you guys a chance to truly answer my concerns...

Thesis: "The rights of the invidual end ONLY where the rights of others begin" This is a fundamental assertion of the original Republican platform. If you don't agree with this fundamental assertion, then your done.. thanks for playing:)

#1: Adult prostitution should not be illegal. After all, it is an act between two consenting adults that does not abridge on the rights of others. From a societal point of view, taxing the revenues would bring in millions of additional dollars.

#2: Gay marraige should not be illegal. It involves two people, and doesn't impact society in any way.

#3: Most drugs should be legalized. After all, the user is only hurting himself. The tax argument also applies.


Respond to these however you wish. Just to reiterate, the goal of this excercise is to frame the argument in a different way. I want to know WHY I should care issues like these... Feel free to respond to the thesis as well, does anyone TRULY beleive that? (It's an assumption I've been making, and it may very well be wrong)

I really want to start a constructive debate about values issues.. While I feel passionately about these issues, I really can't help but wonder if I'm simply missing something.

[Rock Chalk]

I've started to respond to numerous posts tonight, and I realized that I'm having tremendous trouble with certain issues. As such I decided to put together a little survey.. my hope here is that by presenting these issues I can better understand something that seems so obvious to so many on this board. The purpose of this isn't to be condescending, but to give you guys a chance to truly answer my concerns...

Thesis: "The rights of the invidual end ONLY where the rights of others begin" This is a fundamental assertion of the original Republican platform. If you don't agree with this fundamental assertion, then your done.. thanks for playing:)

#1: Adult prostitution should not be illegal. After all, it is an act between two consenting adults that does not abridge on the rights of others. From a societal point of view, taxing the revenues would bring in millions of additional dollars.

From a societal point of view, taxes are not involved. Thats an economic point of view. From a societal point of view its immoral. Yes its between consenting adults but it also is a good way for diseases to spread, it gives married people more opportunity to cheat on their spouse and it is dangerous for the women. Thats from a societal point of view. Im all for it but the pussy needs to come down in price for me to actually fork over any cash flow.

#2: Gay marraige should not be illegal. It involves two people, and doesn't impact society in any way.

Until the word marriage as used in the context of a man and woman joining together in a union of monogamy is changed to mean a man and a man, fags cant get married. You may nto like it but eleven states passed the vote. Deal with it. i dont like a lot of things but I deal with them because they are law.

#3: Most drugs should be legalized. After all, the user is only hurting himself. The tax argument also applies.

This is just stupid. I mean no offense but this is the lamest argument to make drugs legal. Drugs hurt more than just the person losing them. GO ask any family who has had to deal with a crackhead or heroin addict in their immediate family who is affected by drug usage. Go ask the mother whose son was killed over drugs that they didnt hurt anyone but themselves.

Drugs may SEEM like a victimless crime, but when taken into account the crimes committed because of drugs, the lives affected by those close to someone addicted on drugs make it a multi victim crime.



Respond to these however you wish. Just to reiterate, the goal of this excercise is to frame the argument in a different way. I want to know WHY I should care issues like these... Feel free to respond to the thesis as well, does anyone TRULY beleive that? (It's an assumption I've been making, and it may very well be wrong)

I really want to start a constructive debate about values issues.. While I feel passionately about these issues, I really can't help but wonder if I'm simply missing something.

My boss mentioned to me that he could not believe that people thought values were an important issue at the election. Well, believe it. Values are the very core of society and without them or with the "wrong" values, society just isnt very pleasant. Keeping things relatively safe and normal for the most people as possible is the goal here and while some may feel that certain laws and values are stupid or irrelevant, a great many more feel they are important in the overall aspect of how this country, the culture and the people live. There are many things about our culture I dont like, from the high taxes we are forced to pay to the hundreds of other ways we get screwed in everyday life (like the gas station screwing you over on every fillup by at least a dime of gas. Add it up, its a lot of money for them and over time a lot of money out of your pocket), but I deal with it because someone somewhere got a group of people bigger than I got to vote on something they didnt like. Tough break for me, oh well I move on.

Whats that old A.A. saying (since apparently some schmuck thinks im a drunk) "God, grant me the courage to change the things I can, to accept the things I cannot change and the wisdom to know the difference" or something like that.

JMO. I could be wrong. Im not but I could be.

[Atlas]

Thesis: "The rights of the invidual end ONLY where the rights of others begin" This is a fundamental assertion of the original Republican platform. If you don't agree with this fundamental assertion, then your done.. thanks for playing:)

#1: Adult prostitution should not be illegal. After all, it is an act between two consenting adults that does not abridge on the rights of others. From a societal point of view, taxing the revenues would bring in millions of additional dollars.

#2: Gay marraige should not be illegal. It involves two people, and doesn't impact society in any way.

#3: Most drugs should be legalized. After all, the user is only hurting himself. The tax argument also applies.

.

I'm for prostitution, Gay marriage and drugs I guess that is why I'm ultra liberal.. I just don't like the fact that the Gov. can tell you what to do with your body. Almost 80% of everyone in jail is there because of some kind of drug offense. Legalize the shi t empty the overcrowded prisons from the minor drug offenses and keep the hardened criminals locked up.

About Gay marriage: I want Gay people to experience Alimony, divorce settlements, cheating spouses, scum sucking Lawyers too.. Why should all this fun just be limited to all us hetrosexuals.

About prostitution: I see nothing wrong with it. A woman should be able to do anything she wants with her body.. Why can a girl go a give it away to any guy she meets but once she accepts money THEN it's wrong. Nevada has had legalized prostitution for years and they have not suffered and significant problems from it. In fact, since it's legalized it is much safer and cleaner there than in states where it's illegal

[Rock Chalk]

80% of those people are in jail for crimes committed because of drugs.

[Atlas]

80% of those people are in jail for crimes committed because of drugs.

Exactly.. Thats because drugs are illegal and hard to get.. How many people are in jail because of them stealing money for beer?? None... well, maybe some teenagersLOL... If drugs were sold similar to the way beer is sold than you wouldn't have huge Columbian cartels murdering people, you wouldn't have all these street gangs killing each other for drugs.. What happened when Alcohol was outlawed. The Mafia ala Al Capone became huge and made all their money off liquor sales once it was legalized the mafia had to try to find other avenues to make money which for most of them was drugs...

