Help
So I'm 18... So what now?
#26
- Writer/Head Artist for A Thought For A Day
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,426
- Joined: 10-February 05
- Location:The People's Republic of County Dun Laoghaire Rathdown
Posted 12 February 2007 - 08:05 PM
Wow, you read a post by Ankhwatcher you must be so proud.
Ankhwatcher is a member of the ATT A-Team & Present holder of ATT's greatest gravedig record.
This way to A Thought For A Day.
Ankhwatcher is a member of the ATT A-Team & Present holder of ATT's greatest gravedig record.
This way to A Thought For A Day.
MultiQuote
#27
- Invigilator
-
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 7,372
- Joined: 25-January 00
- Location:New York, New York
Posted 13 February 2007 - 01:44 AM
mrxak, on Feb 13 2007, 12:25 AM, said:
Maybe that's just in Australia? Or perhaps memories fade over time (if they had to remember the sentence, the case was probably long over)?
No, this study was conducted during and immediately after the case. And, with respect, I highly doubt that jurors in Australia are less intelligent than those in America.
Sundered Angel,
The One and Only
Ares Webboard Moderator, and all-around Nice Guy
The One and Only
Ares Webboard Moderator, and all-around Nice Guy
#28
- Rabid Haiku Generator
-
- Group: Super Moderators
- Posts: 25,415
- Joined: 01-September 00
- Gender:Male
- Location:Drifting through space in a broken escape pod.
Posted 13 February 2007 - 03:45 AM
Well there are some obvious differences in the legal systems. For instance, I have no idea what the sentence was in my case either, sentencing happens long after jurors get dismissed in the USA. In any case, if you're going to base your faith in the legal system of the US on a study conducted on jurors in another country, that strikes me as a little bizarre.
#29
- The One Free Man
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,651
- Joined: 14-November 05
- Gender:Male
- Location:right behind you.
Posted 13 February 2007 - 02:10 PM
Hm. Maybe this should just be converted into a topic about politics.
So how about those gay marriage issues?
So how about those gay marriage issues?
"THERE IS NOTHING MORE PRODUCTIVE THAN CHEESE!" -- mrxak
#30
- Rabid Haiku Generator
-
- Group: Super Moderators
- Posts: 25,415
- Joined: 01-September 00
- Gender:Male
- Location:Drifting through space in a broken escape pod.
Posted 13 February 2007 - 02:33 PM
18, being an age with multiple legal and societal consequences, is inherently a political topic.
As for gay marriage, I am still proud to be from the only state giving equal civil rights to everybody, and leaving marriage
(as the sacred act, if that's your thing) up to the religious organizations to bless or shun as they will. Governments should not interfere with matters of the church, and vice versa.
Essentially, if you can find a preacher willing to marry you and whoever you love, so be it. The government should just be a rubber stamp to give you visitation rights and tax benefits. That is the only thing that the government should have to do with marriage. I have long been in favor of abolishing the marriage license, in favor of civil unions for everybody, with marriages only coming from religious bodies. You can get a civil union without a marriage, you can get a marriage without a civil union. One gives you rights within the state, the other gives rights within the religious body you belong to. Neither should attempt to interfere with the other. Is it semantics? Yes. Does it matter? Also yes.
As for gay marriage, I am still proud to be from the only state giving equal civil rights to everybody, and leaving marriage
(as the sacred act, if that's your thing) up to the religious organizations to bless or shun as they will. Governments should not interfere with matters of the church, and vice versa.
Essentially, if you can find a preacher willing to marry you and whoever you love, so be it. The government should just be a rubber stamp to give you visitation rights and tax benefits. That is the only thing that the government should have to do with marriage. I have long been in favor of abolishing the marriage license, in favor of civil unions for everybody, with marriages only coming from religious bodies. You can get a civil union without a marriage, you can get a marriage without a civil union. One gives you rights within the state, the other gives rights within the religious body you belong to. Neither should attempt to interfere with the other. Is it semantics? Yes. Does it matter? Also yes.
#31
- The One Free Man
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,651
- Joined: 14-November 05
- Gender:Male
- Location:right behind you.
Posted 13 February 2007 - 02:35 PM
I agree. I have a very close friend who is gay and I defend gay rights whenever they come up. Some of the arguments that people have against it really bug me. 
