summary
stringlengths 1
551
| story
stringlengths 0
85.6k
| source
stringclasses 5
values |
|---|---|---|
I think polygamy should be legal in the same states that gay marriage is legal in. | Currently there are a series of economic benefits that spouses share relating to health insurance, inheritance, etc. At the moment heterosexual people can enjoy these benefits with their person of choice. Homosexual people cannot do so if gay marriage is illegal because their person of choice is of the same gender. By legalizing gay marriage we are simply granting homosexual people the same rights as heterosexuals. If we were to extend similar rights to polygamists they would actually gain more than monogamists because they would be able to extend the same benefits to multiple people rather than being limited to one. If we don't allow them the same benefits for every spouse and instead force them to pick a single spouse to receive the benefits, then what is the purpose of documenting their marriage to the rest of the spouses? | cmv |
I think polygamy should be legal in the same states that gay marriage is legal in. | I'm going to take a slightly different tack to this : I'd argue that polygamy is legal in the same states that gay marriage is. Outside of places with a strong LDS presence, most states don't have anti - bigamy laws. Sure, the group in question will not get a state - recognized marriage licenses, but the state isn't going to attempt to lock people up for having a multi - party marriage. | cmv |
I think polygamy should be legal in the same states that gay marriage is legal in. | Is marriage transitive? That is, if A & B are married, and B & C are married, does that mean A & C are married? If B gets a divorce from the marriage, are A & C left married? Unless there's a clear and intuitive " yes " or " no " that applies to all aspects of marriage, polygamy makes no sense. | cmv |
I think polygamy should be legal in the same states that gay marriage is legal in. | From a legal perspective, legalizing polygamy ( minor side - point - " polygamous marriage " is redundant because " polygamy " implies marriage ) is a more complicated issue than legalizing gay marriage. There are already established laws having to do with tax breaks, divorce, child custody, adoption, hospital visitation rights, and everything else related to monogamy, so, with few exceptions, legalizing gay marriage is simply a matter of removing gender specificity from standing marriage statutes. Legalizing polygamy, on the other hand, is not so straightforward. Can you, a woman, claim your husband's other wife's child as a dependent on your taxes? If she later divorces him and you are the primary breadwinner, should you be required to pay her alimony? For that matter, are you married to her, or do the two of you just happen to be married to the same man? What if you want to take another husband and she doesn't - if you two are married to each other as well as to your first mutual husband, can your new husband be married to you but not to them? I could go on. But my point is, at best, there's a lot of stuff to hammer out legally. And at worst, there's a hell of a lot of room for loopholes and, subsequently, abuse of them. | cmv |
I am against drug legalization and believe the'War on Drugs'to be morally justified. CMV | Read The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander. The war on drugs is just the new racial caste system after Jim Crow got taken down. It exists to oppress racial minorities. | cmv |
All criminals ( who we know 110 % did the crime ) should be put under forced physical labor, and if they refuse, bullet to the back of the head. CMV. | So basically, slave labor? In other words, your stealing the jobs of people who didn't commit any crime but to do honest work? After all, I'm assuming there's a reason for this labor besides torture, which means your taking the job away from someone else. Probably multiple people since it seems like your working these people pretty hard. I mean, c'mon, " Sweatshop labor that no one else in the country ( or world ) wishes to do. "? Realistically, your working someone too hard where there should be four jobs in their place of someone getting paid and participating in the economy. | cmv |
All criminals ( who we know 110 % did the crime ) should be put under forced physical labor, and if they refuse, bullet to the back of the head. CMV. | I assume you mean anybody who would normally be sentenced to the death penalty or life, and not people who sell marijuana or steal a purse. They'd just refuse the physical labor and die. Like they would have anyway. | cmv |
All criminals ( who we know 110 % did the crime ) should be put under forced physical labor, and if they refuse, bullet to the back of the head. CMV. | 1 ) Most of the literature suggests'treating them like kings'works better to stop them committing crimes than economic marginalization and slave labor. 2 ) You can't just say " I wanna be real sure they're guilty before I do this. " The US tried that and now we execute innocent people. 3 ) Bogus laws will be drafted and selectively enforced to re - institute slavery. On that note, actually, we do this already, but now instead of gathering them up and leaving them to rot we'll make them work. 4 ) They're still human. I'm not saying the cost of housing them shouldn't be a factor in determining what we do with them, but you ought to respect the basic dignity of the human person. | cmv |
All criminals ( who we know 110 % did the crime ) should be put under forced physical labor, and if they refuse, bullet to the back of the head. CMV. | How about instead of your draconian, dictatorial plan, we go back to what prison was supposed to be : a place to hold prisoners until they were sentenced. Sentences can include work, charity ( community service ) payment, embarrassment ( night in the stocks ), or mental health. Just because the prison system in the US is screwed up doesn't mean that we have to resort to a system that essentially kills all criminals. It'd be better to focus on ways to help improve people. Taking that many able - bodied people out of communities will just make the communities poorer, and thus more crime ridden. | cmv |
