• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

2 Generals Wary About Repealing Gay Policy

CaptainCourtesy said:
You do recognize that this statement is somewhat hypocritical, Ethereal. Just saying.
Click to expand...

Why is that? Not that I don't believe you (I'm not perfect), but I don't see how it's hypocritical...
 
Ethereal said:
Why is that? Not that I don't believe you (I'm not perfect), but I don't see how it's hypocritical...
Click to expand...

You didn't smoke in the military because it was against the rules. The military didn't allow it, so you followed the rules.

Replace the word "military" with the words "United States". ;)
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
You didn't smoke in the military because it was against the rules. The military didn't allow it, so you followed the rules.

Replace the word "military" with the words "United States". ;)
Click to expand...

Why would I replace "military" with "United States" when the two are so obviously different? Are you saying military rules and regulations are the equivalent of laws? If so, I must disagree.
 
Ethereal said:
Why would I replace "military" with "United States" when the two are so obviously different? Are you saying military rules and regulations are the equivalent of laws? If so, I must disagree.
Click to expand...

Yup, that's what I'm saying. How are they not?
 
Councilman said:
Unless society is ready to face the fact that being a homosexual is nothing more that a life style choice and goes against nature and is perversion the whole subject is a waste of time and effort.

NAMBLA will be next to declare that it's not their fault they were born to molest little boys just like some Mormon Sect's believe it's okay to force 12 year old girls to marry dirty old men.

With enough pressure the Liberals will say we are haters and intolerant for saying no to all child molesters, because they can't help it because it's the result of some mystery gene that does not even exist, like the claims the homosexuals have falsely claimed in the past.
Click to expand...

Councilman, you are so shameless :laughat:
 
Ethereal said:
If you cannot see the difference between the military and a free society then I suppose this discussion has nowhere to go.
Click to expand...

Both have rules that need to be followed. Both have consequences if you break those rules. Of course there are differences inside those structures, but the basics are the same.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Both have rules that need to be followed.
Click to expand...

That's where you're wrong. Drug laws do not need to be followed; there is no social "objective" I'm endangering by deviating from the law; that's not true of the military. The rules and regulations which exist in the military serve a distinct purpose, that is, sustaining unit cohesiveness and combat effectiveness. Moreover, I willingly consented to abide by the rules and regulations of the military, this is not true of drug laws.

Furthermore, Federal drug laws are unconstitutional and thus unlawful. They are an abridgment of my inalienable rights, therefore, I am under no obligation to follow them, nor have I consented to be governed by them, as I did in the military.

So, you can think me a hypocrite if you like, but I won't lose any sleep over it...:mrgreen:
 
Ethereal said:
That's where you're wrong. Drug laws do not need to be followed; there is no social "objective" I'm endangering by deviating from the law; that's not true of the military. The rules and regulations which exist in the military serve a distinct purpose, that is, sustaining unit cohesiveness and combat effectiveness. Moreover, I willingly consented to abide by the rules and regulations of the military, this is not true of drug laws.
Click to expand...

Drug laws DO need to be followed for two reasons. Firstly, as the law of the land, unless you are willing to accept the consequences, you must adhere to them. Secondly, you endanger others each time you use something illegal, either because of the actions that come along with doing the drug (driving, making decisions, etc...) or because of the collateral damage that it creates (affects on others in your life).

Also, you choose to go into the military understanding the drug rules. If you do not like the drug laws in the US, you could choose to leave or you could try to change them.

Furthermore, Federal drug laws are unconstitutional and thus unlawful. They are an abridgment of my inalienable rights, therefore, I am under no obligation to follow them, nor have I consented to be governed by them, as I did in the military.
Click to expand...

There are NO "inalienable" rights. I completely reject the foolish concept of natural law. Laws and rights are created by man. You are under the obligation to follow the laws of this country because you live here. If you do not, you get consequences. If you don't like them, you can always leave or try to change them.

So, you can think me a hypocrite if you like, but I won't lose any sleep over it...:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

That's OK. I didn't think you would. Just pointing something I noticed,
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Drug laws DO need to be followed for two reasons. Firstly, as the law of the land, unless you are willing to accept the consequences, you must adhere to them.
Click to expand...

When did I say wasn't willing to accept the consequences?

Secondly, you endanger others each time you use something illegal, either because of the actions that come along with doing the drug (driving, making decisions, etc...) or because of the collateral damage that it creates (affects on others in your life).
Click to expand...

This is totally false. Not once have I endangered anyone while smoking marijuana. I do so in the privacy of my own home with the consent of my family.

Also, you choose to go into the military understanding the drug rules. If you do not like the drug laws in the US, you could choose to leave or you could try to change them.
Click to expand...