Plus if certain drugs were legal the governement would be able to regulate them like they do cigs and beer plus they would also be able to get HUGE money from taxation. I'm not saying heroin should be legal but I would have no problem with pot. Actually, I wouldn't have no problem with herion either. People have to be responsible for their own actions. You can't have the Govn regulate everything just because some people are irresponsible..
My Uncle was in Vietnam, he was a hippie and he has smoked pot for 40 years now... bigh deal... he goes to work, pays taxes, votes and is a responsible human being

[Popps]

1. True: Legalize it, regulate it, tax it. Quit wasting police manpower on the oldest crime in the world.
2. True: People criticize the gay community for being subversive, and yet tell them that they can't be married and be a part of "normal" society. Yea, that makes sense.
3. False: Druggies effect everyone around them, whether it's driving a vehicle or abusing their families. Are there some drugs society can handle? Maybe, but we've yet to prove it. We can't even handle alcohol, what makes anyone think we could handle legalizing opiates, for example? Absolutely not.

[Atlas]

1. True: Legalize it, regulate it, tax it. Quit wasting police manpower on the oldest crime in the world.
2. True: People criticize the gay community for being subversive, and yet tell them that they can't be married and be a part of "normal" society. Yea, that makes sense.
3. False: Druggies effect everyone around them, whether it's driving a vehicle or abusing their families. Are there some drugs society can handle? Maybe, but we've yet to prove it. We can't even handle alcohol, what makes anyone think we could handle legalizing opiates, for example? Absolutely not.

Alcohol is much worse than pot.. Driving stoned is way safer than driving drunk... Opiates is different but legalize pot and I bet the US wouldn't all of a sudden self implode. Everything would be just like it is now. Except there would be fewer crimes and the jails would be less crowded and the people that do the serious crimes would serve their full prison sentence and not be paroled early just because of over crowding.

[Husky Jerk]

I think the thing that you are missing is that the reality is our country was founded by religious zealots. Yes there were a few exceptions, but by and large, religion is why the U.S. came into being. And religion is not a bad thing, until it becomes obssesive and intolerant. The intent is to provide some guidelines for morality in a civilization. Moral decay has destroyed nearly every powerful civilization in history (Roman Empire for example), and religion wiped out the rest. The problem is how to walk this fine line. Thus you get discussions like this one. It is necessary to legislate morality or once you start down that path, the end result is one that nobody wants. So where do you draw the line?
This is still a Christian society and their set of morals are the ones that apply.
Not perfect, but better than nothing. You can argue that every one of your points are valid, but Christianity condones those behaviors, and to change such fundamental rules of Christian morality is to dismiss it altogether. That is a dangerous proposition. Again, I am not a religious person but I recognize that seperation of church and state is very difficult to pull off, if not impossible, and there are some benefits to a religious society. You have to weigh the pros and cons, and accept some inequities. No set of laws will be fair for everyone.

[enjolras]

Good responses.. I should note that I'm not making arguments here for anything. Simply putting out statements (intentionally controversial) to get peoples reactions. Like I said, trying to better understand everyone's point of view.

My responses would be:

#1: Absolutely. When you take moralism out of the argument, the truly impactful problems with prostitution are disease and abuse. Regulation and legalization makes it possible to create an environment where those things aren't a problem. Nevada is a model for this.. prostitution is controlled and safe for all involved.

#2: I do beleive Gay marraige is acceptable. In reality, I'm ok with the civil union concept as long as those unions enjoy the same legal status as marraige. In the governments eyes a civil union and a marraige should be purely a difference of semantics. I hope, over time, that the distinction between the two would melt altogether. I would honestly like the government to get out the marraige business altogether.. let individuals define what 'marraige' really is...

#3: I favor the legalization of marijuana and not much else. The fundamental statement is basically wrong.. Drugs that cause long lasting debilitations are a lot like suicide and the bill for society is simply to high. However, legalizing marijuana needs to happen tommorow. This particular topic is incredibly important to me. As some of you know my mom died of ovarian cancer over the summer... during her treatment she would have beneffited, immensely, from some pot. She was in near constant pain, and the pain medications simply knocked her out or made her feel worse. She refused marijuana not because she didn't want it, but because it was illegal.

[Spider]

I've started to respond to numerous posts tonight, and I realized that I'm having tremendous trouble with certain issues. As such I decided to put together a little survey.. my hope here is that by presenting these issues I can better understand something that seems so obvious to so many on this board. The purpose of this isn't to be condescending, but to give you guys a chance to truly answer my concerns...

Thesis: "The rights of the invidual end ONLY where the rights of others begin" This is a fundamental assertion of the original Republican platform. If you don't agree with this fundamental assertion, then your done.. thanks for playing:)

#1: Adult prostitution should not be illegal. After all, it is an act between two consenting adults that does not abridge on the rights of others. From a societal point of view, taxing the revenues would bring in millions of additional dollars.
Agreed but it will be illegal until lwe find away to tax it .....

#2: Gay marraige should not be illegal. It involves two people, and doesn't impact society in any way.
I realy dont have a stand on this , as long as it isnt done in my house ...

#3: Most drugs should be legalized. After all, the user is only hurting himself. The tax argument also applies.
Here is where I disagree , I could go for making Pot legal , it does have some medicinal qualities , but the rest no way way to dangerous and I will get blasted for this but , People are idiots , just see the way they drive thier cars ... and alot of these Idiots have Children , and the Children is what I care about ........ Stupid People + Drugs + Kids = Disaster


Respond to these however you wish. Just to reiterate, the goal of this excercise is to frame the argument in a different way. I want to know WHY I should care issues like these... Feel free to respond to the thesis as well, does anyone TRULY beleive that? (It's an assumption I've been making, and it may very well be wrong)

I really want to start a constructive debate about values issues.. While I feel passionately about these issues, I really can't help but wonder if I'm simply missing something.

[enjolras]

I think the thing that you are missing is that the reality is our country was founded by religious zealots. Yes there were a few exceptions, but by and large, religion is why the U.S. came into being. And religion is not a bad thing, until it becomes obssesive and intolerant. The intent is to provide some guidelines for morality in a civilization. Moral decay has destroyed nearly every powerful civilization in history (Roman Empire for example), and religion wiped out the rest. The problem is how to walk this fine line. Thus you get discussions like this one. It is necessary to legislate morality or once you start down that path, the end result is one that nobody wants. So where do you draw the line?
This is still a Christian society and their set of morals are the ones that apply.

I hear this argument all the time, and I think it's wrong. Moral decay did not kill the Roman empire.. the Roman empire collapsed under it's own weight. It simply got to big for the Romans to manage. Rome lost touch with the people it ruled (on the edges of the empire). The people had lost control of government and the empire became a government controlled by the military, as opposed to a military controlled by the government. This is why the empire had something like 29 rulers in 104 years... the military brought them to power, and then cut them down (literally) when they tired of them. Couple this with excessive poverty throughout the empire, and you have the recipe for the fall of an empire.

Thus, the real question is 'must the government legislate morality' and the answer (in my mind) is no. Americas greatest strength is freedom.. not just literal freedom, but our strong belief in the power of freedom ('Americanism'). The legislation of morality is diametrically opposed to that. We as Americans must be free to practice freedom, and that doesn't just include things that are popular.. freedom doesn't mean simply 'your free to beleive like the majority' after all.

Legislation of morality must always pass the fundamental test I gave above. 'The rights of an individual end only where the right of others begins'. Murder, robbery, etc.. all pass that test. It's not clear to me that most of the other 'values' issues pass that, however.

There is still grey area, and there will always be debate. After all, if abortion passes that test largely depends on your view about the status of an unborn child. There is legitimate debate there.. but for the most part we should leave it to society to define what it wants to look like.

[Kaylore]

I'm going to lump Prostitution and Drugs into one response. First, I'd have no problem with pot being legal and taxed. The rest, as you pointed out, have obvious disease and mental complications that make legalizing them unacceptable. It says something about a society that is willing to allow harmful and addictive things to be sold in the their society. Saying "if they're dumb enough to to do it let them" and "we can make money on it," is morally wrong. Don't any of you have a problem with selling addictive things that will kill you because we can reap the benifits? Prostitution isn't addictive, but it objectifies women and has dangerous disease spreading potential.

The one counter argument is that sometimes making things illegal has negative results. Prohibition only served to empower the mob. I say we legalize pot, decriminalize the usage of other drugs and direct the bulk of our law enforcement attention against the dealers. I think prostitution is totally immoral and should never be legalized.

As far a gay marriage, I don't think people grasp that it is the single most ancient and basic of the entire world's institutions. Even society's that embraced homosexual activity (Rome, Greece, etc.) never ever altered this sacred union. My Religious views are a bedrock for my social and political views. Trying to tell me that I can't let them influence my politcal choices is like trying to tell someone to make a choice about morality ignoring every thing they had learned before.

I think homosexual behavior is wrong morally. Marriage brings with it all sorts of tax benifits which is basically our government's way of saying "we're going to subsidize this institution because we think its good for our society." I would have great difficulty being able to vote to allow the government to subsidize a lifestyle that I'm morally opposed to.

[watermock]

I think the thing that you are missing is that the reality is our country was founded by religious zealots. Yes there were a few exceptions, but by and large, religion is why the U.S. came into being.

Totally wrong. It was about religious freedom from the Church of England and the King.

And religion is not a bad thing, until it becomes obssesive and intolerant.

Now we have to debate religion while you people are talking about legalizing drugs, gay marriage, partial birth abortion and other things historicaly illegal?


The intent is to provide some guidelines for morality in a civilization.

Wrong. It's not a law book. Go check the library. It's not going to be placed in the "Law Section".

Moral decay has destroyed nearly every powerful civilization in history (Roman Empire for example), and religion wiped out the rest. The problem is how to walk this fine line.

It's not a fine line at all. The fact of the matter is that religion didn't "wipe out" civiliations. It wasn't always in line, but that's one reason for Luther and the exodus from Europe. Kings using Chruch of State to prosecute. I suggest you look at Muslims at this point in history.

Thus you get discussions like this one. It is necessary to legislate morality or once you start down that path, the end result is one that nobody wants. So where do you draw the line?

Umm, people have been legislating morality for thousands of years. Should we let Scott Peterson massacre his wife and child?

This is still a Christian society and their set of morals are the ones that apply.

Wrong. Haven't you read the posts? People don't think common morals apply whatsoever in a secular society.

Not perfect, but better than nothing. You can argue that every one of your points are valid, but Christianity condones those behaviors, and to change such fundamental rules of Christian morality is to dismiss it altogether. That is a dangerous proposition. Again, I am not a religious person but I recognize that seperation of church and state is very difficult to pull off, if not impossible, and there are some benefits to a religious society. You have to weigh the pros and cons, and accept some inequities. No set of laws will be fair for everyone.

Disclaimer

[Spider]

I think homosexual behavior is wrong morally. Marriage brings with it all sorts of tax benifits which is basically our government's way of saying "we're going to subsidize this institution because we think its good for our society." I would have great difficulty being able to vote to allow the government to subsidize a lifestyle that I'm morally opposed to.
out of all the rhetoric from both sides , that is the best answer against Gay marriage yet ........ Well done Kaylor , as for the prositution I disagree , but hey what do you expect ;D

[DrFate]

#2: Gay marraige should not be illegal. It involves two people, and doesn't impact society in any way.



Legally equating gay marriage with more 'traditional' marriage grants things like tax breaks, death/medical benefits normally available to a spouse, etc.

So it does impact society (regardless of how someone feels about the subject).

[DrFate]

Kaylore beat me to it. ;)

Good job, Kaylore.

Simply put, it isn't that 2 men or 2 women live together. That isn't illegal in any state I am aware of. Those that endorse 'gay marriage' want the same legal rights as man/woman marriages have.

I believe that Disney, for example, grants health benefits to 'partners' in the same way it does to spouses. If gay marriage were made to be equal to (what is the right term here?) regular marriage, those same-sex couples would sue to have everything their hetero-neighbors have - like filing taxes as a married couple for a different tax rate, or Social Security benefits after one dies. Many oppose that concept.

[Husky Jerk]

Totally wrong. It was about religious freedom from the Church of England and the King.


Actually, the concept of marriage goes back 4500 years. It wasn't utilized by the Catholic Church until the 8th century. Google it. I did.

Now we have to debate religion while you people are talking about legalizing drugs, gay marriage, partial birth abortion and other things historicaly illegal

You people? I never justified any of those activities, just trying to offer my opinion to Enjolras as to why they are viewed as immoral by our society. The quote you used is what my view is as to the existence of religion.

Wrong. It's not a law book. Go check the library. It's not going to be placed in the "Law Section".

If religion wasn't intended as a set of moral rules, then what was the point in the first place?


It's not a fine line at all. The fact of the matter is that religion didn't "wipe out" civiliations. It wasn't always in line, but that's one reason for Luther and the exodus from Europe. Kings using Chruch of State to prosecute. I suggest you look at Muslims at this point in history.


The Muslims are an example of over-the-line. More people have been killed over religion than anything else. Again, over-the-line. But to say that religion doesn't belong in society is over the line as well. Finding the balancing point is the difficult part.

Umm, people have been legislating morality for thousands of years. Should we let Scott Peterson massacre his wife and child?

You really lost me here. The quote says IT IS NECESSARY. (IMO)

Wrong. Haven't you read the posts? People don't think common morals apply whatsoever in a secular society.

Didn't you read my post? I believe I stated that I feel it does. Maybe I could have elaborated on my position better but I have work to do, sometimes.


Disclaimer

More like a synopsis of my view point. I don't enjoy offending people (other than a Chief/Raider cheap shot maybe) so I felt obligated to state my position and people can take it for what its worth. But thanks for informing me how wrong my opinion is. Now I'm confused, maybe I should have voted Kerry? Or wrote in Beezlebub? From now on, if I need an opinion, I'll ask you for it. Uhh

[Kaylore]

out of all the rhetoric from both sides , that is the best answer against Gay marriage yet ........ Well done Kaylor , as for the prositution I disagree , but hey what do you expect ;D
I guess what I see: a level-headed guy with whom I occationally disagree on some points. 8')

And Plummer4MVP is right. This wasn't a bill make Homosexual behavior illegal it was preserving Marriage in its traditional form and preventing government subsidation of that lifestyle.

[Spider]

More like a synopsis of my view point. I don't enjoy offending people (other than a Chief/Raider cheap shot maybe) so I felt obligated to state my position and people can take it for what its worth. But thanks for informing me how wrong my opinion is. Now I'm confused, maybe I should have voted Kerry? Or wrote in Beezlebub? From now on, if I need an opinion, I'll ask you for it. Uhh
LOL ......... Meet Mock , great guy , but damn if I know what planet he is from

[Spider]

I guess what I see: a level-headed guy with whom I occationally disagree on some points. 8')

And Plummer4MVP is right. This wasn't a bill make Homosexual behavior illegal it was preserving Marriage in its traditional form and preventing government subsidation of that lifestyle.
Like I said good Job , you changed my mind on gay Marriage , well actually forced me to take a side .......

[Husky Jerk]

I hear this argument all the time, and I think it's wrong. Moral decay did not kill the Roman empire.. the Roman empire collapsed under it's own weight. It simply got to big for the Romans to manage. Rome lost touch with the people it ruled (on the edges of the empire). The people had lost control of government and the empire became a government controlled by the military, as opposed to a military controlled by the government. This is why the empire had something like 29 rulers in 104 years... the military brought them to power, and then cut them down (literally) when they tired of them. Couple this with excessive poverty throughout the empire, and you have the recipe for the fall of an empire.


But you could argue that a lack of morals led them down this path. Which is the cause and which is the symptom?

Thus, the real question is 'must the government legislate morality' and the answer (in my mind) is no. Americas greatest strength is freedom.. not just literal freedom, but our strong belief in the power of freedom ('Americanism'). The legislation of morality is diametrically opposed to that. We as Americans must be free to practice freedom, and that doesn't just include things that are popular.. freedom doesn't mean simply 'your free to beleive like the majority' after all.

In an ideal society, I agree with you, but can we ever achieve a state of total self responsibility. Until we do, I feel morality must be legislated. It's too easy for a person to think what they do doesn't affect anybody else. Just look at how people drive.

Legislation of morality must always pass the fundamental test I gave above. 'The rights of an individual end only where the right of others begins'. Murder, robbery, etc.. all pass that test. It's not clear to me that most of the other 'values' issues pass that, however.

There is still grey area, and there will always be debate. After all, if abortion passes that test largely depends on your view about the status of an unborn child. There is legitimate debate there.. but for the most part we should leave it to society to define what it wants to look like.


Leaving it to society to define itself, in this day and age, is a prospect that would scare the hell out of me.

It's nice to have a discussion about such sensitive issues without name-calling or total dismissal of anyone who doesn't agree with you. I repped you for it. Kudos.

[Husky Jerk]

LOL ......... Meet Mock , great guy , but damn if I know what planet he is from


I am familiar with Iowanians. ;) And Viking fans. What blew me away is he seemed to use my own points to tell me I was wrong.

[Spider]

I am familiar with Iowanians. ;) And Viking fans. What blew me away is he seemed to use my own points to tell me I was wrong.
;D lovable breed they are , just a tad bit in fog though .......... :thumbs:

[chanesaw]

#1 While I don't like it and I would hate to see a family member become a prostitute, I agree it is a crime that we cannot stop. It will always be here. If we could regulate it, and take the pimps out of the equation, it might be better for the girls too.

#2 There is no way I would ever be in favor of gay marraige!!! I could type about this forever so I won't.

#3 Drugs hurt everybody and should not be legal. However, pot is practically decriminalized anyway and I would be in favor of legalizing that only. We could then concentrate the police power on other more addictive and harmful drugs.

There are a lot more moral issues that made me vote for Bush than just these three. Here are some others:

Abortion - we can't legislate morals, but we must value human life and protect those that cannot protect themselves
Embrionic stem cell research - I don't care if it could save my life one day, I would rather die than know that my cure was derieved from murder

[Hogan11]

Prosititution, Gay Marriage, Stem cell, abortion...all legal 100%

Drugs, some legal with the same restrictions as alcohol.

Now, with that out of the way, I have to weigh in on all this moral/family values stuff that most seem to have bought into as the main reason why W won this election.
The GOP went all out to energize it's base (Evangelical Christians) to offset the record number of young people and college students the DNC was courting nationwide....the GOP pulled out it's usual proven warhorses to do this (Liberal this and that, abortion...everything but the flag burning amendment this time around), sited the DNC activities with the "record number of young voters" and there you are.
What happened was this: The Evangelical base of the GOP all turned out while the "record number of young people" never did....it appears they only turned out to see Bruce Springsteen, R.E.M. & Pearl Jam...the number of young people voting stayed exactly the same as it's been in the last couple of elections....which explains everything as far as all this "values" stuff is concerned.

Just my take on it. Flame me all you wish, I really don't care.

[Kaylore]

The Evangelical base of the GOP all turned out while the "record number of young people" never did....it appears they only turned out to see Bruce Springsteen, R.E.M. & Pearl Jam...the number of young people voting stayed exactly the same as it's been in the last couple of elections....which explains everything as far as all this "values" stuff is concerned.

Just my take on it. Flame me all you wish, I really don't care.
To be fair there were quite a few more youth votes than in 2000 in terms of raw numbers, but comapared to the rest of the US, there was no change. Everyone was energized this election and that usually makes for healthy Democracy.

[Hogan11]

To be fair there were quite a few more youth votes than in 2000 in terms of raw numbers, but comapared to the rest of the US, there was no change. Everyone was energized this election and that usually makes for healthy Democracy.

They projected record numbers of young people due to overall fear and Iraq and they were wrong...the percentage of voting young roughly stayed the same....while the GOP base energized to offset it came out and produced in droves. It's not an overall shift towards "values" (whatever that means) it's who showed up and who didn't and that explains everything.

[Kaylore]

It's not an overall shift towards "values" (whatever that means) it's who showed up and who didn't and that explains everything.

Hogan those two are completely related. If you are Steel worker and they put a steel tarrif measure on the ballot, there is a high likelihood that you will show up that election cycle and vote on that meassure. Additionally you'll vote for all the other stuff you like too. T

here were values issues on the ballot this election and that is precisely what motivated these conservative to get to the polls. Yes, it was a good voter drive, but with deep personal issues on the ballot, that made the GOP's job much easier.

[Samiwindr]

1) Prostitution should be made legal. My thinking is that if there is a huge demand for it and law enforcement is powerless to stop it, why keep chasing our tail? (pun intended) . Prostitution should be legalized, regulated, and taxed. Mandatory STD testing, state licensing, etc.

2) Gay marriage should be legal and encouraged. Health care costs would benefit from more monogamous same sex relationships. I honestly believe that homosexuality and infertilityed are nature's weapons to combat over-population or the continuation of 'unwanted' genes. I'm all for people not having families if they are genetically predisposed to not wanting them.

3) First, I don't consider marijuana to be a drug. It's no more dangerous than alcohol, nicotine, or caffeine. However, you should not be able to drive while under it's influence nor should employers have to keep you if you show up to work stoned. All other drugs should absolutely remain illegal. In fact, I support stiffer sentencing in order to eradicate the trafficking. Importation and Distribution should be elevated to capital crimes to discourage the activity. Harsh, but it works well in Singapore.

[Kaylore]

2) Gay marriage should be legal and encouraged. Health care costs would benefit from more monogamous same sex relationships. I honestly believe that homosexuality and infertilityed are nature's weapons to combat over-population or the continuation of 'unwanted' genes. I'm all for people not having families if they are genetically predisposed to not wanting them.
I'm sorry, but having fewer kids will kill our economy. Don't think so? Look, if the national average is 1 kid for every set of parents, when those parents retire, who is going to pay their social security? There is a crisis emerging in Europe and China because while population growth has declined, in some cases on purpose, the older generation is retiring leaving a smaller generation than the one retiring to front the bill. A burden like this will either leave a bunch of elderly out in the snow or a tax burden so huge that it will cripple the economy. BAD IDEA.

There is no over population problems when growth is adequately planned. To maintain pensions amongst retired folks we need to be having 3.5 kids per family, and refine social security. Thank the lord that we're seeing an influx of Catholics from Mexico.

[Hogan11]

Hogan those two are completely related. If you are Steel worker and they put a steel tarrif measure on the ballot, there is a high likelihood that you will show up that election cycle and vote on that meassure. Additionally you'll vote for all the other stuff you like too. T

here were values issues on the ballot this election and that is precisely what motivated these conservative to get to the polls. Yes, it was a good voter drive, but with deep personal issues on the ballot, that made the GOP's job much easier.

Introducing hot button social topics like gay marriage was designed to do just that.....that was part of the GOP strategy to energize thier base...the whole thing about gay marriage was introduced by W with the election in mind...it was all by design and planned from the get go to get the Evangelical Christians who turned their back on W in 2000 because of his DUI out to the polls to counter the perceived great number of young voters who were being courted by the DNC....and they appeared to be great in number as well...but they were only there for the music...that was something the DNC apparently didn't plan upon.

[Kaylore]

polls to counter the perceived great number of young voters who were being courted by the DNC....and they appeared to be great in number as well...but they were only there for the music...that was something the DNC apparently didn't plan upon.

Yeah, you can't look to the youth to bail out your election. That's the LAST group who'll help you.

[Hogan11]

Yeah, you can't look to the youth to bail out your election. That's the LAST group who'll help you.

They evidently thought draft fears, eroding civil liberties and war were enough to get them motivated.....they were unfortunately wrong.

[broncohaven]

1- I won't do it, but it shouldn't be illegal. Most of the negatives come from the fact that it's illegal. Screen the whores, screen the users and tax the hell out of both of them.

2- No brainer. People are people. Gay, black, yellow, tattoed, bigotted, they deserve equal rights. Call it civil union or whatever you want. Gay people don't care what it's called they just want eqaul rights. The moral issue is not an issue. There is no sanctity left in marriage.

3- If it grows it's legal. No one has ever died of a pot overdose. there's no such thing as marijuana poisoning, and dope has been proven 7 times less addictive than caffeine. When I was cited for posessing marijuana the cop said to me "I can't wait until they legalize this stuff. I've responded to thousands of calls for drunk ans disorderly, but never to a stoned and disorderly. And it will free us up to deal with real problems." that blew me away.

[Samiwindr]

There is no over population problems when growth is adequately planned. To maintain pensions amongst retired folks we need to be having 3.5 kids per family, and refine social security. Thank the lord that we're seeing an influx of Catholics from Mexico.

That would be great if we could actually educate and find good paying jobs for our kids inside the country. Unfortunately, that's not how it's trending. BTW, that influx of Catholics from Mexico are having their fifth kid at the hospital on your dime while their hubby gets a day pass out of jail to attend the birth (this is actually a true account from my friend's wife who is a nurse in the Mother/Baby Unit - un-frikkin'-believable). Not exactly the type of individuals that will be contributing toward your retirement...

People are having fewer kids today becuase having a family is too expensive. Unless you are very fortunate and can afford a nanny, the parents are forced to walk a double edged sword. Have a stay-at-home parent and sacrifice the income or both go back to work and have a dysfunctional child? I'm convinced that most of the problems we see with youth today are the result of parental neglect.

[Atlas]

[QUOTE=Husky Jerk]I think the thing that you are missing is that the reality is our country was founded by religious zealots. Yes there were a few exceptions, but by and large, religion is why the U.S. came into being. And religion is not a bad thing, until it becomes obssesive and intolerant. QUOTE]

I agree with that. I know most people will disagree with what I say. Everyone thinks the pilgrams were these great people that came here and made peace with the Indians. When in reality they were Puritans and had one of the most repressive societies ever. Not only did they remove the indians they were also responsible for the Salem witchtrials....anyway that's neither here nor there..People will always want to dictate to other people on how to live... "For their own good" Seat belt laws, helmet laws, suicide laws ect....

[Rock Chalk]

I hear this argument all the time, and I think it's wrong. Moral decay did not kill the Roman empire.. the Roman empire collapsed under it's own weight. It simply got to big for the Romans to manage. Rome lost touch with the people it ruled (on the edges of the empire). The people had lost control of government and the empire became a government controlled by the military, as opposed to a military controlled by the government. This is why the empire had something like 29 rulers in 104 years... the military brought them to power, and then cut them down (literally) when they tired of them. Couple this with excessive poverty throughout the empire, and you have the recipe for the fall of an empire.

Thats wrong too enjorlas. Rome fell because it no longer was fighting to conquer. It was merely fighting to defend for too many years. Instead of making peace with its neighbors, it remained gaurded enemies with them.

The toll of the military coupled with the decadence of Rome over the years (as the brief period when the old Gods were worshipped less and less and Christianity really took hold) where the downfall of rome. In part, a decadent society lacking any values as they gave up their gods (in favor of other ones, but over a period of time).

Further, the Roman religion was not a high scepter of morality in the grand scheme of things but it was a uniter of THEIR morality and while much of what they did was kinda sickening to me (pedophilia was common as was homosexuality, not to mention non sexual matters like corruption) it was quite normal in Roman times. However, even this was regulated in its decadence to an extant by the older gods but grew far worse in its corruption and moral depravity as they slowly faded from popular belief and worship.

Rome also was not getting any richer because it had ceased to extend its boundries. It could not support itself because of economy, not so much that it was too big. Rome was made the world smaller by building roads everywhere in their empire. People could travel relatively quickly anywhere in the Roman world (compared to Persia or China or Egpyt pre-roman conquering). The matter of commerce was not a problem, it was lack of gold and places to find it and sustain the massive armies needed to protect rome. Poor guidance by a government(dictator, Rome was no longer a Republic at this time) that refused to ally itself with anything or anyone, decadence of moral decline and lack of funds to keep it all afloat are the reasons behind the fall of rome.

Yes that was far too much of a response, but I wanted to make it clear that moral decadence did contribute to the fall of rome.


Thus, the real question is 'must the government legislate morality' and the answer (in my mind) is no. Americas greatest strength is freedom.. not just literal freedom, but our strong belief in the power of freedom ('Americanism'). The legislation of morality is diametrically opposed to that. We as Americans must be free to practice freedom, and that doesn't just include things that are popular.. freedom doesn't mean simply 'your free to beleive like the majority' after all.

Legislation of morality must always pass the fundamental test I gave above. 'The rights of an individual end only where the right of others begins'. Murder, robbery, etc.. all pass that test. It's not clear to me that most of the other 'values' issues pass that, however.

There is still grey area, and there will always be debate. After all, if abortion passes that test largely depends on your view about the status of an unborn child. There is legitimate debate there.. but for the most part we should leave it to society to define what it wants to look like.

I agree with most of this, however I also believe that things of this nature are not decided by the government, but the people. As in the case of this election where the ban on gay marriage was put on the ballot. The people voted on it because they felt strongly enough about it one way or another. You can always leave it blank you know. I left several of the things on my ballot blank because I did not have a strong enough opinion about it to vote one way or another and therefore I wont care one way or the other whathappens with that stuff. If no one voted, nothing like that would get on a ballot again because the people dont care.

What gives? People care. Therein lies the problem and this shows that given the chance to vote on something of this nature, the people will because they believe it should be mandated by law.

[Atlas]

I'm not a religious person so If people feel uncomfortable letting gay people get married but are fine with gay people having civil unions.. Well, to me it's all semantics. Gay couples should be able to have a piece of paper saying they are legal bound to another person. You know if a gay guy is in bed dying in some states the hospitals won't let their "companion" in the room because he isn't family.. That's just redicules... We need to move forward as a society not backward.

[Rock Chalk]

I'm not a religious person so If people feel uncomfortable letting gay people get married but are fine with gay people having civil unions.. Well, to me it's all semantics. Gay couples should be able to have a piece of paper saying they are legal bound to another person. You know if a gay guy is in bed dying in some states the hospitals won't let their "companion" in the room because he isn't family.. That's just redicules... We need to move forward as a society not backward.

I agree with gay civil union. And I believe even married couples (man and woman) who do not get married under a religious ceremony not be called married but civil union.

Marriage ine very culture began as a religious ceremony and has been celebrated as such since before civilization. Only recently have people been getting married under non-religious methods (through the court, whatever). So, to me it is a matter of semantics. To me, marriage is a religious ceremony by a man and a woman to commit to each other. Civil union, which could have the same exact pro's and cons in society as a marriage would just be semantically a union between two people to commit to each other under law of the government.

So for me its a religious thing. Call it something else, theres the loop hole, and you satisfy 90% of the people against it now.

[Atlas]

I agree with gay civil union. And I believe even married couples (man and woman) who do not get married under a religious ceremony not be called married but civil union.

Marriage ine very culture began as a religious ceremony and has been celebrated as such since before civilization. Only recently have people been getting married under non-religious methods (through the court, whatever). So, to me it is a matter of semantics. To me, marriage is a religious ceremony by a man and a woman to commit to each other. Civil union, which could have the same exact pro's and cons in society as a marriage would just be semantically a union between two people to commit to each other under law of the government.

So for me its a religious thing. Call it something else, theres the loop hole, and you satisfy 90% of the people against it now.

I agree with what you said... Call it something else because it is SOMETHING else.

[Hogan11]

I don't see why anyone really cares...I'm not gay and I don't care what they decide to do or not do...I mind my own business.

IMO, the world would be a much better place if people just minded their own business instead of trying to tend, change, or inhibit the affairs of other people.

[Atlas]

I don't see why anyone really cares...I'm not gay and I don't care what they decide to do or not do...I mind my own business.

IMO, the world would be a much better place if people just minded their own business instead of trying to tend, change, or inhibit the affairs of other people.

People care because they think about issues, reason it out and come to a conclusion. Some people think gays are immoral and shouldn't have legal unions while other people come to the conclusion that gays have been around as long as man and that it's not right that they can't have the same rights, and benefits as married people. Either way it's better than someone who just says..Oops doesn't affect me why should I care... That kind of reasoning is what causes ignorance. By saying that someone could say.. "Well, I have a good job and the World Trade Center attacks didn't affect me so what should I care??"

[Raider Bill]

I don't see why anyone really cares...I'm not gay and I don't care what they decide to do or not do...I mind my own business.
.

I wouldn't care if they left it at that, but Gay Marriage has or in some cases will be added to the public school ciruculum and presented in a manner that's incompatable with my beliefs. It becomes woven into the whole "societal fabric" if you will. Like it or not it's an agenda being forced on the American public that hardly anyone agrees with.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court tried to change a thousands of year old societal norm ,in an end run around the legislature, by devining some supposed "civil right" to get married. Everyone is STILL free to get married but it has to be to someone of the opposite sex. Friggin simple as that.

[Hogan11]

People care because they think about issues, reason it out and come to a conclusion. Some people think gays are immoral and shouldn't have legal unions while other people come to the conclusion that gays have been around as long as man and that it's not right that they can't have the same rights, and benefits as married people.

Of course you can come to your own conclusion on the issues...it's when you try to impose your view and conclusion upon someone else, that's when you're wrong. If you don't agree with it, you have the right to change the channel, but you don't have the right to take it off of the TV, so to speak.

Either way it's better than someone who just says..Oops doesn't affect me why should I care... That kind of reasoning is what causes ignorance. By saying that someone could say.. "Well, I have a good job and the World Trade Center attacks didn't affect me so what should I care??"

So, not bothering someone who harbors different views from your own amounts to ignorance eh? Yeah, okay...whatever.

[Hogan11]

I wouldn't care if they left it at that, but Gay Marriage has or in some cases will be added to the public school ciruculum and presented in a manner that's incompatable with my beliefs. It becomes woven into the whole "societal fabric" if you will. Like it or not it's an agenda being forced on the American public that hardly anyone agrees with.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court tried to change a thousands of year old societal norm ,in an end run around the legislature, by devining some supposed "civil right" to get married. Everyone is STILL free to get married but it has to be to someone of the opposite sex. Friggin simple as that.

I seen this news report...they wanted "two individuals" changed to "a man and a woman"...I don't see the big friggin deal in that, sorry.

Personally, I wouldn't care if someone wanted to marry a head of lettuce, lamp, golf clubs, bedsheets or whatever....that's their deal and while I may not agree with what they do..I do not have the right to tell them not to do it.

[broncogary]

I seen this news report...they wanted "two individuals" changed to "a man and a woman"...I don't see the big friggin deal in that, sorry.

Personally, I wouldn't care if someone wanted to marry a head of lettuce, lamp, golf clubs, bedsheets or whatever....that's their deal and while I may not agree with what they do..I do not have the right to tell them not to do it.

You should move to Wyoming. LOL

[Kaylore]

I'm convinced that most of the problems we see with youth today are the result of parental neglect.
I agree with you. I do think people have fewer kids because its easier, but I hardly think its because they can't afford them. The affluent are among the groups who have the fewest kids, and many poor are having too many. I think in the former its a cultural thing and in the latter its a need for education.

[Atlas]

I never said that if you disagree with me your ignorant. I said that people who don't take on issues just because it doesn't affect them directly CAUSES ignorance. I didn't call anyone ignorant.

[ClevelandBronco]

I'm a Christian, straight ticket Republican and I'll play the game.

#1: Adult prostitution should not be illegal.

To tell you the truth, I can't contrive a good reason for prostitution to be illegal.

Your premise includes a requirement that the rights of some third party must be jeopardized by the actions of the two parties included in the transaction, so I'll try this: The third party whose rights may be violated here may be a wife who is entitled to half of the assets and earnings of a husband who may choose to enter into a free and legal transaction with a prostitute. The easiest argument to make against that point of view would be that a husband might choose to buy a power tool without consulting his wife and there's no considerable harm to her in that kind of a tranaction. I really have no reason to outlaw the practice. I'd really be left only to do my best to discourage a friend of mine from engaging in either end of the transaction.

Gay marraige should not be illegal.

Gay marriage should not be sanctioned by the government. Neither should heterosexual marriage. Get government out of the marriage recognition business entirely and leave that argument to the churches. God invented marriage; let Him sort it out. The courts will be left to decide asset allocation and child welfare issues in marriages that are dissolved as a matter of law between contractual participants.

Most drugs should be legalized.

There are practices that are just too costly to the individual and government sometimes claims jurisdiction over such matters. Assisted suicide is just such a matter and drug use falls somewhere between assisted suicide and casual cigarette use. This one is tough. Drug use can lead to behavior that is dangerous to people who aren't involved in the transaction. If a guy whacked out on legal government sanctioned crack does a driveby on a local Target store because it seems like a good idea to said whacked out individual, I don't think the dealer isn't somehow responsible. About the only way this could work is to have drug colonies with high walls so the users could only hurt each other. It's a can of worms that I just can't see us opening. There is a price paid by society any way you set this one up.

But in case you can figure out a way to protect everyone's rights in all these kinds of transactions, I'd point out that if we are successful in instituting a national sales tax instead of an income tax, the point about prostitution and drugs becoming revenue streams for the government is no longer applicable. The dollars will be taxed as they are spent by their earners.

