Libertarians Unite

[Nixit]

Well... drug addiction harms yourself. *shrugs*

Depends on the drug, really, among other factors.

The vast majority of drugs tend to have negative effects.

And you used the example with the dad hating the fact that he is gay... now I can see that, but you'd still be "gay" even if you didn't go with your homosexual tendencies.

You'd still be a drug addict if you stopped using.

But then I would be a drug addict in name only.

And I suppose it can affect other people... but a drug addiction would literally change the person as a whole (them using most or all money for drugs, abandoning family because they need drugs). Whereas homosexuality would only affect people who can't accept that fact that they are homosexual.

There wouldn't be a family related problem if the family accepted the person's drug use, would there?
Alcoholics can still be productive members of society, because alcohol use is socially accepted in most cultures.
I believe the same is not the case for drug addicts because, those drugs they use are not socially acceptable.
I'd liken alcohol in terms of negative health affects and intensity of intoxication to the more stronger drugs like heroin or cocaine.
Yet the milder drugs like marijuana and amphetamines cause more SOCIAL problems in proportion to their adverse affects, because of society's view on them.

Read my bold, and you will see that your italics clearly doesn't apply to that situation, unless the family enjoys being abandoned for some perverse reason.

[AoM]

@Farmer: Yes, there is some "choice" in choosing wether to act upon one's homosexuality or not. It depends on whether you see the act as a sin or not. The thing is, without religion telling us it was wrong, it wouldn't be. It's not any more harmful than heterosexual activity, and as has been discussed, there is the strong possibility that it is, at the very least, partially biological and therefore natural (it occurs in nature). Homesexuality has been documented to have been socially acceptable in cultures that have come before us, including the ancient greeks and the feudal japanese.

So essentially, if you don't believe in the bible as the word of the one true God, then there's no logical reason to conclude that homosexuality is a sin. Since christian beliefs should ideally not be tied to the government that passes the laws under which I and my friends and family live, there is no logical reason for my government to conclude that the sanctity of marriage needs protecting.

[Nick]

However, not all marriages these days are religious. No sir. You can get married by a guy dressed up as Elvis in Las Vegas in a house that certainly mocks God more than celebrates him. Or if you are incredibly dull, you can just have your local notery sign and stamp some papers for you and bam! you're married. So if marriage is not fundamentally religious, then a religious arguement to define its "sancitity" across the board has no business being a government issue. It is rendered an invalid arguement.

Good point.

I find it sad that gay marriage is even a subject of debate, mainly in a country where people have gotten married upwards of seven times. Or Brittany Spears' marriage which lasted a day.

Seriously, even if you think the "sancitity of marriage" needs to be changed or maintained, gay marriage is far from the foremost of problems, if you even want to consider it a problem.

[Nick]

The vast majority of drugs tend to have negative effects.

I can't think of many things that don't.

But then I would be a drug addict in name only.

No, I don't think you fully understand addiction (not that anyone really does, but I'm speaking in relative terms). If you're addicted to something, you can quit, but you're still addicted.

And I suppose it can affect other people... but a drug addiction would literally change the person as a whole (them using most or all money for drugs, abandoning family because they need drugs). Whereas homosexuality would only affect people who can't accept that fact that they are homosexual.

Who abandons their family because they need drugs? Is there some dealer out there who gives drugs to those who leave their family?

And in regards to spending money... people spend it as they please. They might waste it all on drugs, or they might waste it all on a computer and internet connection to play Cantr. Who is to say what is right or wrong what you do with YOUR money?

[formerly known as hf]

AoM: I violently disagree with the (sole) reason for homosexuality as something biological.
I can understand hormonal imbalances, the kind that inform the reasoning behind (many/most) transgenderedness. (word?)
I can understand that homosexuality may be biological in some (many/most?) cases - the reasoning (genetic / homronal because of genetic / psychological - I know is debateable - (a 'gay' gene is yet to be found...) and I'm not versed enough in that area to comment properly)

That's not to deny the possibility of 'nature' for the majority - but just to say it is not for all - and that to hear people say that sexuality (of any kind) is biologically determined is just something that makes me cringe.

In fact, the whole concept of biological determinism makes me cringe - I'm certainly in the 'nuture over nature' camp...

----------------------------

About Gay Marriage in other countries - I'm currently fairly pleased here in the UK. The governnment, earlier this year, announced a 'partnership reigister' - this register gives the same public rights, in law etc. to same sex couples who sign it, as those heterosexual partnerships who sign the marriage register.

It's not all the way there yet - it is only for same sex couple - and is not defined as 'marriage'.

I agree very much with AoM's sentiments about marriage - simply because, for me, as I am not religious, marriage would have no religious connotations for me. However, I know it does for many people, and they would not, for religious reasons, want 'marriage' to be open to same sex couples.

The best solution in my mind is to remove marriage as the definition in law. Marriage should be a solely religious ceremony, and public partnership should be part of a register for both homo and heterosexual partnerships, which is not entitled 'marriage' - this allows the 'sanctity of marriage' (despite a 50% divorce rate) to be kept - and removes the religious overtones of a government definition. If religious homosexual partnerships do wish to get married - they can easily find a willing parish, and follow the same procedures as same sex couples.
This splitting of 'marriage' and 'partnership register' still implies differences between the two types of partnerships.

[Nixit]

I can't think of many things that don't.

Then I fail to see your earlier point.

No, I don't think you fully understand addiction (not that anyone really does, but I'm speaking in relative terms). If you're addicted to something, you can quit, but you're still addicted.