I could say the same thing about you and your view of inalienable rights. Whether or not you agree with them, the fact remains that our country was founded upon those ideals, and are codified in the Bill of Rights. If you don't like it, you're free to move to North Korea.

There are NO "inalienable" rights.
Click to expand...

The Founders and Framers say differently. Try reading the Constitution.

I completely reject the foolish concept of natural law.
Click to expand...

Then move to North Korea.

Laws and rights are created by man. You are under the obligation to follow the laws of this country because you live here. If you do not, you get consequences. If you don't like them, you can always leave or try to change them.
Click to expand...

Like I said, Federal drug laws are unconstitutional and thus unlawful. The "government says so" is not a valid argument.
 
Ethereal said:
When did I say wasn't willing to accept the consequences?
Click to expand...

You didn't comment either way. I figured you did so this wasn't an issue for me. Just pointing out the entirety of the concept.



This is totally false. Not once have I endangered anyone while smoking marijuana. I do so in the privacy of my own home with the consent of my family.
Click to expand...

Firstly, that's YOU. Secondly, you have no idea what effect it may have on others. Folks may not have told you if it did affect them.



I could say the same thing about you and your view of inalienable rights. Whether or not you agree with them, the fact remains that our country was founded upon those ideals, and are codified in the Bill of Rights. If you don't like it, you're free to move to North Korea.
Click to expand...

Notice what you said. Our country was founded on them and they are codified in the Bill of Rights... A MAN MADE SET OF LAWS. I like them, so I have no intention of moving to North Korea.



The Founders and Framers say differently. Try reading the Constitution.
Click to expand...

I have. It was written by men. They created the Constitution and, therefore those laws.



Then move to North Korea.
Click to expand...

If the rights are "inalienable" then North Korea would have them too. Your comment exposes the fallacy of natural law, perfectly. Thank you.

And I like the US better. I don't speak Korean, so I would have a hard time getting a job.



Like I said, Federal drug laws are unconstitutional and thus unlawful. The "government says so" is not a valid argument.
Click to expand...

Since you are basing your "unconstitutional" argument on natural law, which doesn't exist, your unconstitutional argument is a non-sequitur.
 
Ethereal said:
When did I say wasn't willing to accept the consequences?
Click to expand...

Firstly, controlled lethal substances are a stupid idea if they are above a class C. Handing out drugs to the population will decrease the drain caused by the war on drugs...but it wont help anybody get off them either. Actually, putting profit before health and safety of your citizens just goes to show the level of morality one possess. Anything to save an extra buck, eh? Accept it or not, the safety of its citizens are a priority to the government.


This is totally false. Not once have I endangered anyone while smoking marijuana. I do so in the privacy of my own home with the consent of my family.
Click to expand...

You do when your hyped up on Steroids going on a roid rage. Ask Chris Beniot's family....oh wait dont, they're all dead.

Chris-Benoit.jpg


I could say the same thing about you and your view of inalienable rights. Whether or not you agree with them, the fact remains that our country was founded upon those ideals, and are codified in the Bill of Rights. If you don't like it, you're free to move to North Korea.
Click to expand...

He isnt saying he doesnt agree with the rights the founding fathers have inscribed in the constitution...he is just saying they are not natural, inalienable rights. Morally they are, sure. But who is to say those such rights are inalienable or natural? If they are natural rights, why do people have to fight to survive around the world? Like all rights it must be obtained...it doesnt come naturally.

The Founders and Framers say differently. Try reading the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Who cares what they think, Americans can disagree with aspects of what they believed too. The founding fathers are not "all knowing" deities - they where humans too.


Then move to North Korea.
Click to expand...

?


Like I said, Federal drug laws are unconstitutional and thus unlawful. The "government says so" is not a valid argument.
Click to expand...

Then state governments need to be responsible and say "no" or bare the burden of there decisions.
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
Firstly, that's YOU. Secondly, you have no idea what effect it may have on others. Folks may not have told you if it did affect them.
Click to expand...

Effected in what way? How am I endangering them by smoking marijuana in my basement at two in the morning?

Notice what you said. Our country was founded on them and they are codified in the Bill of Rights... A MAN MADE SET OF LAWS. I like them, so I have no intention of moving to North Korea.
Click to expand...

And I consent to be governed by those laws, not the government's creative interpretation of them.

If the rights are "inalienable" then North Korea would have them too. Your comment exposes the fallacy of natural law, perfectly. Thank you.
Click to expand...

And your comment exposes a misunderstanding of natural law. Rights are not invisible force fields that protect us from harm, rather, they are moral claims to our liberty. Violating a right does nothing to negate it as a moral claim; it exists regardless.