Ah well.
Ah well.
"THERE IS NOTHING MORE PRODUCTIVE THAN CHEESE!" -- mrxak
#32
- Rabid Haiku Generator
-
- Group: Super Moderators
- Posts: 25,415
- Joined: 01-September 00
- Gender:Male
- Location:Drifting through space in a broken escape pod.
Posted 13 February 2007 - 02:44 PM
Quite frankly, if somebody next door is having sex, I don't care what kind it is or who they're doing it with, so long as both are consenting adults. It's none of my business. I may not want to do some of those things, or do things with certain people, and that's my right, but I have no right to tell others what they can and cannot do. People fear that gay people spread STDs because they have so many partners, but then they tell those gays that they can't have more meaningful binding monogamous relationships. And look at the divorce rate for straight couples now... above 50%. Straight people are hardly living up to the sanctity of the institution as it is, let more people have the chance at it. Yeah, they'll probably end up divorcing at the same rate... but maybe they'll be grateful enough to have the chance that they'll put the rest of us to shame by having a much lower rate of divorce.
Ultimately, I think the real fear is just that... that gay couples will prove to the world that they're just as capable as straight couples of having successful families.
Ultimately, I think the real fear is just that... that gay couples will prove to the world that they're just as capable as straight couples of having successful families.
#33 Guest_Zed_*
Posted 13 February 2007 - 09:08 PM
Trah, on Feb 11 2007, 03:42 AM, said:
my personal rate is 100% Nationwide..... it is rather ugly.
But honestly, if you're too lazy to vote, I dont want your input in the government.
But honestly, if you're too lazy to vote, I dont want your input in the government.
That would be the difference between communism (forced participation) and a democracy (optional participation). If you don't care I don't want you voting either.
#34 Guest_Zed_*
Posted 13 February 2007 - 09:21 PM
mrxak, on Feb 13 2007, 02:44 PM, said:
Quite frankly, if somebody next door is having sex, I don't care what kind it is or who they're doing it with, so long as both are consenting adults. It's none of my business. I may not want to do some of those things, or do things with certain people, and that's my right, but I have no right to tell others what they can and cannot do. People fear that gay people spread STDs because they have so many partners, but then they tell those gays that they can't have more meaningful binding monogamous relationships. And look at the divorce rate for straight couples now... above 50%. Straight people are hardly living up to the sanctity of the institution as it is, let more people have the chance at it. Yeah, they'll probably end up divorcing at the same rate... but maybe they'll be grateful enough to have the chance that they'll put the rest of us to shame by having a much lower rate of divorce.
Ultimately, I think the real fear is just that... that gay couples will prove to the world that they're just as capable as straight couples of having successful families.
Ultimately, I think the real fear is just that... that gay couples will prove to the world that they're just as capable as straight couples of having successful families.
My opinion on homosexual sex is that it is simply a form of sexual imorality, just like having sex before marriage, cheating on your wife, sleeping with a prostitute...etc...The one thing most people with the issue don't want to admit is that marriage for governmenal purposes was formed to encourage healthy families for its future citizens to be raised in. You don't want your furture citizens to be raised in an adverse environment.
Such as my opinion may be, I think that all forms of sexual immorality are unhealthy I think just about any stat on marriage of heterosexual couples will back me up on the fact that it is the healthiest sexual relationship, one partner with no previous sexual expericence for either partner. Nevertheless it is the choice of the individual what to do with their body and I can neither take that away nor would I want to.
#35
- Rabid Haiku Generator
-
- Group: Super Moderators
- Posts: 25,415
- Joined: 01-September 00
- Gender:Male
- Location:Drifting through space in a broken escape pod.
Posted 14 February 2007 - 12:45 AM
Zed, on Feb 13 2007, 09:21 PM, said:
Nevertheless it is the choice of the individual what to do with their body and I can neither take that away nor would I want to.
Okay, so you support gay marriage then (or at the very least, don't wish to ban it)?
