<p>The word "marriage" implies values. Allowing a "marriage" between people of the same sex truly attacks those values. Am I talking about prejudicial values? No. I am talking about family values. If you have a question about family values, or do not respect or understand their existence, you do not understand the majority of people in this nation.</p>
<p>Ultraliberalism is pseudointellectualism. (Granted, ultraconservatism is bigotry, which is worse.)</p>
<p>hey this is funny...this thread finally went back to one of its original topics!....usually they go so off base that it's impossible to get em back...:p....sorry i just thought that was kinda cool.</p>
<p>Like i said before...I don't support homosexual marriage...nor do i support relations...i believe it's biologically unnatural....you know....a p-enis and a vagina were created for a reason....compare it to magnets....a negative and a positive end...negative doesn't go with negative, positive doesn't go with positive...only the 2 opposite ends attract....by allowing homosexual marriage, the government is basically condoning homosexuality...saying it's alright for everyone to be gay...what if everyone was gay?...can someone say population crisis..not due to inflation...but depletion...socially, scientifically, and morally, i believe it is wrong.</p>
<p>Now...within the context of constitutional law...civil unity is totally justified....we believe in a land for the people...all the people, regardless of sexual and religous preference.....you can like heavy metal, rap, country, blue-grass, alternative music...you can like either male or female ppl...you treat everyone like they're on the same level...by outlawing homosexual civil unity, you basically seclude individuals in to certain groups...it's as illegal as gerrymandering on a racial basis(though this is justified as grouping according to partisanship which is totally legal.....but you can't group races in certain constituencies so that their representation is at a minimum, and to ensure that certain district gets lesser treatment)....now...what i see wrong with comparing sexual preference to say..musical preference is that it treats humanity as an inanimate, lifeless object....now there are certain guidelines set down through human biology and a common set of moral values shared in all cultures....humans are more complex than music....this is the flaw in constitutional law....it doesn't distinguish between the rights of 2 ppl to do what they want and the right of material preference as in clothing style, hairdo, etc....i don't think sexual preference should be treated as such...it is different from what you choose to do, i.e. what clothes you wear, what food you eat....but it's also different from something you can't control, such as skin color, or ethnicity.....it's somewhere in between.....and we don't know how to deal with it...this controversy will go on for decades, and i don't think there's any constitutional basis or moral basis to make the decision...this is where human and political values clash....</p>
<p>on that...i will say...i don't agree with it....but this is not an issue where we as CCers have the status to label something as right and wrong....justified or unjustified....constitutional or unconstitutional.....there are equal arguments on both sides, but they conflict so much that they basically neutralize eachother....you say something related to biology and it'll conflict with the constitution...you say something about the constitution it'll conflict with morality or nature.</p>
<p>Anonymous, how do you define family values?</p>
<p>Like I said, they're tough to explain to the narrowminded. Try checking the dictionary.</p>
<p>The values people hold greatly vary from person to person. Legalizing same-sex marriage does not mean that people have to change their values; they can still choose to believe that it is wrong.</p>
<p>Wouldn't same-sex marriage be more of a religious value than a family value? How would allowing other people to practice this (thereby follow their values) affect you? Would allowing gay people to marry affect your life in any way? Should the government be deciding what values people should hold?</p>
<p>Family structure is based on marriage. How would settling for civil unions with equal government benefits hurt homosexuals? Would not calling it "marriage" affect your life in any way?</p>
<p>Family structure? Have you checked the divorce rate in the US of A lately? Marriage of any kind is much closer to a family structure that 2 people simply being friends. Adoption is, arguably, more of family structure than a couple having unwanted children, neglecting them over the years, then left on their own at 18. I dunno, this family structure argument seems to be a guise against the real crux of the matter...</p>
<p>How about can someone give me a straight answer as to why homosexuals are homosexual?</p>
<p>Genetics? They say no.
Choice? They say no.
Environmental factors? They say no.</p>
<p>I'm betting on environmental factors leading up to and including the years of puberty but not really beyond that. </p>
<p>how can you or anyone else say definitively that it ISN'T environmental factors? there are lots of potential environmental factors that could contribute to homosexuality that cannot be measured or even determined through any conventional study. ask a gay guy i guess...</p>
<p>"....you know....a p-enis and a vagina were created for a reason....compare it to magnets....a negative and a positive end...negative doesn't go with negative, positive doesn't go with positive...only the 2 opposite ends attract....by allowing homosexual marriage, the government is basically condoning homosexuality...saying it's alright for everyone to be gay...what if everyone was gay?...can someone say population crisis"</p>
<p>in my opinion it is alright for everyone to be gay
a population depletion would be good for humanity becuase the environment would improve and the earth wouldnt have to support so many people</p>
<p>also, your definition of being created for a reason is ludicrous.
Germs were created to kill us. Modern Medicine is an artifical attempt to rid us of germs, therefore it is not "natural" does this mean we should forgo things that are unnatural. If so, I expect to see you in a loincloth with your chatelperronian tool kit hunting down deer in virginia</p>
<p>for once, i will agree with sepitern555. that argument is the most rediculous thing I've ever heard. it's ignorant to say the least, flat-out stupid is more like it.</p>
<p>Yeah I agree</p>
<p>You exclude humanity from nature. Because we are products of evolution, we are part of nature, and therefore, everything we do can be considered natural.</p>
<p>As for homosexuality, I personally think it's probably a chemical mixup in the brain that has switched the reactions to female and male hormones. But until science can give us an answer, it's hard to say. It's ridiculous to pass off homosexuality as "normal." I'm not a homophobe, I do have a couple bisexual friends. Personally, I think lesbianism is hot. =P</p>
<p>Why don't we just do away with ANY requirements for marriage? Go ahead, allow polygamy and incest. Then marriage doesn't have to mean ANYTHING!</p>
<p>to call an argument stupid is truly stupid :p...</p>
<p>consider this...medication gives us positive consequences...the depletion/prevention of disease, prolongued life....what positive consequences does homosexuality yield?...does it ensure the long term survival of humanity?...does it make life easier for everyone..white, black, gay, straight, Muslim, Christian?</p>
<p>now...you can argue against my views, but don't call them stupid when you haven't contributed anything to the argument at hand yourself....effective debators don't call the opposition stupid......they acknowledge the argument and then work around it or use it against the opposition.....so if you'd like to come off as intellegent, i'd recommend not calling an argument stupid, unless it really is..i.e..."gays are gay....so we shouldn't let them marry" or "i don't like gay ppl...so they shouldn't be allowed to marry"</p>
<p>but i don't think i or any other individual on this thread has the knowledge or place to justify or denounce gay marriage...neither do the politicians...nobody does......it's moreso a supernatural, abstract and complex principle.....no1 can or will ever understand the nature of their own arguments, because there's always something that can be used to invalidate it....</p>
<p>your "the majority opposes it so it's bad" argument is invalid....read my former post regarding the Framers' intent of structuring a government against strong, opressive majorities.....also refer to the low support for African American and Womens' suffrage...</p>
<p>given me an argument and I'll respond...</p>
<p>"but i don't think i or any other individual on this thread has the knowledge or place to justify or denounce gay marriage...neither do the politicians...nobody does......it's moreso a supernatural, abstract and complex principle.....no1 can or will ever understand the nature of their own arguments, because there's always something that can be used to invalidate it...."</p>
<p>*** does that mean? it doesn't mean anything. were you high when you wrote this? jeezus.</p>
<p>W<em>T</em>F, they star out w<em>t</em>f?</p>
<p>I'm not going to wade into the mess of debate we have here, but there a few isolated points I'd like the clear up.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This country is at a point of an ethics crisis where selfishness is running rampant (see: Napster, Kazaa, Enron, Worldcom).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Theft and property crime has always been a part of human existence; it's simply that when the opportunity to commit crime is greater, there will an increase in crime rates. During a natural disaster or riot, for instance, many unscrupulous individuals take advantage of the chaos to loot and pillage stores. Similarly, people take advantage of Kazaa / Napster to download songs illegally because it's cheap, easy, and not typically punished. Take these incentives away, and the level of illegal downloading would fall dramatically. This is not representative of a sea change in ethics, but rather of the effect of new technology on society.</p>
<p>Your other two examples are similarly unpersuasive. Corporate crime and malfeasance has been around for as long as there have been companies. Ponzi schemes, tax evasion, and accounting fraud are all historically common crimes that have occurred over a wide range of dates in a wide range of circumstances. Simply because an anomalously large company was found to have been committing such fraud does not signal anything special. Lest you forget, the Savings and Loan Scandals of the 1980s created a similar stir. Going back further in history, one could find even more examples.</p>
<p>Thus you have proven nothing about the relative frequency of "selfishness" in America, nor detailed exactly what you meant by it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
furthermore....majority views rarely actually win out in Congress....interest groups have a wide level of discretion in which bills get passed and which ones don't...and interest groups don't support moderate views like the majority of the population holds....they hold extreme views to either the left or the right....you're probably going to say "interest groups aren't that powerful...if that's the case then howcome if the public doesn't agree with something it usually doesn't happen," and to invalidate that argument I will use the example of Civil Rights for both blacks and women. The white majority didn't support the Emancipation Proclamation, nor did they support the Brown Case, nor did they support the 1960s Civil Right Movement...the male majority didn't want to give women equal voting rights or labor rights...they belived womens' place was in the home, taking care of children and basically serving to their husbands' needs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>While your point has some truth in it, it's hardly an accurate and balanced picture of the way legislation is passed in the United States. Here's a more complete account from James Wilson's standard-bearing American Government text, which discusses four modes of policymaking (real world examples from the text are omitted):</p>
<p>[ol]
