Random polictiacl rant
polycounter lvl 18
I dont watch the news anymore because I cant stand to hear how far America has come from the principles that it was made on. The government was designed to protect the people from being killed and keep things civil. It was formed because people didnt want to get pushed around and told what to do and how to live their lives by the current government. Now take a look at what the government has become now. We have laws that tell us we cant eat, drink, or smoke certain things because it could hurt us. So now were not smart enough to decide what we should eat, drink and smoke do we really need to be protected from choices? The human body, our own body we dont have full rites over. The Government has say as to what we can do to it, abortion and other surgeries are supposed to be things of personal debate not political debate. Gay marriage is another thing under political debate, yet has no reason to be controlled by the government. Its not like if they made all that stuff legal everyone would have to do it. It would just mean we would have a choice. Would things become uncivil if we were to let people think for themselves? The current administration does believe that, thats why for the past 5 years we have been told to live in constant fear of something. What Im trying to say is why should we let the government tell us the masses what we can and can not do?
Replies
But yes, I totally agree with your view there. Stuff like gay marriage makes no sense being controlled by the state, that's up to individuals to decide.
And I wonder, how long can it last like this? All great fallen empires in the past fell under their own weight. Just keep coming up with more and more rules, increasingly complex beurocracies. You can only legislate so much until either A) you've become a dystopian ultra-surveilance society or
Anyway, when the revolution comes, I'll be on the front lines.
[naive? maybe, but I'd rather be an idealist than a content-with-the-way-things-are drone)
I don't agree when it comes to gay marriage though. A big part of he swiss marriage law was written with the children in mind. The main argument that was used here to support the registered partnership (something similar to a gay marriage) was the law of succession. But even there you can still bequeath a large amount of your wealth to people of your choice without marrying them. That's the reason why gay marriage would only be a symbol and simply isn't necessary imho. It would just blow up the administrative machinery more in order to handle the additional work (divorces, marital property regime problems,...)
The state is directly affected by many regulations in the marriage law and is responsible for the proper execution. It's part of he marriage laws nature, that the state has to control it. It's up to he people though in which way he should handle and change the laws.
I dont see how gay marriage is going to hurt kids. Whats bad for kids is when parents break up but thats just as likely in non gay marriages as in gay ones. All that matters is that the kids get lots of love from their parents.
And I never mentioned gay marriage is hurting kids. It just regulates to a big extend things that are not relevant to gay couples because they can't adopt or have children as a couple.
And as I mentioned above, saying marriage is part of the gov because of these things is completely wrong. If the government wouldn't execute the laws of marriage, marriage wouldn't be anything else than a promise between 2 people. Of course that's a beautyful thing too and can work just as well. But marriage is supposed to be a more intense obligation and it can only be this if someone watches over it. Feel free to change what marriage is supposed to be, that's your right in a democracy.
As for gay marriage hurting kids i misinterpreted your writting.
"A big part of he swiss marriage law was written with the children in mind."
"marriage wouldn't be anything else than a promise between 2 people. Of course that's a beautyful thing too and can work just as well. But marriage is supposed to be a more intense obligation and it can only be this if someone watches over it."
All marriage is is promise between two people its nothing more than that. Getting married is no diffrent than saying that you wont cheat on your girlfriend/boyfriend. You can still cheat on your wife just as easy as your girlfriend/boyfriend. The fact that the gov has any say over a personl promise between two partys pisses me off. I'm ok with tax breaks for married cupples but they should have any say on who can get married to who.
Errr, what?!
The ONLY thing that enforces greater commitment and obligation between 2 people is the the morals of the 2 people; government, laws, paperwork has nothing to do with it.
You can argue till blue in the face that the divorce laws and pressure from religion enforce more commitment but thats just not true as I think the rise in divorce numbers may attest to.
And these numbers go up despite the laws getting stiffer and enforcing more financial penalities on men after a divorce!
I don't want to get into the middle of this whole rant thing, but as far as marriage goes, your opinion must rank as one of the silliest I've heard!
I stay with my wife and kid because I love them, I'm non religious, non political, anti establishment, theres no ethos other than my own sense of respect for others that is driving my system of ethics....
r.
