While you've presented some valid arguments, if this topic really upsets you that much, the best course of action on your part would probably be to ignore it. This would help your peace of mind and would avoid conflict with those who vote you down for being off topic.
This is a site where everybody can create a debate about anything, inevitably someone will create a debate about some topic you really can't hear about it anymore. I've encountered some of those myself. However, the people that choose to participate in the debate have every right to do so, that's what this site has been created for. If, instead of just ignoring those debates, people would constantly jump in to complain about how they can't hear about it anymore, that would strongly deteriorate the quality of the debates. Looking at your first couple of posts, they did not add anything to the debate, only later did you write a good argument.
Yes there are more important topics to discuss, does that mean that people should only discuss those topics? No, everybody is free to discuss what they feel like. Some people feel strongly about this topic and some people are out there actively campaigning for legalization. If you count yourself among those that have made up their mind, and don't feel like discussing it anymore, then the best thing to do is probably to just scroll right past the debate.
Lastly I would like to add that what I just said applies to a range of comments on various debates. I decided to specifically comment on your arguments, because it seems to me that you're actually interested in conducting quality debates.
As the dutch example shows, legalizing marijuana doesn't come with any significant negative effects to society. Instead, the government has an additional source of income from taxes and saves significant amounts of money that is currently being spent on arresting, prosecution and locking up non violent marijuana users.
At least one study has shown that a decline in rape is correlated to the ease of access to porn. I would see that as quite socially redeeming.
See here:
http://www.slate.com/id/2152487/fr/rss/
http://www.impactlab.com/2008/01/06/
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/
While race car drivers do have headsets or a co-captains, it is in 99% of situations one way communication with the driver just listening not talking. Very rarely will the driver have to respond to anything. And even that one way communication is kept as short as possible so as to not distract the driver.
Yes it does, but a lot of those earnings are:
- unproportionate to the actual work put in to achieve them
- build on the back of less fortunate people that provide cheap labour
- spent on products/services that end up benefiting those that already have more than enough.
19th century Europe is a prime example of how 'good' capitalism really is, because of the maximum freedom that people have, human instincts (especially greed) dominate the system. This leads to an oligarchy, where the few wealthy - through legal means, i.e. their freedoms - oppress the majority of society.
Humans are social by nature, whether on an individual level or on a larger scale with society as a whole. Without a working social network most people can't survive anymore. A socialist democracy is much better equipped to provide such a working network to all of it's population than unchecked capitalism, even if that means taking some of those 'hard earned' stock-market millions and investing them for the benefit of society as a whole.
Overall, human nature prevents a "maximum freedom" doctrine (applied to any kind of situation, not just the economical system) from being successful because individuals will abuse their freedoms without regards to society.
I would venture to say that history has proven you wrong: 19th century Europe. Completely unregulated capitalism leads to class society with a small portion of the society holding all the wealth and preventing any opportunity to the others. The largest part of the population working 12+ hours a day in horrible conditions just to be able to afford the next meal.
Education is a determining factor in success in today's society, people who can't afford to get a quality education have a much harder time to break out of whatever they are born into. The opportunities are NOT equal at all. As I've mentioned before, just because a few individuals are lucky enough do achieve success under those conditions does not mean it is within reach of the general population. Taking your example of Bill Gates, had he not been lucky enough to have access to a computer, which was by no means common back then, he would not be who he is today.
Communism has failed largely because of corrupt government, not because the inherent flaws of the system.
You're wrong. The basic idea of socialism is that the group cares for the less able. Individuals contribute to that care, but that is far removed from working exclusively for the greater good of the group.
I would recommend you read up on the Karl Marx's "The Communist Manifesto", because that is not at all what communism or socialism is about. Certainly some of the people will abuse the system as such, but there equally are people today that abuse the the capitalist system, it is just less obvious until it is too late (Enron, Worldcom, etc.)
I agree that it can be quite hard to decide what creates the most harm because it isn't always black & white, but I think it is pretty obvious in the case of homosexuality.
I think humanity would be worse off because moral change could never happen if all the questions were democratically determined. In ancient Egypt it was 'wrong' to worship one almighty god (see the case of the pharaoh Akhenaten). If we decided all questions of morality through a majority vote we'd still be worshiping the Egyptian gods because anything else would be wrong. Change always starts with a small minority, but just because they aren't the majority, doesn't mean they are always wrong.
At this point in time you're probably right, but in my opinion it is actually quite easy to quantify what is right and what is wrong: The right thing is always that which inflicts the least harm. Clearly oppressing homosexuality through whichever means causes more harm then to accept the fact that to consenting adults of the same sex are harming absolutely no one by living their sexuality.
While theoretically your "ask the people" argument is not a bad idea, I don't think it can apply to questions of this nature. If it did, new and revolutionary ideas could never reform society. Overcoming suppression always starts with a small group of people, if the majority were always "right" simply because they are the majority humanity would be even worse off.
Wow, someone has relationship issues. As I've said before... I ever I get a relationship that constricts and annoys me that much I'd be over faster than you can count to 3.
I know that list is meant to be humorous, but since you're using it in support of singles being happier than married people, I'm going to reply. All those arguments largely miss the point, since instead of supporting the side that singles are happier than married people, they really are arguments against a very restrictive kind of relationship and thus void if you manage to find a reasonable relationship. Yes, every relationship requires concessions, but that applies to both partners in a relationship and I would venture to say that the average relationship is much much less 'hellish' than what that list makes it out to be.
After all the commotion in the last debate, about "sin" and it's context, the answer to this question is a clear and resounding NO. What consenting people do in private is no one's business but their own. Homosexuality does no harm to anyone and thus there is no reason for moral opposition.
You're probably right, however the actual question is "Should be homosexuality considered as a sin?" And since this is an educated debate, we can only go by what the actual questions says and not by what everyone makes of the spirit of the question. Especially in this case, "Sin" is such a context heavy word, that for a lot of people, me included, it can't be equated to "morally wrong".
You brought up a few good points, however, if I ever got into a relationship as restricting as what you described, I would get out of it as fast as possible.
Re: 2.
There is such a thing as honest, open relationships where the partners trust each other enough to be able to go out and 'have fun'. If you're able to make the distinction between love and lust, such an open agreement can help spice up any relationship and actually tighten the emotional bond between partners.
Also, some people just don't have a lot of time to invest into finding casual sex partners and those are usually busy single professionals that don't have a partner precisely because they are too busy.
Re: 3.
Any relationships that does that to you, is probably doomed to fail. If you lose your identity in a relationship and if you have to make to many concessions to your partner it is practically inevitable that you'll crack at one point. While the 'We' is very important in a realtionship, the 'You' should never suffer because of that.
I want to end by saying, that I'm not disagreeing with your statement that being single is awesome. It is, and the points you made to apply to a lot of people, however your argument,to me, assumes that a relationship entails an automatic loss of those 'privileges', which isn't the case.
Personally I think happiness is something very individual and it is up to everyone individually to decide what will make them happy. This means that there are as many version of happiness out there as there are people and one should be cautious in making assumptions about what makes others happy.
That being said, it is very clear that humans are very social in nature and walking the path of life with someone special can certainly contribute a great deal to someone's happiness. I would venture to say that it doesn't have to be marriage, it can just as well be a 'life partner'. I think that for a majority of the population, a close, intimate and stable relationship can indeed increase their quality of life.
This is not to say that single people are unhappy, but a lot of singles might be missing something - either consciously or unconsciously - that is inherently human: sharing your life with someone very close.
Because of that 'humans are a social animal' factor, I think that indeed the majority of married persons (or people with a stable long term partner) are happier than their single counterparts, with the caveat that, as stated above, happiness is very individual and generally defies generalization.
Does it always have to be either or? Unchecked capitalism is not as great as it sounds since opportunities for people are not equal. Someone born to a poor family will never have the same opportunities as those born to rich families, they won't be able to afford the same quality education and thus won't be able to get the better jobs. This in turns means less health care and so on, resulting in further loss of opportunities for their children. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer, not because they are lazy but because of the system. Someone born into a poor family needs to work many many times harder to achieve the same as someone born to a rich family. Unchecked capitalism promotes greed and a class society where only a very few people can break out of what they have been born into, it is possible yes, but it is not within reasonable reach of the general population.
Full-fledged communism of course has a lot of problems of its own, but I think it doesn't have to be either or. The best solution is to combine the best ideas from both systems: The society should handle the basic needs of everyone within it at the same level: food, basic shelter, education, health care,... This provides everyone with an equal 'starting point', meaning the same opportunities, no matter how their parents fared in life. Once that basic framework is in place, everyone can chose whether to work hard or be lazy and be rewarded accordingly.
I would have to agree with you on this one. By its definition, what constitutes a sin relies on the context of a divine law, without that context (which is not given in question of this debate) it is largely pointless to debate what is/isn't or should be/shouldn't be a sin.
Wikipedia has many pages related this topic, that provide many quoted passages from the Bible. Here is one main one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
A quick google search will also turn up many many pages dealing with this topic. This being a very objective one, analyzing the question from multiple angles: http://www.religioustolerance.org/
He's not question your believes, he's challenging your knowledge of the word 'sin'. By it's very definition, which he provided, 'sin' is NOT a personal belief. Thus the argument you made against homosexuality being a sin is moot.
Personally I prefer Pepsi over Coke, but I prefer Diet Coke over Diet Pepsi, so it's up to Dr. Pepper to nail this one for Pepsi. Any company that can make such a great Soda deserves my support (at least as far as this argument is concerned).