[li]Majoritarian Politics. In majoritarian politics, the costs and benefits of the policy in question are widely distributed across the population. "Such majoritarian politics are usually not dominated by pulling and hauling among rival interest groups; instead, they involve making appeals to large blocs of voters and their representatives in hopes of finding a majority. The reason why interest groups are not so important in majoritarian politics is that [...] citizens rarely will have much incentive to join an interest group if the policy that such a group supports will benefit everybody, whether or not they are members of the group. This is the 'free-rider' problem [which is dealt with more thoroughly in economics]" (441).[/li][li]Interest Group Politics. In this type of politicking, "a proposed policy will confer benefits on some relatively small, identifiable group and impose costs on another small, equally identifiable group. [...] Issues of this kind tend to be fought out by organized interest groups. Each side will be so powerfully affected by the outcome that it has a strong incentive to mobilize. [...] Interest group politics often produces decisions about which the public is uninformed" (442).[/li][li]Client Politics. In client politics an identifiable and often relatively small group will receive most of the benefits, while the costs will be distributed over a large portion of society. "Because the benefits are concentrated, the group that is to receive those benefits has an incentive to organize and work to get them. But because the costs are widely distributed, affecting many people only slightly, those who pay the costs may be either unaware of any costs or indifferent to them, because per capita they are so small" (443).[/li][li]Entrepreneurial Politics. In this type of policymaking, "society as a whole or some large part of it benefits from a policy that imposes substantial costs on some small, identifiable segment of society. [...] It is remarkable that policies of this sort are ever adopted, and in fact many are not. After all, the American political system creates many opportunities for checking and blocking the actions of others. [...] Nevertheless, policies with distributed benefits and concentrated costs are in fact adopted, and in recent decades they have been adopted with increasing frequency. A key element in the adoption of such policies has been the work of people who act on behalf of the unorganized or indifferent majority. Such people, called policy entrepreneurs, are those both in and out of government who find ways of pulling together a legislative majority on behalf of interests that are not well represented in government. These policy entrepreneurs may or may not represent the interests and wishes of the public at large, but they do have the ability to dramatize an issue in a convincing manner" (444).[/li][/ol]</p>
<p>Note that there can and will be crossovers and mixing, since the lines between each may be blurred. Also note that the costs and benefits need not be economic in nature, and indeed often aren't. You may also want to check out "American Business, Public Policy, Case Studies, and Political Theory" in the journal World Politics, which offers a different perspective. Nevertheless, my point is that policymaking is a very complex and convoluted procedure that does not lend itself well to a single theory or point-of-view. Just as interest groups require a detailed classification scheme, and are far more complex than either proponents or opponents argue. The above can be used as a basic framework, or you can use another, but the simplistic explanations have been vigorously debunked.</p>
<p>Some more.</p>
<p>
[quote]
no bad talking your opponent
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So you believe that candidates should be able to hide their errors, poor decisions, and outrageous acts? You believe that criticism is not a legitimate function of debate? </p>
<p>I suggest you take a look through some of the economic literature available. Even on a simple level, it provides very persuasive evidence in favor of negative campaigning. Or, if you wish, take a look [url=<a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=negative+campaigning&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Search%5Dhere%5B/url">http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=negative+campaigning&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Search]here[/url</a>].</p>
<p>I'd take the time to debunk some of nahrafsfa's contentions about Presidential power, but even I don't have enough of it. Suffice it to say, the President's powers in relation to lawmaking are variable, limited, and defined by factors outside of the Constitution. Sometimes a strong President can dominate the agenda and mold the country in his vision; sometimes a weak President will be a powerless hostage of the legislature. Usually, it comes down somewhere in the middle. George W. Bush has wielded an unusual amount of control over legislation, but his power is weakening. Congressmen, afraid of local retribution, for example, have basically put a stop to his radical social security reform package. Senators of his own party have stepped in and strung out the appointment of John Bolton, which goes against the deference typically paid to the executive.</p>
<p>In any case, I don't believe one can assign (or absolve) responsibility for everything that has happened directly on Mr. Bush. A more reasoned and balanced analysis, the historian's analysis, is a much better fit.</p>
<p>General Rak, you miss the entire point I was making with Kazaa and Napster. As I am sure you know, these applications are incredibly popular, and popular among those who normally are very scrupulous people. Personally, I got into a Kazaa/Napster habit before I gained the maturity to realize what these applications do is unethical. I continue to not support the bootlegging of movies. The danger here is that most people are not willing to accept the ethical differences between copying a tape by tape recorder and handing it to a friend, and downloading music from a web of strangers. Technology is introducing more and more crimes which do not have a personal element. The victim is not readily apparent, and most people do not truly realize the damage they cause through the internet. It is precisely because of technology that ethics is more important than ever.</p>
<p>You have failed to effectively rebut me.</p>
<p>What does that have to do with greater selfishness in society?</p>