#36
- Deadpan Orator
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 13,878
- Joined: 03-August 02
- Gender:Male
- Location:DC
Posted 14 February 2007 - 01:20 AM
mrxak, on Feb 13 2007, 12:33 PM, said:
Essentially, if you can find a preacher willing to marry you and whoever you love, so be it. The government should just be a rubber stamp to give you visitation rights and tax benefits. That is the only thing that the government should have to do with marriage. I have long been in favor of abolishing the marriage license, in favor of civil unions for everybody, with marriages only coming from religious bodies. You can get a civil union without a marriage, you can get a marriage without a civil union. One gives you rights within the state, the other gives rights within the religious body you belong to. Neither should attempt to interfere with the other. Is it semantics? Yes. Does it matter? Also yes.
Zed, on Feb 13 2007, 07:21 PM, said:
The one thing most people with the issue don't want to admit is that marriage for governmenal purposes was formed to encourage healthy families for its future citizens to be raised in.
Nope. Marriage has always been predominantly an economic relationship between families, clans, or political establishments. The earliest legal recognition of marriage in the western world only dealt with the passage of bridewealth "owned" by the wife to the husband. We've never quite overcome this, married women are still regarded as property for various legal purposes. Laws protecting the family in regards to marriage traditionally have taken the form of mandating equal distribution of a husband's wealth to his wives and their respective children. Monogamy and the conception of the family as such are fairly recent and rare developments in history. Laws regarding marriage are not.
Zed, on Feb 13 2007, 07:21 PM, said:
You don't want your furture citizens to be raised in an adverse environment.
Sure you do. It builds character.
Zed, on Feb 13 2007, 07:21 PM, said:
I think that all forms of sexual immorality are unhealthy I think just about any stat on marriage of heterosexual couples will back me up on the fact that it is the healthiest sexual relationship, one partner with no previous sexual expericence for either partner.
Stuff and nonsense. First, moral does not equate with being healthy. You can test for health, morality is much more vague. I will grant you that studies on married heterosexual couples with no prior sexual experience will demonstrate that there is a very low rate of STD transmission amongst such folks. Of course, two single homosexuals with no prior sexual experience would have an equally low transmission rate of STDs. The key to your statement in terms of health is the "no previous sexual experience for either partner," not the fact that they are either married or heterosexual.
-Pufer
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who said it, even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." -The Buddha
#37
- The One Free Man
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,651
- Joined: 14-November 05
- Gender:Male
- Location:right behind you.
Posted 14 February 2007 - 02:25 PM
See, the thing I want to say about gay marriage (sorry Pufer, I'd respond to your post but I'm in a lazy mood and can't be bothered to actually read the thing) is that I feel like straights are looking at gays and saying "you can't be in our club. You're allowed to, like, exist and stuff, but you can't have what we do.".
(just to clarify, I'm not gay)
(just to clarify, I'm not gay)
"THERE IS NOTHING MORE PRODUCTIVE THAN CHEESE!" -- mrxak
#38
- Rabid Haiku Generator
-
- Group: Super Moderators
- Posts: 25,415
- Joined: 01-September 00
- Gender:Male
- Location:Drifting through space in a broken escape pod.
Posted 14 February 2007 - 05:14 PM
Yeah, as Pufer said, it's an economic thing, in particular inheritance. Females carry the heirs, but who's heir? It's a lot easier to figure out when there's a legal document.
#39
- Forum Pun-dit
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 4,066
- Joined: 02-June 05
- Gender:Male
- Location:a McMaster University Library
Posted 14 February 2007 - 06:35 PM
mrxak, on Feb 13 2007, 02:44 PM, said:
Quite frankly, if somebody next door is having sex, I don't care what kind it is or who they're doing it with, so long as both are consenting adults. It's none of my business. I may not want to do some of those things, or do things with certain people, and that's my right, but I have no right to tell others what they can and cannot do. People fear that gay people spread STDs because they have so many partners, but then they tell those gays that they can't have more meaningful binding monogamous relationships. And look at the divorce rate for straight couples now... above 50%. Straight people are hardly living up to the sanctity of the institution as it is, let more people have the chance at it. Yeah, they'll probably end up divorcing at the same rate... but maybe they'll be grateful enough to have the chance that they'll put the rest of us to shame by having a much lower rate of divorce.
Ultimately, I think the real fear is just that... that gay couples will prove to the world that they're just as capable as straight couples of having successful families.
Ultimately, I think the real fear is just that... that gay couples will prove to the world that they're just as capable as straight couples of having successful families.
The problem with gay couples having succesful families is that they need to adopt, which isn't really a problem. Its sad when you look at adoption rates.
Zed, on Feb 13 2007, 09:08 PM, said:
That would be the difference between communism (forced participation) and a democracy (optional participation). If you don't care I don't want you voting either.
You can always spoil your ballot by voting for more than one candidate. Then your vote doesn't count.
VXI
#40
- pugnacious
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 6,601
- Joined: 13-July 02
- Gender:Male
- Location:Ill Noise
Posted 14 February 2007 - 07:09 PM
Since I turned 18 four months ago, I have:
voted
not had to have my parents sign various waivers, and excused myself from classes
bought a dirty magazine (although not for myself)
Voting was cool and all, but I think that being able to recklessly throw myself into danger without my parents knowing is the best of the things I've gotten to so far. I keep meaning to buy a lottery ticket for s***s and giggles, but haven't yet.
Well I assume he's talking about the psychological health of a marriage, since it's in the context of raising kids, but I don't really know how you'd survey that with any accuracy either.
And even if were to find that single-sex couples raise troubled children, would that mean we should eliminate them? We don't forbid people from getting divorced or having kids out of wedlock, even though the majority of Americans, including myself, would probably agree that having two parents is preferable to either of these.
voted
not had to have my parents sign various waivers, and excused myself from classes
bought a dirty magazine (although not for myself)
Voting was cool and all, but I think that being able to recklessly throw myself into danger without my parents knowing is the best of the things I've gotten to so far. I keep meaning to buy a lottery ticket for s***s and giggles, but haven't yet.
Pufer, on Feb 13 2007, 10:20 PM, said:
Stuff and nonsense. First, moral does not equate with being healthy. You can test for health, morality is much more vague. I will grant you that studies on married heterosexual couples with no prior sexual experience will demonstrate that there is a very low rate of STD transmission amongst such folks. Of course, two single homosexuals with no prior sexual experience would have an equally low transmission rate of STDs. The key to your statement in terms of health is the "no previous sexual experience for either partner," not the fact that they are either married or heterosexual.
-Pufer
-Pufer
Well I assume he's talking about the psychological health of a marriage, since it's in the context of raising kids, but I don't really know how you'd survey that with any accuracy either.
And even if were to find that single-sex couples raise troubled children, would that mean we should eliminate them? We don't forbid people from getting divorced or having kids out of wedlock, even though the majority of Americans, including myself, would probably agree that having two parents is preferable to either of these.
INTELLECT: By convention there is sweetness, by convention bitterness, by convention color, in reality only atoms and the void.
SENSES: Foolish intellect! Do you seek to overthrow us, while it is from us that you take your evidence?
SENSES: Foolish intellect! Do you seek to overthrow us, while it is from us that you take your evidence?
#42
- (----------)/
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 7,266
- Joined: 08-December 04
- Location:1600x1200 pixels of Linux
Posted 14 February 2007 - 11:20 PM
Somewhere in Africa.
You put what in my Power Mac?
Its like what happens when you cross a phoenix with a super black hole; it's powerful enough to destroy itself, only to be reborn in a vicious cycle of torment and pain. Or in this case, nonsense.
-Avatara, on the life cycle of ATT.
Dude, imagine Redline Trash Talk; the unholy spawn of B&B and ATT.
-ephrin
Will not get involved in a creation/evolution debate.
We're being overrun!
Its like what happens when you cross a phoenix with a super black hole; it's powerful enough to destroy itself, only to be reborn in a vicious cycle of torment and pain. Or in this case, nonsense.
-Avatara, on the life cycle of ATT.
Dude, imagine Redline Trash Talk; the unholy spawn of B&B and ATT.
-ephrin
Will not get involved in a creation/evolution debate.
We're being overrun!
#44
- Invigilator
-
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 7,372
- Joined: 25-January 00
- Location:New York, New York
Posted 14 February 2007 - 11:42 PM
Since it appears that the board has an ample supply of common sense when it comes to gay marriage, I will only contribute a single link on the subject: http://www.apa.org/p...gpchildren.html
This is the official website of the American Psychological Association, specifically their page regarding the children of gay/lesbian couples. I suggest those who have thoughts and/or an interest in the field peruse the page, or at the very least the summary at the bottom.