And I like the US better. I don't speak Korean, so I would have a hard time getting a job.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that. I think you'd make a pretty good despot...;)

Since you are basing your "unconstitutional" argument on natural law, which doesn't exist, your unconstitutional argument is a non-sequitur.
Click to expand...

No I'm not. I'm basing my argument on the Constitution itself.
 
kaya'08 said:
Firstly, controlled lethal substances are a stupid idea if they are above a class C. Handing out drugs to the population will decrease the drain caused by the war on drugs...but it wont help anybody get off them either. Actually, putting profit before health and safety of your citizens just goes to show the level of morality one possess. Anything to save an extra buck, eh? Accept it or not, the safety of its citizens are a priority to the government.




You do when your hyped up on Steroids going on a roid rage. Ask Chris Beniot's family....oh wait dont, they're all dead.

Chris-Benoit.jpg




He isnt saying he doesnt agree with the rights the founding fathers have inscribed in the constitution...he is just saying they are not natural, inalienable rights. Morally they are, sure. But who is to say those such rights are inalienable or natural? If they are natural rights, why do people have to fight to survive around the world? Like all rights it must be obtained...it doesnt come naturally.



Who cares what they think, Americans can disagree with aspects of what they believed too. The founding fathers are not "all knowing" deities - they where humans too.




?




Then state governments need to be responsible and say "no" or bare the burden of there decisions.
Click to expand...

We're getting way off topic. If you wish to continue this discussion in another thread I more than welcome the opportunity to school you...:2razz:
 
Ethereal said:
We're getting way off topic. If you wish to continue this discussion in another thread I more than welcome the opportunity to school you...:2razz:
Click to expand...
:doh:doh:doh:doh

CC gets a reply though.
 
apdst said:
Post anything you like, but the fact still remains, that Article 125 is the law that bans gays from serving the in the military. Case closed.
Click to expand...

You are, of course, wrong. I gave you the opportunity to learn, with a link to all the actual regulations that make up DADT. Being gay does not mean sodomy, sorry.
 
kaya'08 said:
You do when your hyped up on Steroids going on a roid rage. Ask Chris Beniot's family....oh wait dont, they're all dead.
Click to expand...

Side note: Benoit suffered from repeated trauma to the head, which is believed to cause his breakdown and the murder of his family.
 
Ethereal said:
Effected in what way? How am I endangering them by smoking marijuana in my basement at two in the morning?
Click to expand...

You indicated that one reason you would not smoke in the military is because it would effect the the interactions and cohesion of the unit. You smoking by yourself at 2 AM can be having an impact on the interactions or concerns of others. This would be the effects of your drug use. Now, you certainly have the right to do this, but as I said, cause and effect. There are consequences for every action one makes.



And I consent to be governed by those laws, not the government's creative interpretation of them.
Click to expand...

And however the government chooses to interpret those laws, you either follow them, you receive consequences, or you leave. You do not have the "right" to do either create you own laws or ignore the laws that exist without those consequences. The laws were created by men.



And your comment exposes a misunderstanding of natural law. Rights are not invisible force fields that protect us from harm, rather, they are moral claims to our liberty. Violating a right does nothing to negate it as a moral claim; it exists regardless.
Click to expand...

Morals are relative.



I don't know about that. I think you'd make a pretty good despot...;)
Click to expand...

I'm sure I'd make a pretty good despot. I think I already do. :mrgreen:



No I'm not. I'm basing my argument on the Constitution itself.
Click to expand...

Written by men.

And I do agree that this is getting way off topic. We can certainly bring this to another thread if you want.
 
Redress said:
Side note: Benoit suffered from repeated trauma to the head, which is believed to cause his breakdown and the murder of his family.
Click to expand...

This is true. It is unclear as to whether drugs had anything to do with it (they did with the demise of other wrestlers), but in Benoit's case, a reaction to head trauma certainly was the main cause. I believe that they think his constant use of the "flying headbutt" was a major factor.
 
kaya'08 said:
:doh:doh:doh:doh

CC gets a reply though.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry. We can start another thread if you like. Just put your post in there and I'll gladly address it.
 
If someone wants to start the thread and identify what posts should go there, I can move them.

It's good to be the despot. :mrgreen:
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
This is true. It is unclear as to whether drugs had anything to do with it (they did with the demise of other wrestlers), but in Benoit's case, a reaction to head trauma certainly was the main cause. I believe that they think his constant use of the "flying headbutt" was a major factor.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is very true that drugs played a large role in the death of many wrestlers, some particularly tragic. Eddie Guerrero had beaten his drug problem, but the enlarged heart from his earlier drug use still took him down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom