Seconded. I'm not only a contrarian, I'm also a libertarian!You lose.
Food for thought
- Thread starter Austintatious
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I didn't find any of them demeaning. Nor did I see where Austin indicated s/he was above any of it either. It simply pointed out that we are all guilty in one form or another of not considering the needs/wants of other people when it's really none of our business, and we live in a society that spends way too much time trying to control other people's lives.
lvlninety9, I'm just guessing here, but I'd bet that when you graduate from law school you'd be more likely to be a prosecutor than a defense attorney. Maybe if we're really lucky, you'll eventually run for congress or the senate. Either way, I hope your a freshman, because after reading that post you seem to have a very long way to go when it comes to 'analyzing' the law.
Unfortunately, your post only serves to underline the truth in Austin's post.
If someone has sex with a prostitute and gets a disease, that's their fault and their problem. Anything beyond that - passing it to the next lucky partner, is not my problem but the one who chooses to sleep with someone they don't know well enough to know they have a disease.
See, the deal is there are two things this country is lacking...Personal Responsibility is nil - it's always someone else's fault, and your viewpoint only reinforces that issue.
The other problem is our laws in this country have no teeth. It's all feel good awwww it's not their fault...let's give them another chance.
I'm sure you heard about the guy who killed his wife on their honeymoon and will serve a total of 11 months. A 26 year old woman is dead, and he's out next spring. I know that was in Australia, but the same kind of thing happens here every day.
I have been personally involved in a situation where a person called my house and identified the cars in the driveway - we had company and he knew who was here, despite the fact that you absolutely cannot see our house because of the trees unless you are very close to it. He said he was getting ready to shoot my family, and this was after we had a restraining order against him. We called the police, and they said 'well he had a movie ticket, so he was at the movies'. This situation went on for six months and one story is worse than the next, and he has since had charges against him in three states that I am aware of and guess what? He's still walking around, stealing, threatening and doing whatever he wants.
The same holds true for ecigs...all this nonsense about 'protecting the children' makes me ill. There are laws in place to do that, and if we'd enforce them then we wouldn't even have a need for this forum because no one would be able to come up with stupid ways to pass more stupid laws that only punish those of us who play by the rules.
We make laws, then when people blatantly flaunt them, we do little or nothing.
I don't mean to be rude to anyone here, but if there's one thing that will make me speak my mind is an attorney - or a future attorney - spouting nonsense about protecting me from myself. Our judicial system should not exist to protect us from our own mistakes that will bring harm to no one else. They should exist to protect us when another person's choices will adversely affect us, yet that is when they fail us most miserably.
Austin...very good point and well taken.
By driving those people underground, the prohibition causes disease spread.
They force drug sales to be criminal, sold by criminals. Prohibition causes the robbery and deaths. Did the same when alcohol was prohibited.
If we didn't create 400 billion dollar criminal markets, maybe we wouldn't have so much crime.
Study up on prohibitions from a criminal justice point of view, start with alcohol prohibition. It did two big things. It created massive organized crime, killings including drive by shootings, mass assassinations, and was the impetus behind the original gun ban (National firearms act). It also had the effect of moving alcohol users from beer, to more potent liquor.. More potency in less volume.
We're still at it, creating a $400 billion drug market, that has turned out inner cities into gangland war zones with gangs killing and fighting over a piece of the money pie.
Same with prostitution, drugs etc. They will not leave society. Prohibition only removes any opportunity to regulate, drives it underground and hands that market over to organized crime and compounds the problem, making it much worse.
I think someone needs to clarify the difference between LAWS AND BANS.......do I support the ban of any of these absolutely not...........do I support laws and regulations as in.......If you harm someone while using or trying to get one of these things yes.
Gigantic difference betweens laws and bans. I do however agree that most people are closed minded hypocrites who have everything to say about what you're doing and want no input on what they're doing
Gigantic difference betweens laws and bans. I do however agree that most people are closed minded hypocrites who have everything to say about what you're doing and want no input on what they're doing
in Texas we have what are called wet and dry counties were alcohol is concerned. I live in a dry county so no alcohol sales . everyone just goes over to another county to buy it. how ever i think the ban hurts young people becuase our drug use is so high. after all if it's illeagle ewhy not try everything. to many young peoples lifes are being ruined by substanc use and jail time. i think if they ban nic juice same will happen and will just get it from china in small orders. So dumb.......
My take on it is that certain substances/activities if not regulated will naturally attract those that abuse and or exploit others and it takes deep and thoughtful consideration (not blind legislation) to assess risks and deal with them realistically.
As for marriage, other than establishing the age of consent, I think either we need to decide that all marriages stand as a legal contract between consenting partners in any configuration that those involved so desire (including polygamy, gay, straight, or transsexual) or we need to accept that all marriages (including heterosexual) are personal agreements and are not recognized as legal contracts (thus everyone is free to marry according to their own beliefs, and everyone is free to become domestic partners with a legal contract should they so choose.)
Agreed. It sounds counter intuitive, but you really do have more freedom within the law. Lack of regulation leads to chaos.
The problem is the mixing of the terms marriage and union. Marriage is a strictly religious ceremony. The government shouldn't have anything to do with it. The government should only be concerned with unions. If two or more people want to draw up papers that place them in a legal union, there should be no problem with that. It's no different than forming a corporate partnership. The problem arrises when the government sanctions marriage. Marriages should be separate from unions altogether. You get a legal union from the government and then you have your wedding in the church of your choice. Two completely distinct events. One religious, one secular.
confused as to why you're quoting me...........I agree w/ regulations, but not bans
and my personal thoughts on marriage and unions are this..if 2 people want to be together who gives a rats ... whether or not the govt is involved. people put too much stock in a piece of paper
I quoted you because I agreed, I guess I should have been clearer as to my intent.
The government needs to be involved with these unions because they have legal implications, just like contracts of any kind do. Unions grant people rights, like the right to sign papers for their partners when they become sick and so forth. If people want to be legally unified, the government should be involved. But that's not marriage. A marriage is a religious ceremony. The government shouldn't have any direct involvement with it at all. How and where you marry is between you and your church. But if you want to be united in the eyes of the law, you need the government to sign off on it. Marriage and civil unions should be decoupled.
i think the argument is really between licesne and contract. i got a license from the state to be in accordance with the law in that state. as to contract not really worth the paper to blow it up. so states must have a better reason to deny lisence than just same sex in my opinion.
In effect, the license is a contract. It's recognition by the state that a legal union between two people has occurred. The marriage license isn't the problem, except to the extent that it's only offered to different sex couples in most states. The problem is the confusion between the license and marriage. Marriage isn't a state function. It's a religious function. The two need to be decoupled conceptually. You and your spouse (same sex or not) get a license from the sate and you're now united. If you choose to get married in a church, that's fine too, but it's not required.
okay so all this mess is just the word marriage and the fact that same sex is not.licsensable in each state. i just ask because it seems so wrong let who ever marry except blood related problems. wasn't that why licence was adopted in the first place records and illness due to blood.
No.
Birth registries would/have eliminated the problem of siblings and close relations intermarrying.
Marriage contracts (depending on country, and in the US, state) give the partners in a marriage certain specific rights to inherit property, to make decisions for the other person, to control business holdings, etc.
In the US some states have common law marriages, whereas a certain set of time for an opposite sex couple cohabits and they are considered married even without the formality of an actual wedding license. Whereas same sex couples would not be recognized as common law spouses no matter how long they've cohabited, and in many cases where both are legal guardians of a common child.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
