TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Two other things that got overlooked: Gays & Drugs
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Two other things that got overlooked: Gays & Drugs

In the heat of yesterday's presidential election, there were two other things that went unnoticed but are very interesting.

One is, the state of California has voted to officially ban gay marriage. This is the state that was supposedly at the forefront of progressive thinking, especially with respect to gays! This decision is very surprising to me, not only as a liberal, but also simply as someone who's been observing CA politics.

The other is, possession of small amounts of marijuana is no longer criminal in Massachusetts! You can get a small fine and maybe have it taken away, but it's decriminalized now.

This is a tale of the two most liberal states in America: one has moved further in the liberal direction, the other is regressing into conservative territory.

Massachusetts is the most socially progressive state my opinion. Bravo for them.

quote:

Gavin Newsom screwed it up. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs...&entry_id=32366

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and friends grossly underestimated the opposition for gay marriage. From the start they were out funded and out organized by the opposition. They didn't figure out until it was too late they should be targeting the black community which tends to be socially conservative. Go figure that turned out to be the largest segment to vote for the ban, whites were largely against one. Having the issue in an election with the first black candidate didn't help either.

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and friends grossly underestimated the opposition for gay marriage. From the start they were out funded and out organized by the opposition. They didn't figure out until it was too late they should be targeting the black community which tends to be socially conservative. Go figure that turned out to be the largest segment to vote for the ban, whites were largely against one. Having the issue in an election with the first black candidate didn't help either.

It is tragic in that sense.

We employ ourselves into slavery without even realizing it, apparently.

our due process case law has trended in the direction of expansive rights. i imagine gay marriage will be protected as soon as there is a liberal majority on the court. unfortunately the liberals are the old bunch on the bench. Ginsburg and stevens are probably out during obama's term, but it wouldn't be a bad thing if all the liberal justices retired so that obama could insert some liberal youth. it's unfotunate that alito, roberts, and thomas are the youngest on the bench; each is likely to have another 20 years. scalia and kennedy are both 72 years old, which means they likely have about 10 years. i only hope a democrat is in office when they retire.

as for marijuana, it doesn't make sense to criminalize its personal consumption. i think we should legalize its use, like liquor, and tax the shit out of it, on the production and consumption sides. it's really a no-brainer. just imagine the reduction in cost of production if it could be produced on a mass scale. the reduction in its cost could be filled by taxes. My guess is that in excess of 75% of the cost of marijuana results from three things: 1) the risk associated with producing it, 2) the cost of covertly transporting the drug, and 3) an increase in price to recover the confiscation of other supplies. All three of those drivers would be eliminated and could be filled by tax costs.

quote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Clearly, gays have a right to be married if they want.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Clearly, gays have a right to be married if they want.

stop quoting the declaration of independence; it has no legal significance.

EDIT: it's also not that clear, if it was, this wouldn't be an issue.

Three things : Unlimited Abortions...

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 stop quoting the declaration of independence; it has no legal significance. EDIT: it's also not that clear, if it was, this wouldn't be an issue.

No I won't. Gays don't have a legal right to marry. They have a NATURAL RIGHT to marry. The law should reflect that. The legal right to marry is what they are fighting for.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton No I won't. Gays don't have a legal right to marry. They have a NATURAL RIGHT to marry. The law should reflect that. The legal right to marry is what they are fighting for.

i don't disagree, however, quoting the declaration of independence isn't a strong argument considering 1) the declaration of independence isn't a legally significant document, 2) it was signed prior to the US becoming a nation, 3) the constitution determines these matters, and 4) its purpose was to declare independence from britian, not to give rights to people of a yet to be formed country. try the equal protection clause or the due process clause for stronger arguments (the due process clause has been used historically to expand civil rights).

you appear clueless when you quote the declaration of independence.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Clearly, gays have a right to be married if they want.

if its legal justification you're trying argue, clearly you have no idea what constitutes a legally binding document...again

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo if its legal justification you're trying argue, clearly you have no idea what constitutes a legally binding document...again

Conveniently missing the point again?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Gays don't have a legal right to marry. They have a NATURAL RIGHT to marry. The law should reflect that. The legal right to marry is what they are fighting for.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Conveniently missing the point again?

fine, just stop quoting the Declaration of Independence.

FYI, taken at face value, the Declaration of Independence limits those "pursuits" as only those endowed by man's Creator. obviously, taken at face value, gays fall outside those limits.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo FYI, taken at face value, the Declaration of Independence limits those "pursuits" as only those endowed by man's Creator. obviously, taken at face value, gays fall outside those limits.

although i think gays should have the right to ruin their lives like heterosexuals by giving half of their shit to someone else, you make a very good point.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 although i think gays should have the right to ruin their lives like heterosexuals by giving half of their shit to someone else, you make a very good point.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo fine, just stop quoting the Declaration of Independence. FYI, taken at face value, the Declaration of Independence limits those "pursuits" as only those endowed by man's Creator. obviously, taken at face value, gays fall outside those limits.

