ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 2:23 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 04, 2005 10:35 pm 
Offline
<font color=red><b>STALKER/FAG ALERT.
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 2:38 am
Posts: 1579
Eh. I'll vote for the Republican candidate, unless the Democrats backflip on their stances on abortion and gay marriage.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 04, 2005 11:33 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3142
Location: Detroit
Thinman wrote:
Grah... I'd vote for McCain in a heartbeat before I'd vote for the senator from New York. An independent Republican ready to make actual government reforms sounds a hellofalot better at this point than a conservative Democrat without any visible platform... Of course, I doubt either will run.

Anyways, the <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/31/national/main698727.shtml">future of justice</a> is here, now.

nick012000 wrote:
Eh. I'll vote for the Republican candidate, unless the Democrats backflip on their stances on abortion and gay marriage.

I invite you to explain (in Debate Club, if you wish) how both or either of these issues affect you, personally.


Unless he was either a failed abortion, had an abortion, or had a child aborted I will be highly interested in seeing if he can come up with one way in which either of them effects his life. Especially if he can justify forcing his ideas on other people.

_________________
Why are you not wearing my pants?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 04, 2005 11:58 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:43 pm
Posts: 1096
Lifyre wrote:
Thinman wrote:
nick012000 wrote:
Eh. I'll vote for the Republican candidate, unless the Democrats backflip on their stances on abortion and gay marriage.

I invite you to explain (in Debate Club, if you wish) how both or either of these issues affect you, personally.


Unless he was either a failed abortion, had an abortion, or had a child aborted I will be highly interested in seeing if he can come up with one way in which either of them effects his life. Especially if he can justify forcing his ideas on other people.


In any case, I really do want to hear what he has to say.

There's been a noticeable lack of people willing to voice alternate (non-liberal, secular, pseudo-libertarian) views around the forum lately, and I don't like it. That sort of thing leads to internet echo chamber effect -- closed-in groups of people patting themselves on the back and telling each other <i>"Of course we're right and they're wrong"</i> without ever really bringing their beliefs into sharp focus.

_________________
Always watching, ever vigilant


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 2:27 am 
Offline
<font color=red><b>STALKER/FAG ALERT.
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 2:38 am
Posts: 1579
Thinman wrote:
Lifyre wrote:
Thinman wrote:
nick012000 wrote:
Eh. I'll vote for the Republican candidate, unless the Democrats backflip on their stances on abortion and gay marriage.

I invite you to explain (in Debate Club, if you wish) how both or either of these issues affect you, personally.


Unless he was either a failed abortion, had an abortion, or had a child aborted I will be highly interested in seeing if he can come up with one way in which either of them effects his life. Especially if he can justify forcing his ideas on other people.


In any case, I really do want to hear what he has to say.

There's been a noticeable lack of people willing to voice alternate (non-liberal, secular, pseudo-libertarian) views around the forum lately, and I don't like it. That sort of thing leads to internet echo chamber effect -- closed-in groups of people patting themselves on the back and telling each other <i>"Of course we're right and they're wrong"</i> without ever really bringing their beliefs into sharp focus.


It doesn't affect me at all, any more than a man with a rifle killing a few dozen people in a shooting spree affects me. But that doesn't stop either of them from being murder. And I won't vote for somebody who explicitly condones murder.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:14 am 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 2:17 pm
Posts: 5983
Location: Around about there.
nick012000 wrote:
And I won't vote for somebody who explicitly condones murder.

Capital punishment is still legal in many US states, guns are legal, use of deadly force by police and in self defense are legal, invasions of other countries (along with all the killing of people that goes with it) are perfectly fine, but the merest whiff of support for abortion and/or euthanasia and you're gone?

I'd have thought that if someone explicitly condones murder, then at least they're public about it rather than those who would implicitly condone it...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:34 am 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 11:09 pm
Posts: 555
Location: Ziapangu
Thinman wrote:
There's been a noticeable lack of people willing to voice alternate (non-liberal, secular, pseudo-libertarian) views around the forum lately, and I don't like it. That sort of thing leads to internet echo chamber effect -- closed-in groups of people patting themselves on the back and telling each other <i>"Of course we're right and they're wrong"</i> without ever really bringing their beliefs into sharp focus.


Don't know if this qualifies as "alternate", but here is my two cents. First, to clarify my basic stance, I am a free-market capitalist who tries as much as possible to follow Natural Law as opposed to Political Law.

