Victimless crimes

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Adoption by gay individuals/couples?

Yea or nay?

I don't think it matters what the parents' sexuality is, if they can prove that they are responsible parents. In adoption, there is always going to be a certain risk as to whether the parents-to-be are going to be bad parents. In which case, it is the type of person that parent is, NOT their sexual orientation - which shouldn't have a bearing on parenting. Also, a lot of kids grow up in single parent homes now; wouldn't it be better to have two loving same sex people, than one single parent?

[Cirdan]

yes, more parents are better.

I thinking of time-sharing the boy (j/k)

I have heard many comments against it, but as long as there are orphans, the critics can just shut up.

[jerseydevil]

Okay - now that I've read the whole thread I can respond.

First I think that government needs to get out of people's personal lives.

What someone does in their bedroom or home is no one elses business as long as it's consentual.

I'm sort of on the fence when it comes to drugs. Drugs do cause too many medical problems and lost productivity. It's not really a victimless thing - but of course then most things aren't in one or another. Although I've never done any drugs ( just personal choice), I don't think all drugs should be treated equally. I have a friend that was in a coma for almost a week from various drug problems, but he's also an alcoholic. He keeps going back and forth with what actually put him in the coma - his drinking or the drugs. It was probably a combination - but his heroin use isn't very good either.

When it comes to prostitution. I feel that it's no different than a one night stand, just that money is being used. But that's no different than buying a girl a drink at a nightclub - now is it?

In response to people saying that woman are basically always victims of pornography - I disagree. Many woman porn stars are in it because they want to be. As Afro-Elf said - there are many ametuer webcams and various sites on the web that WOMEN choose to put up themselves.

For me, morality isn't so black and white as I've seen some people on this thread come off as believing. It seems that many religious people I have met enjoy judging others - even though the Bible teaches against it. This is particularly true when it comes to the issue of homosexuality. Humans are not the only animal that performs homosexual acts - nor are we the only animal that has sex for just enjoyment.

Also concerning homosexuality, science has found that we all physically start to develop as females. It's only when certain hormones are released that the fetis develops the male genitalia. So why can't homosexuality be the result of a similar occurence, even if there is no "gay gene" per say? This is what causes people to be born as hermaphrotites. I personally don't think that sexual orientation is 100% one way or 100% the other for anyone. Today's society has made it feel that way though or made us think that. Homosexual behavior was very common in ancient Greece and Rome and was openly accepted. Marc Anthony supposedly even had a male "companion".

Oh - and Afro-Elf, since this tread seemed to go off into whether homosexual is immoral or not, this is to bring it back to the subject of victimless crime. Can anyone tell me why I HAVE to wear a seat belt? I always wear my seatbelt and even if they repealed the law I would still wear it. But having a law saying that I must wear my seatbelt or I will be ticketed is really going too far. The same thing with motorcycle helmets. If someone riding a motorcycle doesn't want to wear a helmet and gets in an accicent - then they got what they deserved. We have become a world where government has to hold our hands. We want the world to be 100% safe, but it's not and NO AMOUNT of legistature is going to do that. Government can not eliminate stupidity or protect people form themselves by passing hand holding laws.

[Cirdan]

I think the seat belt/helmet laws are for controlling insurance costs. If someone doesn't get killed during an accident while not wearing one then everyone else has to pay through higher rates.

It satifies the requirement of making the dangerous behavior have less of a chance of impacting others. If this rule of standards was applied equally to all dangerous behaviors we would all lead safer and less costly lives.

Wake me when it's over...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Can anyone tell me why I HAVE to wear a seat belt? I always wear my seatbelt and even if they repealed the law I would still wear it. But having a law saying that I must wear my seatbelt or I will be ticketed is really going too far. The same thing with motorcycle helmets. If someone riding a motorcycle doesn't want to wear a helmet and gets in an accicent - then they got what they deserved.

Yeah, those bastards! They've taken away natural selection!

[azalea]

That argument is used often when supporting pornography (the woman is doing it willingly, who is hurt). But it perpetuates an attitude toward womankind, it objectifies them. There is a psychological element to it that is very subtle, which is why many men get "addicted" to it.

That's fine, you can have all the prostitution you want going on in your town, just tell me where that is so I don't buy a house there.