Nope won't stop quoting it when it relevant.

What Creator are we talking about? See that's the point. None is named on purpose. So you're homophobic Creator hypothesis is moot. Freedom of religion......No specific god is endorsed by the state. Additionally, it says, "All men are created equal." Gays included. Therefore, gays have a natural right to pursue happiness, so long as they do not infringe upon any other person's natural rights. Gay marriage neither infringes upon anyone else's rights, and therefore, should be a recognized legal right by the state. This is only just and fair.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo FYI, taken at face value, the Declaration of Independence limits those "pursuits" as only those endowed by man's Creator. obviously, taken at face value, gays fall outside those limits.

Uh, what? Careful where you go with statements like that. Taken at face value, the DOI only mentions men so by that logic I guess we can exclude women as well. Because everybody knows documents like that were intended to be taken at face value.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Nope won't stop quoting it when it relevant. What Creator are we talking about? See that's the point. None is named on purpose. So you're homophobic Creator hypothesis is moot. Freedom of religion......No specific god is endorsed by the state. Additionally, it says, "All men are created equal." Gays included. Therefore, gays have a natural right to pursue happiness, so long as they do not infringe upon any other person's natural rights. Gay marriage neither infringes upon anyone else's rights, and therefore, should be a recognized legal right by the state. This is only just and fair.

but isn't the declaration just a fancy speech? it doesn't have any binding authority does it?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN but isn't the declaration just a fancy speech? it doesn't have any binding authority does it?

No, for our non Americans, the DOI was basically a letter to Britain declaring the colonies independence from British rule. This is why jerZ07002, a lawyer, gets his panties all tightened when Krypton uses it for legal arguments. The Constitution and Bill of Rights would more appropriately fit there.

This is all on Wikipedia you lazy bloke.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Nope won't stop quoting it when it relevant.

It's not relevant!!

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton What Creator are we talking about? See that's the point. None is named on purpose. So you're homophobic Creator hypothesis is moot. Freedom of religion......No specific god is endorsed by the state. Additionally, it says, "All men are created equal." Gays included. Therefore, gays have a natural right to pursue happiness, so long as they do not infringe upon any other person's natural rights. Gay marriage neither infringes upon anyone else's rights, and therefore, should be a recognized legal right by the state. This is only just and fair.

which god do you think all those puritans believed in? probably not a good that endorsed homosexual activities.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN but isn't the declaration just a fancy speech? it doesn't have any binding authority does it?

Yes, it is just a declaration of independence. But it lays out the principles of human rights, which are self-evident (meaning the words explain themselves), of our natural rights which exist regardless of the law. I used the DOI because it's an important document which clearly demonstrates that ideal. Regardless of what source I use, self-evidently, all men are created equal, and as equal beings, they have a natural right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, and/or estate. As such, gays also have the natural right to pursue their own happiness, as long as they do not violate someone else's natural rights. The legal rights of gay marriage are not in line with the natural rights of gays wanting to marry.

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 This is all on Wikipedia you lazy bloke.

that's me!!

why go to the trouble when there are so many intelligent gentleman in here who can provide me the info just as readily, and much briefer?

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 Uh, what? Careful where you go with statements like that. Taken at face value, the DOI only mentions men so by that logic I guess we can exclude women as well. Because everybody knows documents like that were intended to be taken at face value.

i don't think he meant anything by saying "man." he was pointing out that the rights listed in the declaration are proclaimed to come from god. i would agree with Q that god, if he/she even gives a shit, likely didn't intend for homosexual activities considering god created an opposite sex that is necessary for procreation. that said, i'm not a really religious guy, and i don't use god as support for any argument, i just see his logic.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 It's not relevant!!

The document itself may be irrelevant. The principle of natural rights contained within it are not.

quote:

which god do you think all those puritans believed in? probably not a good that endorsed homosexual activities.

The Founding Fathers were hardly Puritans. A Puritan would done everything in their power to establish an Oliver Cromwell type theocracy.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Yes, it is just a declaration of independence. But it lays out the principles of human rights, which are self-evident (meaning the words explain themselves), of our natural rights which exist regardless of the law. I used the DOI because it's an important document which clearly demonstrates that ideal. Regardless of what source I use, self-evidently, all men are created equal, and as equal beings, they have a natural right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, and/or estate. As such, gays also have the natural right to pursue their own happiness, as long as they do not violate someone else's natural rights. The legal rights of gay marriage are not in line with the natural rights of gays wanting to marry.

the pursuit of happiness is not a natural right. if it was so important, why was it omitted from a much more important document: the constitution?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.