To define my terms:
- Capitalism is a system of transactions based on voluntary agreements without force, coercion or fraud. It is also a moral system in which the individual has the exclusive right to their person and their property, including the fruits of their labor.

Natural Law can be summed up in 17 words:
1- Do all you have agreed to do, and
2- Do not encroach on other persons or their property.
The first of these is the basis for business law (contract law).
The second is the basis for criminal and tort law.
Natural Law is based on unchanging principles that are "discovered" and "applied equally" to all entities including corporations and government.

Political law is artificial law or man-made law. It does not require logic or morals, and changes with the political wind. Political Law is a system for creating privileges and advantages, and political power can be defined as the privilege of being able use force or the threat of force (coercion) to make others act as you wish, even if they have done nothing wrong.

These are of course gross simplifications, but I felt they were necessary before commenting in this thread so that there is some basis for evaluating my comments.

----------

First, on abortion.
The only issue is at what point *human* life starts. Some people say at conception, others say not until live birth. I am no expert on the matter, but feel that it is probably somewhere inbetween, since a fertilized egg or bunch of dividing cells cannot survive and grow on their own, but there are cases of extreme "premies" developing into functional human beings. Regardless, a logical and scientific judgment should be reached as to when *human* life starts, and once that point has been determined, then anything before it is choice, and anything after it is murder as per Natural Law #2 above. (Exception: when the mother's life is at stake) And as for people having and performing partial-birth abortions, fuck them. They should be dismembered and have their skulls crushed and their brains sucked out as they scream in pain during the final moments of their ugly lives.

Second, on gay marriage.
Personally, I don't give a fuck about gay marriage because I don't think the government should be involved in marriage in the first place. Marriage should be a private issue between two people (and their church/god if applicable), and government should not be in the business of providing marriage benefits or applying penalties. Everything else can be handled through separate legal means such as contracts, wills and insurance policies, so there is not even any need for "civil unions". If two people want to be together, then so be it. Just don't force me to support or associate with them if I don't want to, or prevent me from doing so if I want to. If a company wants to give or not give marriage benefits according to their own standards, then that is between the company, the employees, the stockholders and the customers. If a "family group" wants to publicize and/or boycott the company, well, that is their choice. Other people can boycott the family group if they want. It's called "freedom of association" folks.

As for politics, I guess my basic stance can be summed up as: "Leave me the fuck alone." I see little or no difference between Republocrats, Demoblicans, liberals, conservatives or any other political do-gooders. They can all be lumped under the term "compassionate fascists" -- "We are so concerned about you that we are going to force you to act how we think is best and support programs and causes we think are worthy."

Fuck that. With a nail-studded baseball bat.
As long as I am following the two Natural Laws, what gives anyone the right to tell me what I must or mustn't do/think? Just leave me the fuck alone, and don't even think of telling me to get involved in politics. I have no intention of validating a system that is fundamentally corrupt. If you really think that your vote matters, then go buy some lottery tickets, because for your vote to matter you would have to be the swing vote in the swing district in the swing state in the closest election in history. All elections above the most local level do is distract people who are too stupid or lazy to do the math with a public spectacle (bread and circuses, anyone?) and then let them slap each other on the back or bitch and moan until the next election.

Yeah, right.

For various reasons I voted once with my feet 16 years ago, and in the spirit of free association and ostracism, my production, consumption, taxes and other activities currently contribute to the locality that I feel treats me best. And if things change, I may very well "vote" again. This is the digital age, people, and we are mobile. Don't get fixated on "Big Brother" -- start thinking in terms of "Big Hotelkeeper". If the hotel you are staying in is excessively expensive, unsafe or the hotel management harasses the guests, well then maybe you should think about moving to a different hotel. And don't give me any "patriotism" crap, either, because more often than not that is just a thin veneer of nationalism over smoldering fascism. Your ancestors were not traitors to their homelands when they moved to where you live now. They were just looking for freedom and/or a better life. If you think things are intolerable or better opportunities exist elsewhere, then do something about it. Just don't sit and bitch about it like a bunch of Hollywood stars.

Regardless of which side is in control, governments and courts have a history of working for their own interests and expanding their power at the expense of the governed. You can try and fight it if you want, but you probably won't succeed, and you may just end up turning into some version of what you hate. So let the government and courts do what they want and stop worrying about it. The smart people will look around for better alternatives, and the remainder will get the government they deserve. And if things really get bad enough, then the country will be residually populated by idiots and parasites.