[Rock Chalk]

Exactly.. Thats because drugs are illegal and hard to get.. How many people are in jail because of them stealing money for beer?? None... well, maybe some teenagersLOL... If drugs were sold similar to the way beer is sold than you wouldn't have huge Columbian cartels murdering people, you wouldn't have all these street gangs killing each other for drugs.. What happened when Alcohol was outlawed. The Mafia ala Al Capone became huge and made all their money off liquor sales once it was legalized the mafia had to try to find other avenues to make money which for most of them was drugs...

Plus if certain drugs were legal the governement would be able to regulate them like they do cigs and beer plus they would also be able to get HUGE money from taxation. I'm not saying heroin should be legal but I would have no problem with pot. Actually, I wouldn't have no problem with herion either. People have to be responsible for their own actions. You can't have the Govn regulate everything just because some people are irresponsible..
My Uncle was in Vietnam, he was a hippie and he has smoked pot for 40 years now... bigh deal... he goes to work, pays taxes, votes and is a responsible human being

Drugs legal will still cost money and if you have never seen a crackhead go through 500 bucks a night in stolen money or goods spent on crack then you are in for a rude awakening. Not all crimes committed by drug users are because drugs are illegal, its because they have a habit that is expensive even if you drop the price by making them legal (which, btw, will not happen, prices will probably go up and quality go down if made legal).

Either way, broke crackheads will have to get the money to supoprt their addiction legal or not and instead of drug dealers having to deal with it, convenience store clerks will.

What happens when a heroin addict or crack addict with no money needs his or her fix and goes to the local 7-11 for a fix with a pistol and shoots the clerk for the drugs?

Tell me thats a victimless crime.

Some drugs are not as bad, true, as far as crimes go, like bud. However, bud destroys ambition to do anything but eat and play video games. Take it fres, it from me. Yes it is entirely possible control a weed habit because it is not physically addictive, but it is psychologically addictive which can have just as bad a detriment to the individual and thus, to society as a whole as a physical addiction can have.

Legalizing drugs is not the answer to the drug problem. Treating the problem is the answer through rehab, therapy and education.

[Atlas]

Drugs legal will still cost money and if you have never seen a crackhead go through 500 bucks a night in stolen money or goods spent on crack then you are in for a rude awakening. Not all crimes committed by drug users are because drugs are illegal, its because they have a habit that is expensive even if you drop the price by making them legal (which, btw, will not happen, prices will probably go up and quality go down if made legal).

Either way, broke crackheads will have to get the money to supoprt their addiction legal or not and instead of drug dealers having to deal with it, convenience store clerks will.

What happens when a heroin addict or crack addict with no money needs his or her fix and goes to the local 7-11 for a fix with a pistol and shoots the clerk for the drugs?

Tell me thats a victimless crime.

Some drugs are not as bad, true, as far as crimes go, like bud. However, bud destroys ambition to do anything but eat and play video games. Take it fres, it from me. Yes it is entirely possible control a weed habit because it is not physically addictive, but it is psychologically addictive which can have just as bad a detriment to the individual and thus, to society as a whole as a physical addiction can have.

Legalizing drugs is not the answer to the drug problem. Treating the problem is the answer through rehab, therapy and education.

Don't legalize all drugs, I'm not infavor of that right away. Go ahead and legalize pot. That will take a tremendous burden of the American legal system, Empty out the prisons to make more room for violent prisoners, It will also give a way for the gov. to regulate pot and give a huge tax base for the Gov.

I can't remember where this happened but prostitution became legal and all the whores were happy now that it was legal.. What they found out that since it was legal they now had to set up a business, pay taxes and fill out paper work. One of them said she wished it would go back to being illegal because it was easier for her...

[No1BroncoFan]

This is just stupid. I mean no offense but this is the lamest argument to make drugs legal. Drugs hurt more than just the person losing them. GO ask any family who has had to deal with a crackhead or heroin addict in their immediate family who is affected by drug usage. Go ask the mother whose son was killed over drugs that they didnt hurt anyone but themselves.

Drugs may SEEM like a victimless crime, but when taken into account the crimes committed because of drugs, the lives affected by those close to someone addicted on drugs make it a multi victim crime.
Your argument against the legalization of drugs is good, but it has a hole. It's easier for teenage kids to get smack than it is for them to get beer. Legalizing and controlling them (much like alcahol) would eliminate much of that. Lowering the prices and eliminating the black market profit would break the back of the drug cartels. Our war on drugs, which have no hope in hell of winning with our current methods, would effectively be over. Taxes on drugs could then be turned to addiction treatment.

Ben

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

#1: Adult prostitution should not be illegal. After all, it is an act between two consenting adults that does not abridge on the rights of others. From a societal point of view, taxing the revenues would bring in millions of additional dollars.

Legalize it. What two adults do behind closed doors is nobody's business but their own.
Hate to be a cynic here, but all male/female romantic/sexual relationships are ultimately a form of prostitution. Bottom line: some women are in it for fifty percent of the gross while others are in it for 300 bucks a night. The former group dislikes the latter inasmuch as working girls are like scabs crossing the picket line.

#2: Gay marraige should not be illegal. It involves two people, and doesn't impact society in any way.

I really couldn't give a tinker's f*ck less. (Refer to #1, sentences one and two.) In fact, I don't want to know about it. Who other people are schtupping is none of my bidness. Gays getting married is of no concern to me.

#3: Most drugs should be legalized. After all, the user is only hurting himself. The tax argument also applies.

Drugs should not be legalized. Drug users (yes, this includes users of the last legal drug) are unconscious idiots who drag society down in a number of ways. The ways in which drug users (particularly problem users/drinkers) adversely impact others are too numerous to document here. However, more emphasis should be placed on prevention and treatment than on incarceration and punishment, IMO.

The two most important reasons legalization of addictive drugs would be bad:

1) A new industry similar to the alcohol and tobacco industries would arise, employing the same sleazy techniques of marketing poison to our young people and children. "Afghani heroin is hip--you heard it first here on emptyV."

2) Violent crime and crimes against property would go up as new addicts have to fund their habits. (The government isn't going to legalize this sh*t unless doing so is somehow as profitable as the current black market.)