Yes, I get that Nick, but the problem is not "being an addict," it's whether you succumb to your "addiction" and continue to buy and use your drugs.

Who abandons their family because they need drugs? Is there some dealer out there who gives drugs to those who leave their family?

And in regards to spending money... people spend it as they please. They might waste it all on drugs, or they might waste it all on a computer and internet connection to play Cantr. Who is to say what is right or wrong what you do with YOUR money?

If that person were single, then yes their not hurting anyone but themself. BUT say this person has a family to support, and he or she uses it all for drugs, then this family is essentially ruined.


Personally, I think a lot of your comments here are just to aggravate me Nick. Am I correct?

[Racetyme]

Farmer, I'm sorry but you are wrong. Homosexuality is determined by biological factors. I have read some studies, from the economist, sorry can't tell you the date, however it has been at least 1 and a half years. In these studies they studied homosexual women, heterosexual women, and heterosexual men. It was determined that in heterosexual women, their pointer finger is typically longer than their ring finger, but in men and homosexual women exactly the opposite was true. Tests were also done where all three groups of test subjects were put in a chair in a dark room and surprised by light and noise. The men and homosexual women reacted faster than the heterosexual women. (I'm not sure if that was the actual difference, but men and homosexual women were once again the same, wherease heterosexual women were different.) Clearly these are clear indications that sexuality is a biologically determined trait. Further testing was done, and the brains of homosexual women were found to have a similair hormonal composition to that of heterosexual men, meaning they had more testosterone. Your brain is effectively that of the opposite sex, making you predetermined to be homosexual. That is just how it is. Plain and simple.

[formerly known as hf]

Nick:
Nixit has failed to put the point across very well, but he is right.

Drug use does have very extensive effects on other people.

I don't think drug addiction harms anyone directly.

There wouldn't be a family related problem if the family accepted the person's drug use, would there?

Yes - there would. Families can be accepting and supporting of drug addicts. Not necessarily supporting the habit, but not disowning them.
I've seen families under the intense emotional strain of having a drug adict in the family.
Come back and say that drug use doesn't affect anyone else directly when you see a young child who has a mother with a smack habit...

Alcoholics can still be productive members of society, because alcohol use is socially accepted in most cultures.
I believe the same is not the case for drug addicts because, those drugs they use are not socially acceptable.

Maybe things are different in Canada?
Here in the UK, alcohol addiction is treated with the same care and concern as any other form of drug addiction.
Often even more so, because alcoholism is often linked with (domestic) violence.
Alcoholics are rarely viewed as productive members of society - the same way crack addicts aren't.

ALL forms of addiction are harmful. Wether it be hard drugs, soft drugs, alcohol, nicotine or porn. Having worked in a mental health unit for the NHS, I have seen, first hand, how addiction often goes hand in hand with other psycholgical problems.
Numerous studies, over many years, have shown that those with poor mental health often suffer from addiction - most often nicotine addiction (if only because of the widespread availability)

Ignoring the physiological side effects, it has long been known that any form of addiction is harmful psychologically.

-----------

I am in no way making any judement on drug users. I have been a user of 'hard' drugs, and a smoker, and still regularly use 'soft' drugs and drink alcohol. I have seen that it is possible to be a 'user' and 'keep it under control' ("recreational" use).
But that is not the reason why I am pro legalisation of drug use. On the flip side of the above, I have also seen, first hand, how slippery it can be to go from "recreational" use to having a "habit" - and the extreme psycholgical effects it can have - on the user and those around them.

I have been involved in rehabilitation, and have seen how, in many (certainly not all) circumstances it can be very succesful.

Not all drug users need help - but many do. Many people (not all by any means) turn to drugs via depression or some other psychological problem, or, conversely, because of drug use, develop psychological problems.
People in these situations need help and support.
Help and support can not be given as effectively as it could whilst the drug users are classified as 'criminal'.

[formerly known as hf]

Racetyme: I really, really hope your last post was not sincere?

I have seen that study - I have seen many other sources of research into the (possible) biological determinants of sexuality - and none have been conclusive. Yes there is some possibility of biological determinism - most pronounced in the case of transgendered people - but it is certainly not in the case of all.

The last thing I would call the research you quoted is scientific - finger lengths? There is much more to my sexuality than the length of my appendage...

[Racetyme]

Did you even read what I wrote? Don't disrespect me by ignoring what I said.

[formerly known as hf]

the bit about hormones?

Like I've said, I've read that kind of research - and none of it claims to be conclusive - and none of it is...

EDIT:

Your brain is effectively that of the opposite sex, making you predetermined to be homosexual. That is just how it is. Plain and simple.

This I take particular offence to...

Like I said, I hope I misread that, and it wasn't meant as sincere?

[Racetyme]

Once again, take me seriously and make a real attempt to disprove my arguments instead of just saying stupid shit like "You must be kidding this is rediculous and impossible"

[formerly known as hf]

disprove your arguments?

For one - you are misquoting studies - the studies you refer to (except possibly the 'pop science' in the economist) have themselves admited that biological predisposition is not the case for ALL people. That there ARE exceptions.

Secondly - give me about ten minutes, and I can provide you with a bunch of sources that claim that biological predeterminism either hardly exists in realtion to sexuality, or is only a very small part, not affectingeveryone...

[Racetyme]

I'll be anxiously awaiting it.

[Nixit]

ALL forms of addiction are harmful.

Even Cantr??


And thanks Farmer, I'm not that great at debating... (perhaps I should have joined Debate Team....)