Call it Macro Social Darwinism. :)

_________________
Democracy is not liberty. It is majority rule, which is mob rule. We live in a Mobocracy.

"Political power is the game of playing God. It changes a person and makes him different from the rest of us. He begins to believe he has some kind of right to interfere in the lives of others. He may even believe he has the right to choose who lives and who dies."
— Richard Maybury


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 4:03 am 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 11:09 pm
Posts: 555
Location: Ziapangu
Vass wrote:
Capital punishment is still legal in many US states, guns are legal, use of deadly force by police and in self defense are legal, invasions of other countries (along with all the killing of people that goes with it) are perfectly fine, but the merest whiff of support for abortion and/or euthanasia and you're gone?


Under Natural Law, most of those examples (the exception being invasions of other countries = initiatory force) are not murder.

This is because Natural Law is itself a voluntary contract. If you agree to abide by the Law, then you gain the benefits of the Law's protection. If you choose to live outside the Law, then you lose the Law's protection. (Hence the term "outlaw") It is all free choice. Thus, aside from the fact that capital punishment is extremely wasteful and begs the question of restitution to victims and/or their kin, it is not murder under Natural Law since the criminal has technically forfeited his protection under the Law. The use of justifiable force in self defense is similar, and can best be described by the original "Natural Rights of the colonists," these being "first, a right to life, second, to liberty, third, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can."

Abortion and euthanasia are touchy issues because there has been no forfeit of the Law's protection (unless of course the person truly wishes to die and/or has in place a valid living will, in which case their wishes should be accomodated). It all comes down to making a scientific and logical judgment as to what constitutes human life. Because once a right-to-life issue has been decided through political means instead of science and logic, then that legal system is sitting on the same foundations as that of Nazi Germany, which also enacted "laws" that progressively declared more and more people as "undesireable".

Something either is or is not a "human". I am not enough of an expert to say exactly where to draw this line, but I do know that morality is not subject to quantitative amendment. That is to say the question of "what constitutes life?" is not subject to majority rule, and I would not want to live in any society where it was.

At the very least, until we are reasonably certain one way or the other, then IMO it would be safest to err on the side of life.

ˇ

_________________
Democracy is not liberty. It is majority rule, which is mob rule. We live in a Mobocracy.

"Political power is the game of playing God. It changes a person and makes him different from the rest of us. He begins to believe he has some kind of right to interfere in the lives of others. He may even believe he has the right to choose who lives and who dies."
— Richard Maybury


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 4:22 am 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 2:17 pm
Posts: 5983
Location: Around about there.
KirimaNagi wrote:
Vass wrote:
Capital punishment is still legal in many US states, guns are legal, use of deadly force by police and in self defense are legal, invasions of other countries (along with all the killing of people that goes with it) are perfectly fine, but the merest whiff of support for abortion and/or euthanasia and you're gone?


Under Natural Law, most of those examples (the exception being invasions of other countries = initiatory force) are not murder.

This is because Natural Law is itself a voluntary contract. If you agree to abide by the Law, then you gain the benefits of the Law's protection. If you choose to live outside the Law, then you lose the Law's protection. (Hence the term "outlaw") It is all free choice. Thus, aside from the fact that capital punishment is extremely wasteful and begs the question of restitution to victims and/or their kin, it is not murder under Natural Law since the criminal has technically forfeited his protection under the Law. The use of justifiable force in self defense is similar, and can best be described by the original "Natural Rights of the colonists," these being "first, a right to life, second, to liberty, third, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can."

I've been through a reasonable facsimile of that debate before, and it is my considered opinion that you have a right to that opinion, I have a right to my opinion and we both have a right to disagree and say no more about it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 7:51 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1004
Location: Denton County
Vass wrote:
nick012000 wrote:
And I won't vote for somebody who explicitly condones murder.

Capital punishment is still legal in many US states, guns are legal, use of deadly force by police and in self defense are legal, invasions of other countries (along with all the killing of people that goes with it) are perfectly fine, but the merest whiff of support for abortion and/or euthanasia and you're gone?


What kind of killing is worse? Destroying a creature before it can see the light of day, or killing a man who made the conscious choice to invade your home?

