Richards 0
Richards 0
QuoteCan't neccessarily say I agree. Even chronic alcoholics become problems while trying to feed their addiction. If heroine was legal it would be regulated and therefore something better would replace it in the illegal market. Ending prohibition did not get rid of the gangsters. They just moved on to something else.
Where do you come up with all this stuff?
It's an argument that has been around for some time and has validity. I occasionally get off the net and read a newspaper or a book. Marvelous sources of perspective and information.
Richards
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
Richards 0
QuoteThat's right. That's why we should legalize everything.
Everything?
Richards
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
labrys 0
QuoteWell, obviously not biological children .
My kids are biological
What else would they be, robotic?
Before you respond, I know what you really meant.
Don't be so positive us gay folk can't have biological children, though. Absent the option to adopt many gay parents can and do have children... some even opt to have them the "old fashioned" way.
Gay men and lesbians are entirely capable of having heterosexual sex, even if it isn't emotionally or physically fullfilling. Some will handle the distaste long enough to conceive children if they wants kids badly enough.
Some of those lesbians and gay men would have been happy to adopt if they had the legal option. The only losers are the children who don't get adopted and do don't get the loving home they might have had.
Owned by Remi #?
Quote
It's an argument that has been around for some time and has validity. I occasionally get off the net and read a newspaper or a book. Marvelous sources of perspective and information.
Richards
Nancy Reagan's Just Say No Campaign isn't a good resource to use. Or virtually anything published by the Feds. Science isn't that important in DC these days, and it never has been with regards to the drug war.
Magazines are particularly bad, btw. And look at the way media has been hyping Myspace as a land of slutty kids and pedophiles lately. Our media focuses on all the risks and dangers we might not be paying enough attention to, at least in their minds.
I'm approaching the question from basic economics at the micro level. People make choices that make them happy. Given a choice of a legal heroin that will get them high for cheap, or a non existent new drug that will cost more and potentially get them killed or arrested, heroin is the no brainer solution. And if someone does invent a new super drug that everyone wants, you legalize it too.
Richards 0
QuoteI'm approaching the question from basic economics at the micro level. People make choices that make them happy. Given a choice of a legal heroin that will get them high for cheap, or a non existent new drug that will cost more and potentially get them killed or arrested, heroin is the no brainer solution. And if someone does invent a new super drug that everyone wants, you legalize it too.
I would be fine with legalizing drugs if people who use them were held responsible for their actions regardless of their addiction, and were expected to pay for their own rehab when they realize that it is destroying their lives.
All too often when some crack-monkeys do some stupid crime to feed their addiction, the courts allow them leneincy to go into rehab rather than jail, because "he has a sickness". Furthermore we taxpayers pay for this.
If an addict were held as fully accountable as the rest of us for his actions, and expected to pay for his own rehab (after the fact if neccessary) then I would be fine with legalization. Untill that happens I would prefer that hard drugs be kept out of the public hands. I would not consider marijuana to be a hard drug.
Richards
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
ExAFO 0
QuoteWell, for one it directs more money to divorce lawyers.
Excellent...[/engaged to a 2L]
Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.
labrys 0
Quote"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." --- Thomas Jefferson
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." --- Thomas Jefferson
Owned by Remi #?
billvon 3,116
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas
>he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
Interesting! Do you believe this? If so, then do you think that people who oppose the Iraq war should get a tax break?
>he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
Interesting! Do you believe this? If so, then do you think that people who oppose the Iraq war should get a tax break?
If what I do doesn't bother other, how about I marry my dog fifi. She sure could use some benefits. How about my 10 year old daughter. Shouldn't bother you she needs some insurance. How about I marry an illegal alien. At least they could be here legally now. My point is where do we draw the line?
billvon 3,116
>If what I do doesn't bother other, how about I marry my dog fifi.
You should be able to _marry_ whoever you want. You should be able to get a _civil_union_ with another legal adult.
>My point is where do we draw the line?
With religious ceremonies - there should be no lines, provided nothing criminal is done. With civil unions - any other legal adult.
You should be able to _marry_ whoever you want. You should be able to get a _civil_union_ with another legal adult.
>My point is where do we draw the line?
With religious ceremonies - there should be no lines, provided nothing criminal is done. With civil unions - any other legal adult.
ExAFO 0
Quote>"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas
>he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
Interesting! Do you believe this? If so, then do you think that people who oppose the Iraq war should get a tax break?
To tell you the truth, I really don't care. Specify you want your money spent on some National Endowment for the Arts-funded photo by Mapplethorpe, which is art only because one "artist" says it is...
Specify you want it spent on artificially jacking gas prices up so you can feel good about yourself driving a hybrid.
I really don't care. I've got bigger fish to fry than legions of professional victims on the SC.
Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.
Trent 0
QuoteTo tell you the truth, I really don't care. Specify you want your money spent on some National Endowment for the Arts-funded photo by Mapplethorpe, which is art only because one "artist" says it is...
Specify you want it spent on artificially jacking gas prices up so you can feel good about yourself driving a hybrid.
I really don't care. I've got bigger fish to fry than legions of professional victims on the SC.
It's funny 'cuz it's true...
Oh, hello again!
QuoteI really don't care. I've got bigger fish to fry than legions of professional victims on the SC.