This is the official website of the American Psychological Association, specifically their page regarding the children of gay/lesbian couples. I suggest those who have thoughts and/or an interest in the field peruse the page, or at the very least the summary at the bottom.
Sundered Angel,
The One and Only
Ares Webboard Moderator, and all-around Nice Guy
The One and Only
Ares Webboard Moderator, and all-around Nice Guy
#45
- Deadpan Orator
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 13,878
- Joined: 03-August 02
- Gender:Male
- Location:DC
Posted 15 February 2007 - 12:28 AM
The Real Darth Bob, on Feb 14 2007, 09:29 PM, said:
People eating chimps. Once again showing it is poor manners to eat one's cousin.
Fearsomely droll my good man. Fearsomely droll.
-Pufer
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who said it, even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." -The Buddha
#46
- ???
-
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 12,067
- Joined: 11-January 00
- Gender:Male
- Location:Gainesville, FL, USA
Posted 15 February 2007 - 12:52 AM
mrxak, on Feb 13 2007, 02:33 PM, said:
Essentially, if you can find a preacher willing to marry you and whoever you love, so be it. The government should just be a rubber stamp to give you visitation rights and tax benefits. That is the only thing that the government should have to do with marriage. I have long been in favor of abolishing the marriage license, in favor of civil unions for everybody, with marriages only coming from religious bodies. You can get a civil union without a marriage, you can get a marriage without a civil union. One gives you rights within the state, the other gives rights within the religious body you belong to. Neither should attempt to interfere with the other. Is it semantics? Yes. Does it matter? Also yes.
Occasionally, mrxak takes a break from being crazy to say smart things.
#47
- Rabid Haiku Generator
-
- Group: Super Moderators
- Posts: 25,415
- Joined: 01-September 00
- Gender:Male
- Location:Drifting through space in a broken escape pod.
Posted 15 February 2007 - 02:38 AM
Sundered Angel, on Feb 14 2007, 11:42 PM, said:
Since it appears that the board has an ample supply of common sense when it comes to gay marriage, I will only contribute a single link on the subject: http://www.apa.org/p...gpchildren.html
This is the official website of the American Psychological Association, specifically their page regarding the children of gay/lesbian couples. I suggest those who have thoughts and/or an interest in the field peruse the page, or at the very least the summary at the bottom.
This is the official website of the American Psychological Association, specifically their page regarding the children of gay/lesbian couples. I suggest those who have thoughts and/or an interest in the field peruse the page, or at the very least the summary at the bottom.
There's also studies that say that your parents have way less of an influence on your life than your siblings. The time spent with siblings growing up is a lot more than the time spent with parents, in most families. Brothers and sisters are basically peers, together siblings learn about social situations and behaviors, and together become well adjusted individuals. Think about it from your own life.
Lobster, on Feb 15 2007, 12:52 AM, said:
Occasionally, mrxak takes a break from being crazy to say smart things.
I'm not crazy, just misunderstood in my constant genius.
#48
- Party Animal
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 6,982
- Joined: 25-May 05
- Gender:Male
- Location:Some fun variant on hell
Posted 15 February 2007 - 05:45 PM
Massachusetts rules. Whatever you think about gay marriage and sex (I couldn't care less about what other people do, personally), you still don't, or shouldn't, have the right to force other people to conform to your beliefs.
(Prog)metalhead and voidian
To change myself, I'd rather die
Though they will not understand
I won't make the greatest sacrifice
You can't predict where the outcome lies
You'll never take me alive
I'm alive
To change myself, I'd rather die
Though they will not understand
I won't make the greatest sacrifice
You can't predict where the outcome lies
You'll never take me alive
I'm alive
#49
- Invigilator
-
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 7,372
- Joined: 25-January 00
- Location:New York, New York
Posted 15 February 2007 - 07:38 PM
mrxak, on Feb 15 2007, 07:38 AM, said:
I'm not crazy, just misunderstood in my constant genius.
Starting with your misunderstanding of your own "genius"...
Sundered Angel,
The One and Only
Ares Webboard Moderator, and all-around Nice Guy
The One and Only
Ares Webboard Moderator, and all-around Nice Guy