_________________
DNI'ed by Wandering Idiot for my complete and utter lack of any special talent whatsoever.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 8:06 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3142
Location: Detroit
nick012000 wrote:
Thinman wrote:
Lifyre wrote:
Thinman wrote:
nick012000 wrote:
Eh. I'll vote for the Republican candidate, unless the Democrats backflip on their stances on abortion and gay marriage.

I invite you to explain (in Debate Club, if you wish) how both or either of these issues affect you, personally.


Unless he was either a failed abortion, had an abortion, or had a child aborted I will be highly interested in seeing if he can come up with one way in which either of them effects his life. Especially if he can justify forcing his ideas on other people.


In any case, I really do want to hear what he has to say.

There's been a noticeable lack of people willing to voice alternate (non-liberal, secular, pseudo-libertarian) views around the forum lately, and I don't like it. That sort of thing leads to internet echo chamber effect -- closed-in groups of people patting themselves on the back and telling each other <i>"Of course we're right and they're wrong"</i> without ever really bringing their beliefs into sharp focus.


It doesn't affect me at all, any more than a man with a rifle killing a few dozen people in a shooting spree affects me. But that doesn't stop either of them from being murder. And I won't vote for somebody who explicitly condones murder.


Except the guy with the gun could shoot you. Last I checked it's hard to abort someone after they're born much less capable of typing on a computer. Until the child reaches about the 7th month (6th month at the extreme earliest) is has no life of it's own. It is nothing more than a fancy parasitic cancer in the mothers womb and cannot survive outside of it. You may not like that definition but it's true.

Until a child can be removed from the womb and stand a fair chance at surviving it is just an extension of the mother and has no life of it's own. I do not in anyway support late term abortions. I personally think if you've carried it that far and baring accident or attack (ie. the problem isn't your own damn fault) you will carry it to term (or c-section it) even if it kills you.

Now I approached that from a scientific point of view. If you don't like science (I doubt this is the case but...) you should throw that computer out and move in with the amish.

I do find it interesting that you chose to attempt to defend this choice. Is it because your other view is completely undefencable? If your church doesn't want em marry gay people then you know what? Don't, i see nothing wrong with that. I even understand and to some extent agree with the religious origins of aversion. If I didn't think the Bible was a great work of fiction I may even share them. However, if my church does want to marry gay people we bloody well should be allowed to, this is garunteed in the first amendment, and for the first time in history the government is being told to get the fuck out of that decision.

_________________
Why are you not wearing my pants?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 10:10 am 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 11:09 pm
Posts: 555
Location: Ziapangu
Lifyre wrote:
Until the child reaches about the 7th month (6th month at the extreme earliest) is has no life of it's own. It is nothing more than a fancy parasitic cancer in the mothers womb and cannot survive outside of it. You may not like that definition but it's true.

Until a child can be removed from the womb and stand a fair chance at surviving it is just an extension of the mother and has no life of it's own.


In terms of science/logic, this is more or less the viewpoint that I have arrived as well -- the stage of development where a child can be removed and cared for with a reasonable chance of survival and development into a functional person. I know that these statistics exist, so it should be a fairly easy matter to determine that stage of development, although "reasonable chance" is somewhat up to debate.

To deny that the fetus/child exists as a viable human being at this stage is roughly equivalent to saying that, should a mother die or be unable to carry to term for some reason, no attempt should be made or allowed to save the child because it is not a person.


And as for the party nominations, how about Hilary Clinton vs. Laura Bush?

t

_________________
Democracy is not liberty. It is majority rule, which is mob rule. We live in a Mobocracy.

"Political power is the game of playing God. It changes a person and makes him different from the rest of us. He begins to believe he has some kind of right to interfere in the lives of others. He may even believe he has the right to choose who lives and who dies."
— Richard Maybury


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 12:28 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 3:14 pm
Posts: 2045
I can understand why someone would be opposed to abortion. It is quite a gray area, and erring on the side of life seems like a logical choice, but honestly a wad of cells isn't sacred, to me at least. My stance on gay marriage alligns with Nagi's, but as there is no forseeable future in which the government pulls out of the affairs of married persons, I'll support gay marriage as an interim solution. The addage "There ain't a nickel of difference between them Democrats and Republicans, but you damn sure better vote on that nickel." comes to mind. Sure I'd love to see another party inter the fray, but untill one or the other parties completely destroys themselves, that isn't going to happen.

I absolutely hate it when people say "OMG politicz R teh boring so I'll go watch American Idol instead!!11!" or something to that degree. I can condone people who are intent on being idiots and assholes about their views (read those that don't agree with me), but I absolutely cannot see how anyone would choose not to have an oppinion. There is so much at stake in politics that I can't understand how someone would purposefully ignore them entirely.

_________________
All articles that coruscate with resplendence are not truly auriferous.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 8:21 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1004
Location: Denton County
KirimaNagi wrote:
To deny that the fetus/child exists as a viable human being at this stage is roughly equivalent to saying that, should a mother die or be unable to carry to term for some reason, no attempt should be made or allowed to save the child because it is not a person.


So all the efforts that we go through to save premature children are fruitless? If that were true I wouldn't be talking now. We are taking measures not to apply the death penalty to anyone under 18. Shouldn't that apply to them too?

_________________
DNI'ed by Wandering Idiot for my complete and utter lack of any special talent whatsoever.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 8:30 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3142
Location: Detroit
Marjin wrote:
KirimaNagi wrote:
To deny that the fetus/child exists as a viable human being at this stage is roughly equivalent to saying that, should a mother die or be unable to carry to term for some reason, no attempt should be made or allowed to save the child because it is not a person.


So all the efforts that we go through to save premature children are fruitless? If that were true I wouldn't be talking now. We are taking measures not to apply the death penalty to anyone under 18. Shouldn't that apply to them too?


No, go back and read it again. He's saying that before a certain point (Usually around the begining of the 7th month) there is a huge change in the survivability of the fetus. Before this point it cannot be considered viable outside the womb. After it should be considered a viable human being since it can feasibly survive without any support from the mother. There will be exceptions to this but until survival rates for the ones born on the early side of that line climb above 50% at the very minimum it isn't feasible.

_________________
Why are you not wearing my pants?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 8:33 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 11:09 pm
Posts: 555
Location: Ziapangu
[quote="Marjin"]So all the efforts that we go through to save premature children are fruitless? If that were true I wouldn't be talking now. We are taking measures not to apply the death penalty to anyone under 18. Shouldn't that apply to them too?[/qu ote]

Read what I said again, and then smack yourself on the forehead please.

(Hint: I was contrasting the double-standard of a society that will go great lengths to deliver and save premature children (= humans) while at the same time declaring that these unborn yet still viable infants are not human and can thus be aborted at the monther's will.)

/edit:
I do not have enough information to be certain on the viability threshold, so while I personally think that 50% is a bit too high of a cutoff, these are things that IMO should be approached from a scientific/logical point of view. Also, my own personal views (i.e. the standards to which I hold myself and to varying lesser degrees those I choose to associate with) may or may not match this viewpoint. I am merely saying that I think it is a bad idea for "right-to-life" and other vital issues to be decided simply by popular opinion, religious interpretation, or any other uninformed, emotional and/or otherwise non-scientific method, and that if I were going to argue for a particular standard to be applied equally to a diverse society, this is the one I would presently choose because I think it would be very difficult to logically argue a standard significantly shifted from that point. However, if someone can come up with a solid argument and/or facts that might affect this standard, I am of course open to discussion.



_________________
Democracy is not liberty. It is majority rule, which is mob rule. We live in a Mobocracy.

"Political power is the game of playing God. It changes a person and makes him different from the rest of us. He begins to believe he has some kind of right to interfere in the lives of others. He may even believe he has the right to choose who lives and who dies."
— Richard Maybury


Last edited by KirimaNagi on Sun Jun 05, 2005 8:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 8:35 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1004
Location: Denton County
KirimaNagi wrote:
Read what I said again, and then smack yourself on the forehead please.

(Hint: I was contrasting the double-standard of a society that will go great lengths to deliver and save premature children (= humans) while at the same time declaring that these unborn yet still viable infants are not human and can thus be aborted at the monther's will.)


My apologies. My ability to detect sarcasm after a double-shift at work is nil.

_________________
DNI'ed by Wandering Idiot for my complete and utter lack of any special talent whatsoever.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:39 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2001 5:00 pm
Posts: 4459
Location: Crawling up from the Harem
I have no problem with this thread being split to preside in the Debate Club or to stay in here. All I'm interested in is making sure that this doesn't turn into a Flame War or have people go ape-shit.

Of course I find it interesting that this thread started about Congress telling the Judiciary how and from what sources it can determine rulings then changed into Abortion and Gay Marriage but I'll throw in my two cents since I did start this thread. The responses garnered have been most interesting to read by the way so thanks to all for responding at least.

Concerning Gay Marriage, I believe it should be made legal. My state of Michigan had a proposal put up in the 2004 ballot of defining marriage as only between man and woman. I voted against it, but alas it was passed. As much as I didn't want it to pass it was the majority of the people voting, not the Politicians, that chose to pass the proposal. As a result, I can handle swallowing it better than if it was imposed by the Politicians. I still think however that it's a sad day in Michigan when it passed since our laws do dictate no discrimination against those of Race, Sex, Age, Deformity (Mental or Physical) and Sexual Orientation. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch, IMO to extend that to Same-sex marriage.

As for Abortion, I'm siding with the Scientific approach over theological approach for all the reasons brought up in the previous posts. However, I'm not as polarized about it. I'm sure it's because I have no kids and don't plan to have any in my lifetime - One Pervy is enough for the world - and I'm sure this would change if my life encountered upbringing a child but as of now I'm letting those that feel more passionate about it speak and bloviate.

On a related thought, I do find it wierd to have people speaking against same-sex couples adopting children as I think this would help solve both problems at once. The whole "two birds with one stone" approach. Allow recognition of same sex marriages and the available numbers of couples that can take children increases highly, thus paving way for those that wish to Ban abortions to do so and let those children in needs of homes and families get them if their birth parents don't want the kids.

Am I right in this?

_________________
Member of The Bishounen God's Cult of Lovers

Sifu of Corpse Child

Caecus fides est hostilis veritatis

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 7:00 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 11:25 am
Posts: 2561
Location: Seoul, South Korea
BandMan2K wrote:
On a related thought, I do find it wierd to have people speaking against same-sex couples adopting children as I think this would help solve both problems at once. The whole "two birds with one stone" approach. Allow recognition of same sex marriages and the available numbers of couples that can take children increases highly, thus paving way for those that wish to Ban abortions to do so and let those children in needs of homes and families get them if their birth parents don't want the kids.


I think the general idea in that particularly abombinable restriction is that being raised by a same-sex couple might somehow "pollute" the child. That it would definitely result in the child being cared for and loved rather than placed in a string of group homes and foster families without enough resources to provide for all the parentless children they're trying to help seems to be irrelevant to those in favor of it.

Which is sad, really. In my experience, the sexuality of a couple has very little to do with how fit they are to raise a child. There are homosexuals who would make fantastic fathers and mothers, and biological parents who by common opinion should be shot before they're ever allowed near their kids again.

To be perfectly honest... it has always mystified me why people get so upset about homosexuality. I just don't see what's so terrible or scary about it, or why it's anyone's business. This is a subject which has been troubling me since I was about 9 (which is when I first learned that the couple I hadn't even noticed was unusual was considered incredibly vile by the children I went to school with), and almost a dozen years later, it still doesn't make sense.

-_-'

_________________
I <3 Parker


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 7:02 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 2:44 pm
Posts: 1821
Location: Home! Wheeeeee!
Re: The original topic -- I'm moving to Marcharius.

Re: the rest...

Mariage as a religious service is no affair of the government, marriage as a civil contract is no affair of religion. I will pack my bags and leave if the current trend towards legislating morality continues. I would prefer that the laws change here, because i think the current ones are stupid.

As far as abortion issue: Barring rape, it would take me more work to get pregnant than not, so i don't anticipate the need myself. If forced to weigh in on the issue, i would say that the test of viability determines whether a foetus is a parasite or a baby. If it comes to a vote, however, i will vote pro-choice. If a person would abort a viable foetus, the kid is probably better off than it would be growing up in that household anyway.

Why is it that the same people who are oppsed to abortion are against gay marriage? I can't think of a single social group whose members are less like to have abortions.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 7:07 am 
Offline
<font color=red><b>STALKER/FAG ALERT.
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 2:38 am
Posts: 1579
Because a child needs strong role models of both sexes to grow up into a balanced individual. The ideal way to get those is through having heterosexual parents.

Single parents are simply making the best of a bad situation. I'm against divorce when there are kids involved, in a broad sort of way. While it is the choice of the parents, it isn't as ideal as fixing whatever is wrong in the relationship. Granted, when spousal/child abuse is involved, I whole hearted endorse ending the marriage and locking the abuser up for a long time.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group