[noldo]

That argument is used often when supporting pornography (the woman is doing it willingly, who is hurt). But it perpetuates an attitude toward womankind, it objectifies them. There is a psychological element to it that is very subtle, which is why many men get "addicted" to it.

What about gay porn?

Being gay is not a crime, I view it as a sort of handicap, and think it must be a burden. But I would accept it and live a righteous life, gay or not.

Oh, it's not a burden. And if so, then only because some of you people make it feel like a one.

Also concerning homosexuality, science has found that we all physically start to develop as females. It's only when certain hormones are released that the fetis develops the male genitalia. So why can't homosexuality be the result of a similar occurence, even if there is no "gay gene" per say? This is what causes people to be born as hermaphrotites. I personally don't think that sexual orientation is 100% one way or 100% the other for anyone. Today's society has made it feel that way though or made us think that. Homosexual behavior was very common in ancient Greece and Rome and was openly accepted. Marc Anthony supposedly even had a male "companion".

So did Plato and Caesar...
And
1) there could be a gay gene
2) you're more likely to be gay if you're the youngest in a family with a lot of older brothers
3) brain differences
4) mother influence through childhood
5) physical differences (in brains, genitalia, etc...)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
I think the seat belt/helmet laws are for controlling insurance costs. If someone doesn't get killed during an accident while not wearing one then everyone else has to pay through higher rates.

It satifies the requirement of making the dangerous behavior have less of a chance of impacting others. If this rule of standards was applied equally to all dangerous behaviors we would all lead safer and less costly lives.

Wake me when it's over...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

It doesn't require laws to accomplish that. All the insurance industry has to do is just charge more for people that get into accidents that don't wear their seat belts. I mean - people that are overwieght or smoke also cause everyone to be paying higher insurance - but we haven't outlawed obesity. Concerning smoking - granted there are currently restrictions on smoking in restaruants. I personally don't want to be around smoke when I'm eating or in enclosed places. I do however think that California's no smoking in bars is completely ridiculous and I don't even smoke. If you go into a bar you expect smoke - same thing with bowling alleys.

Originally posted by
azalea

That argument is used often when supporting pornography (the woman is doing it willingly, who is hurt). But it perpetuates an attitude toward womankind, it objectifies them. There is a psychological element to it that is very subtle, which is why many men get "addicted" to it.

That's fine, you can have all the prostitution you want going on in your town, just tell me where that is so I don't buy a house there.

Is this the same way that woman wearing really skimpy bathing suits on the beach is being objectified (are they ASKING to be looked at or were they forced to wear it)? Or when actresses at award ceremonies wear see through dresses? Granted, this is a little bit different than pornography, but whose moral standards should we go by? If we go by the strictest in the world then I guess woman should follow the Middle Eastern law and be completely covered from head to toe. What your moral standard is and what my moral standard is - are two different things. You don't have to go into the porn industry, if a guy makes comments to you as you're walking down the street - you can tell him off. You have choices as an INDIVIDIUAL. And you've got to be kidding if you think that woman don't equally objectify men - all you have to do is look at the way girls carry on about the boy bands and I've heard many woman make "graphic" comments about Tom Cruise and various other actors.

[Lizra]

You've gotta be kidding if you think I'd believe that bull. Azealea's right. I'll state it again, PORN SUCKS.

[Cirdan]

If we are worried about the objectification of women then we had better ban television. Our entire culture objectifies women in the media. I'm guessing it beats wearing a burka all day.

As for the "addicted" thing... men would get adicted to mud if that was all there was around.

Smoking in Cali

I remember trying to have a cigar in SF; i had to walk a half a mile. I wouldn't walk a mile for one, however.

Auto insurance is different than life insurance in that it is manditory. If they adjusted it for smoking they would need to adjust it for people who use cell phones while driving (wankers).

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lizra
You've gotta be kidding if you think I'd believe that bull. Azealea's right. I'll state it again, PORN SUCKS.

That's your opinion. All I'm saying is who determines what's moral and what's not. You don't have to look at it. Why do you think your moral values are the ones that should be used and not some one else's?

Originally posted by Cirdan

Auto insurance is different than life insurance in that it is manditory. If they adjusted it for smoking they would need to adjust it for people who use cell phones while driving (wankers).