This looks a lot you know you've been caught spouting bullshit you don't believe.
First Class Citizen Twice Over
billvon 3,116
>To tell you the truth, I really don't care.
So you don't really believe what you posted. Fair enough.
So you don't really believe what you posted. Fair enough.
ExAFO 0
QuoteQuoteI really don't care. I've got bigger fish to fry than legions of professional victims on the SC.
This looks a lot you know you've been caught spouting bullshit you don't believe.
...So sayeth the loudest Professional Victim...
So how are the big bad heteros oppressing you today, Buffy?
P.S. Nice Engrish, Suzie.
Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.
labrys 0
QuoteHow about my 10 year old daughter.
Men can marry women legally right now. You appear to believe that marriage should be limited to unions between men and women.
So... what's preventing you from marrying your daughter then?
I'll help...she's not a legal, consenting adult.
You didn't say anything about how smart or old Fifi is so I can't comment on that one except, as I've said before, most dogs and cats are too old to be good partners by the time they're 18.
This particualr challenge ALWAYS comes up. It's total horsehit.
Owned by Remi #?
did god create Adam and Steve?
________________________________________
Were Adam and Eve married?
________________________________________
Were Adam and Eve married?
------------------------------------------------------
"From the mightiest pharaoh to the lowliest peasant,
who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" C. Montgomery Burns
"From the mightiest pharaoh to the lowliest peasant,
who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" C. Montgomery Burns
Quote...So sayeth the loudest Professional Victim...
You love that phrase. Would you define it and then give examples from my posting history?
No, I didn't think you could.
QuoteSo how are the big bad heteros oppressing you today, Buffy?
P.S. Nice Engrish, Suzie.
Childish name calling and bashing me for a rare typo? You're way below yourself today.
First Class Citizen Twice Over
I know the examples were extreme, but where do you draw the line on who demands marriage rights? There are so many more examples that could be brought up. And don't tell me that that would never happen. It's a sick and twisted world we live in.
labrys 0
QuoteI know the examples were extreme, but where do you draw the line on who demands marriage rights? There are so many more examples that could be brought up. And don't tell me that that would never happen. It's a sick and twisted world we live in.
The thing is that a lot of people are willing to vote for gay marriage / civil unions because they don't see any harm in accepting them. It's a matter of union between 2 consenting adults that's under consideration right now.
Anyone who wants legal recognition of anything other than union between 2 consenting adults will have to bring their case before the public and gain support for it. Are you really sure that the world is so sick and twisted that the public will vote to approve marriage between people and animals, etc?
Owned by Remi #?
Personally, I'd like to get the government out of the marriage business alltogether, mainly because the government has no business interfering in the private lives of its citizens, provided the citizens in question are consenting adults.
billvon 3,116
>Personally, I'd like to get the government out of the marriage business alltogether . . .
Agreed, and we are almost there now.
Before we got married we had to go to town hall and get a 'marriage license,' which is the form that gets filled out to legally recognize the marriage. It has to be signed by someone (the priest in our case.) Then you go on to the religious ceremony.
All we have to do is change that signature line, so that the two people getting married are the only required signatures. After all, priests/rabbis/ministers don't marry people, people marry people.
So that first form becomes the legal creation of the civil union. You still go to town hall and fill out the 'license' - this gives you the civil union, and all the rights that go along with it. Then you go and have whatever religious ceremony you want (or none at all.) Or you just have the religious ceremony WITHOUT the legal union; this would make divorces much less acrimonious.
Agreed, and we are almost there now.
Before we got married we had to go to town hall and get a 'marriage license,' which is the form that gets filled out to legally recognize the marriage. It has to be signed by someone (the priest in our case.) Then you go on to the religious ceremony.
All we have to do is change that signature line, so that the two people getting married are the only required signatures. After all, priests/rabbis/ministers don't marry people, people marry people.
So that first form becomes the legal creation of the civil union. You still go to town hall and fill out the 'license' - this gives you the civil union, and all the rights that go along with it. Then you go and have whatever religious ceremony you want (or none at all.) Or you just have the religious ceremony WITHOUT the legal union; this would make divorces much less acrimonious.
From For Us, The Living by Robert Heinlein, 1939 (first published posthumously in 2004:
For Us, The Living takes place in 2086. So maybe if Heinlein's as right as he so often was, we only have 80 years left until sanity.
The passage continues amusingly:
First Class Citizen Twice Over
Quote"But why should the world know it, or Father, unless we choose to tell him? ... Listen, Perry, you must realize that marriage, as an institution, has changed enormously. We talked about this once before. Marriage isn't a public contract anymore. It's strictly in the private sphere. You and I love each other and want to live together. We are doing so. Therefore we are married."
For Us, The Living takes place in 2086. So maybe if Heinlein's as right as he so often was, we only have 80 years left until sanity.
The passage continues amusingly:
Quote"Then there isn't any ceremony, nor any contract?"
"You can have all the ceremony you want if you care to apply to any of the churches. But I hope you won't ask me to do it. It would embarrass me terribly and make me feel -- well -- dirtied."
First Class Citizen Twice Over
Absolutely not! Legalizing heroic ladies will be the beginning of the end I say.
Richards