That's true. You can still cheat on your wife just as easy as before getting married, but if she has any proof for it, then she'll be able to get divorced within a short amount of time (depends from country to country) and you'll propably have to pay alimony for the children, split the wealth you earned during the marriage into 2, maybe even leave your own house or appartement and if you don't do so, the police might force you to. It's really more than a simple promies between 2 people. I totally respect that you don't like it the way it is though
you are smart do decide what injuries you, but unfortunately there are people that arent like that and end up in misery.and i agree with you about gay marriage.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with Johny, and I'm certainly with you on gay marriage. I'm going to have to say no, people are not smart enough to decide what to put in their bodies all the time however. The fact is people are easily addicted to things, Americans very much so, that's why we the highest drug traffic, the most preventable deaths from smoking and obesity of any country in the world. Granted, I think the federal government is doing some ridiculous things, and in some cases, the government is violating people's rights. But then again this government wasn't COMPLETELY based on freedom really, merely freedom from those British bastards taxing our tea!
Personally I would just like the government to stop wasting so much tax dollars, in King County alone I've seen tens, if not hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars wasted on things like;
-paying corrupt, jailed cops their retirement benefits
-paying incompetent government workers who do nothing but get paid hundreds of thousands a year
-government functions and fancy events
Hey, if we're going to value money over human rights, the least they could do is spend the money decently...personally I don't watch the local news because most of it is about murder and fear mongering. I watch the occasional national news because I'm genuinely curious.
[Perhaps] Marriage is another one of those things that is simple and honest in principle, but has been complicated and dirtied by the throngs of underdeveloped dimwits that create the need for legislation against things that "real" people never even get near. Cheating, abuse, etc... who does this stuff? The people that shouldn't be married to begin with.
The ONLY thing that enforces greater commitment and obligation between 2 people is the the morals of the 2 people; government, laws, paperwork has nothing to do with it.
[/ QUOTE ]
You don't have any experience with divorce cases, I do. Although I totally agree with you that it's up to peoples morals, it's accepted knowledge, that laws and paperwork do influence people and maybe to some extend their morals. I know as a fact, that the drastic consequences of a divorce show them how important the decision is they have to make and I know that it is a inhibition threshold that forces people to rethink a made decision. This way the law HAS saved some marriages. Unfortunately it has also made husbands kill their wives and vice versa due to the strict binding, but that's another issue. I'm not defending marriage as it is, I just want to tell what the idea behind it is and why I don't think gay marriage is needed.
If you really think the glue that holds together a marraige is the fear of bills then i feel sorry for you. I know thats true for some cupples but those are the ones that shouldnt have gotten married in the first place.
[/ QUOTE ]
I completely agree with you. I'm just saying what the idea behind marriage as an instituation is and how people think it influences the behavior of the married ones.
[ QUOTE ]
Marriage is another one of those things that is simple and honest in principle, but has been complicated and dirtied by the throngs of underdeveloped dimwits that create the need for legislation against things that "real" people never even get near. Cheating, abuse, etc... who does this stuff? The people that shouldn't be married to begin with.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with this as well, too, also
I learned about divorce when I was 8 after my dad left my mum. We'd just moved to a new town so she had noone else to talk to and I was smart for my age so I got to learn the details firsthand.
As I said, it's about the people, its not about anything else.
r.
Currently in the US they make it a major pain in the ass to get a divorce primarily to force people to try and work things out rather than splitting up the family. In some states you're not allowed to divorce until you've had marriage counselling.
Imagine a man being able to divorce his wife at a whim, throw her out of the house both of you own on the street with your kids - no money, destitute. The idealism of simply a "promise between two lovers" is nice and romantic and all, but you start putting children and assets in the mix and it's no longer very simple.
I prefer the principles of today compared to the principles of people who died a couple hundred years ago. Times change.
[/ QUOTE ]
You're right, democracy with open, public elections is such a quaint idea. A corporatism-theocracy hybrid, with privatized elections, is the way of the future. It's a brave new world! Jefferson would be appalled to discover that our election process is in the hands of secretive, private corporations like Diebold... but who gives a shit? That guy's just some old dead dude.
KeyserSoze, agreed
fixed for you.
How does this pertain to gay marraige? Beacause strait cupples cant get to work everytime then they shouldnt be able to? Gay cupples can to adopt kids too so because they can have kids doesnt that mean that they should be able to get married so they can be glued to eachother by the law. Or does this mean that they shouldnt be allowed to addopt kids this way its easyier to say that marraige is only for cupples with kids? In that case wouldnt that mean then that you shouldnt be allowed to get married unless you are having a kid?
KeyserSoze, agreed
[/ QUOTE ]
Some of these words are English. I know it.
The whole point of these polarizing issues, as mentioned in that "secrets from the White House" thread, is to distract the public attention from political decisions noone agrees with. Want to make cuts to the educational system? People will read about that and complain. What to do? Plan something outrageous that roughly 50% agree with and the other half disagrees. Then the headlines will be about that "controversial" issue and your cuts to the educational budget will be relegated to a tiny column in the corner of a page. People will be too busy debating abortion, gay marriage, whathaveyou but they won't notice that you're running the country in a way they don't want you to.
[/ QUOTE ]
Damn it... I was just about to say that
Edit: Damn it again
(though you guys are correct about the diversion tactics, there's no point in killing a thread because it's not about something else)
(anyone up for a revolution? Meet me at the grassy knoll at sundown)
Start a new religion that allows gay marriage. Freedom of religion. Problem Solved. Bush Pwned.
Amen. Vote Cheese for Prez 2008!
Centuries from now people will look at history and laugh at the savages who tried to legislate who you can fuck.
[/ QUOTE ]
Or scratch their heads as they try to heat up their animal meat with fire they've yet to invent.
[ QUOTE ]
Centuries from now people will look at history and laugh at the savages who tried to legislate who you can fuck.
[/ QUOTE ]
Or scratch their heads as they try to heat up their animal meat with fire they've yet to invent.
[/ QUOTE ]
*claps and laughs with a nod of agreement*
2 points back to marraige argument.
1- 2 parent families are not always best IMO. My parents broke up when i was a teenager, and they were alot happier after (the quality of parenting was no better or worse, they were jutst happier and that has a big effect on kids), yeah there was heartache but sticking together when people are not happy is pants.
2- their are other reasons for gay marrige, in this cuntry, if your partner goes into hospital (unconcious) then you would not be able to see them without permission from next of kin, this could be really tricky for a gay couple, marrige gives you the rights of next of kin.
blah blah we should set up Wiki-government
Take any piece of paper around you, write "my friend xyz is allowed to visit me" sign it, give it to your friend and done. I can think of harder things to regulate.
[/ QUOTE ]
Things get a bit more complicated when your loved one is on life support, and it comes to the question of whether or not to take them off it. Even if you've been a couple for decades, but you're not married, you have no say in the decision. That's just wrong.
as i am quite anti-organised relegion (not religion as such but the mechanisms of the organisations), i find it awfull that gay people cant marry cos it offends other people and powerfull organisations. its their own life let them live it.
Things get a bit more complicated when your loved one is on life support, and it comes to the question of whether or not to take them off it. Even if you've been a couple for decades, but you're not married, you have no say in the decision. That's just wrong.
[/ QUOTE ]
This reminds me of mentioning women who are pregnant due to a rape as an argument in the abortion discussion. You're right, things like this happen, but they happen very very rarely. And even there in many cases your friend can talk to your familiy if they have a good relation and they can consider your opinion.
what someone else does in their private life (including marriage) surely has no real effect on you so why stop them when its beneficial to them
Well, they are still better arguments than the counter-argument that gay marriage "destroys the sanctiety of marriage".
[/ QUOTE ]
Do you want to turn another thread into a religious debate? As you would see if you would read what I wrote, my arguments were based on thought about the practical advantages of gay marriage and about the basic idea of marriage as a institution.
What you mention here is a valid argument for many people all over the world. And if you want to claim it's a bad argument, then you have to begin all over with how intelligent is to believe in god or not to believe.
And as you will propably have noticed, the argument you mentioned does at least talk about the main idea of marriage (in their mind it's a sacred institution) and not about some peripheral detail that is way outside the core idea of marriage.
[ QUOTE ]
why stop them when its beneficial to them
[/ QUOTE ]
That's a good point. I would say because the advantage for them is marginal at best while the costs are considerable and because I would prefer to keep the law as slim as possible and rather solve the named issue through jurisdiction rather than an extended law.
I would say because the advantage for them is marginal at best while the costs are considerable and because I would prefer to keep the law as slim as possible and rather solve the named issue through jurisdiction rather than an extended law.
[/ QUOTE ]
marginal at best huh, they enure that when or if the partner dies they are entitled to things like the house they live in (minus UK inheritance tax (up to 40%)) and if they go in to hospital they are enured visiting rights. i dont know but most people have to go to hospital unexpectedly once in their life and everyone dies, they are hardyly marginal.
i dont see condiderable costs either, not for me. your just extending the law to help everyone not just the majority, thus reducing its complexity not increasing it.
about gay marriage, it isnt allowed simply because it is different...simple as that...althou if they addopt a child and even if they are the bestest parents in the worlld, the child will be teased at school by other children and maybe suffer scarrings for the rest of his life. its sad , some people dont accept different...
marginal at best huh, they enure that when or if the partner dies they are entitled to things like the house they live in (minus UK inheritance tax (up to 40%)) and if they go in to hospital they are enured visiting rights. i dont know but most people have to go to hospital unexpectedly once in their life and everyone dies, they are hardyly marginal.
[/ QUOTE ]
Please reread the thread, everything but the taxes has been discussed above. A marriage law for gay couples would need special regulations concerning children. And divorces cost the state a lot, many of the divorces are followed by welfare and living on the poverty line (although this problematic would propably become more current once gay couples would be allowed to adopt children).
still think the costs to the state are way less than the cost and inequality to the individual. IMHO
Ive had the fortunate freedom of living in a country like Holland where lots of freedoms you cant find in the U.S are available. Going from Texas to Amsterdam is literlly like going from one planet to another.
Like their tolerence of drugs and drinking age, alot of people who think of Holland think of the Dutch as pot addicts who love hookers. But ive found it completely the opposite, i can count the Dutch people ive met who smoke weed and go to the red light district regularly in one hand maybe two. Most of them seem to outgrow it and by the time they hit their mid twenties most quit. Weed and prostitution doesnt have that mystique or stigma ,so people here dont do it because its cool so in effect it becomes normal and people do it in moderation. But just like all things youll run into addicts.
On the other hand the ones who i see on regular occasion acting stupid and getting too fucked up are the tourists especially Americans and Brits. Then theres the problems associated with drugs like dealers and criminals who run these trades in countries with no tolerence of any sort of drugs and because of that lots of shit occurs due to this like murders,drive bys ,etc, over here hard drugs are illegal and thats what Dutch Drug authorities focus on, and all of the real hard drug activity occurs in the Red Light District and most customers will likely be surprise surprise Americans or Brits but aside from there most of the city is pretty safe. As for the legal stuff the worst i typically see is tourist throwing up after smoking too much.
Same for prostitution. Back home it was everywhere although illegal really blatant, i mean there is a bathhouse right in front of the Airforce base where Bush lands everytime he comes to Texas. But being illegal they are run by criminals who dont give a shit about STD safety,the rights of the women who choose to do this or their customers. Here its legal and the goverment regulates it, the women are their own bosses and get tested for STD's weekly. And instead of being spread out all over the city making it hard to look after its located in one part of town and cops are typically there in force.
True there is a measure of goverment control but they know people want to fuck and get high in no particular order but at least control it where alot of the problems associated with these types of vices which are illegal elsewhere
dont exsist. Not perfect its true but at least it gives people the right to do it and gives the goverment a better way of controlling it instead of jailing people and wasting tons of tax money fighting vices which people will do either which way illegal or not.
r.
Roman Empire... After that it became a money thing as govs found out that they could tax...
[/ QUOTE ]
... the roman goverment was ALWAYS about tax. They were a "money thing" from the start. Why do you think they invaded (and exterminated) all those countries??