Actually in some towns in New Jersey and New York it's illegal to drive and talk on a cell phone now. Of course it's still legal to read, put on makeup, eat a hamburger, etc etc.

I do have a solution to all this morality stuff - why doesn't the governemt spend several billion dollars and poll everyone in the US and find out what they think is immoral. If anyone says anything bothers them or is immoral - it gets outlawed. That way no one in the US will accidently get offended. Of course we wouldn't be able to eat, because vegetarians would be against eating meat, bioengineered food would be outlawed and I'm sure some people would probably have moral stand on why we shouldn't eat vegetables. Not to mention that we would have no entertainment what so ever - since every book would be outlawed, no one would be able to agree on what is acceptable television and no one would be able to produce a movie that passed everyone's idea of "decency".

[BeardofPants]

because vegetarians would be against eating meat.

Hah! Excuse me, but I don't enforce my vegie views onto meat eaters. They can eat whatever the blarney they want.

I also see the need for an agricultural industry. If we were to suddenly give up eating meat, then what would happen to all the extraneous cattle? Exactly.

I'll state it again, PORN SUCKS.

And it's not porn that makes the sicko. So you see some rude bits. Big whoop. I say there are bigger problems in the world to deal with: namely, Britney Speirs.

And what's this about only men doing the objectifying? Bullcrap. Women look at porn as well.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Hah! Excuse me, but I don't enforce my vegie views onto meat eaters. They can eat whatever the blarney they want.

I wasn't directing the "vegetarian" thing at you BoP - although I'm sure you realise that. I'm just saying that as long as one person tells the government that eating meat is immoral - maybe it should be outlawed. We don't want to offend anyone in this country.

[Cirdan]

OK, now we are overlapping into the fear thread. Poll-based morals?

*hides naked behind extra large copy of bill of rights*

People who eat and put on makeup while driving? (more wankers)

[Lizra]

Well' I don't think they should throw you in jail if you create pornagraphy, But I'm very fine with it being well regulated. I just don't buy that bit about women choosing to be a part of the porn business cause they enjoy it. OK, maybe .001% might!, but it's a bunch of bull that all these "hot babes" are havin fun. As a woman, I'm very happy to have the pathetic, capitalistic industry of porn regulated.

[BeardofPants]

Yeah, I knew that JD.

Onto one of your points though, it's not the govt that censors people, it's committees. You know: those bored hausfrau women who have nothing better to do than to get "To kill a mocking bird" banned...

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Lizra
but it's a bunch of bull that all these "hot babes" are havin fun.

Well, I don't know about you, but in the past I haven't enjoyed my jobs either!

capitalistic industry

Regarding capitalism, hasn't it encroached upon everything now? Including religion? Christmas? Easter? Tourism? Yeah....


And last I heard, it was considered "healthy" by sex therapists to incorporate some porn into your sex life....

[Rána Eressëa]

Originally posted by Lizra
I just don't buy that bit about women choosing to be a part of the porn business cause they enjoy it. OK, maybe .001% might!, but it's a bunch of bull that all these "hot babes" are havin fun.

People don't join the porn industry because they hate it. Just remember that. Some may just join for the money, but don't jump to thinking, "Oh, they all are forced to do it!"

Shoot, if porn is okay, why isn't prostitution? It's all just sex for money. Except with one, only one person is paid, and in the other, other people who aren't a part of it pay. Big difference.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Onto one of your points though, it's not the govt that censors people, it's committees. You know: those bored hausfrau women who have nothing better to do than to get "To kill a mocking bird" banned...

Yeah - I'm too well aware of that. People that are too busy worrying about other people's kids instead of worrying about their own. Don't forget how many people worked at getting Harry Potter banned out of libraries and stuff too.

New Jersey was the first state to strike down the federal government's requirement for all public libraries to have censorware software on the computers. New Jersey courts ruled thaty it violated New Jersey's Constitution of Freedom of Speech.

And Cirdan - believe me - I have my Bill of Rights always handy too.

[Cirdan]

Virginia had the same censorware law struck down in court. The main problem is that it is based on words, hence speech, when all they are really after is the pictures, which could be named mylittlepony.jpg. (actually I think that happend)