I believe attempted murder and murder should be treated as the same crime. CMV | The justice system is usually primarily about protecting society rather than judging intent. A person who isn't successful at killing is less dangerous than one who is. As an extreme example, pretend I really want to kill you, but am incredibly incompetent. Every time I leave my flat, I trip on the staircase and fall and hurt myself and never even make it to your house to kill you. I may be a horrible person, but I have not committed any crime, nor am I particularly dangerous. | cmv |
I believe attempted murder and murder should be treated as the same crime. CMV | This is why crimes have sentencing ranges. So that the judge can consider the actual events and determine the severity of the crime. Whether the victim lives or dies will determine the actual charges, but the circumstances will determine the sentence. It is possible to receive a longer sentence for attempted murder than for murder, depending on the circumstances. | cmv |
I believe attempted murder and murder should be treated as the same crime. CMV | Having a lesser punishment for attempted murder incentivizes would - be murderers in the middle of carrying out their plans from following through because they know the punishment will be greatly reduced if they restrain themselves in the very end and don't actually kill someone. Also attempted murder is a much harder crime to prove definitively than actual murder because it is difficult to definitively tell if someone was trying to kill a person or simply harm them. Both are bad but a less severe crime should have a less severe punishment and since it is less clear with attempted murder that the person wanted someone dead the punishment is less severe. | cmv |
I believe attempted murder and murder should be treated as the same crime. CMV | Interesting. Well legally the penalty for anything that does actual harm is much more severe, for example DUI vs impaired driving causing death. But you present an interesting case. If I were a judge, I would justify the position by saying it's impossible to tell just how dead set a person was on killing another. It's entirely possible that something within you made the conscious decision at the last second to tilt your gun a little too high, and miss him. I believe that the Law would like to assume that nobody is inherently evil and that the difference between a failed murder and a successful one is one of character and restraint. Of course this isn't always the case, but you can see that when sentencing, a justice would prefer to have mercy on someone who went into that house intending to kill a man, but decided not to when push came to shove. | cmv |
I think the possession and use of all illicit drugs should be legalized CMV | It's not really just harming you, it can harm another people too. Stuff like marijuana and ecstasy won't harm anybody, but then there's stuff like meth and cocaine. These can make someone go crazy and do harmful things to others. Remember last year in Florida when that guy took bath salts and ended up eating a homeless guys face? Would you really want to legalize hard drugs after seeing what it can do? Also don't forget you can harm yourself not only from effects of the drug but what you can do to yourself on the drug. What if you're on meth, and you hallucinate that there are bees inside your arms and you start slitting and slashing your wrists open to get the bees out, and then you die from from the lack of oxygen flow? ( Because your wrist has major arteries to your heart ) It's not just drug effects it's what you do on drugs too. | cmv |
I think the possession and use of all illicit drugs should be legalized CMV | I take a slightly different view. Drug use shouldn't be criminal and addiction ought to be treated as a health issue instead of a legal one. Adopting a public policy of this nature would help drive demand down, which is overall a good thing for illicit " hard " drugs. However, the proliferation of those hard drugs ( and I'm talking drugs like meth and heroin ) should remain illegal. Both Portugal and the Netherlands have taken this kind of route and have seen positive effects. Drug use is no longer " criminal " and their policies reflect an attitude of reducing harm rather than incarceration for users, while maintaining that hard drugs remain illegal to distribute. Since then they've seen many problems associated with drug use drop ( like cases of HIV from dirty needle use ) as well as drug use itself. This would seem to be an efficacious two pronged approach to the drug problem which attacks both the supply and demand. | cmv |
I think the possession and use of all illicit drugs should be legalized CMV | I think people underestimate how much hard drug use can affect the people around you. It is undeniably true that hard drug use hurts the ones around you. It is also interesting that the addiction aspect alters decisions long, which probably is another reason it is illegal. Imagine making a decision to go to battle while free basing or rolling on MDMA. Not too bright and I'd prefer the opposite in our society, especially those in charge. | cmv |
I think I should go around telling a lot of the people in CMV that they have great views that don't need to be changed, CMV. | People come to CMV because they're struggling with an issue they can only see one side of. Maybe the arguments presented in an atmosphere that exists for that purpose alone will help them find the answers they need. Perhaps they're searching for a reason to be compassionate or educated over a topic that they've been raised to believe is only black and white. When I see topics that I already agree with, I don't bother offering an opinion most of the time, but I do read the comments other people post because maybe they have a point to an argument that I overlooked. | cmv |
I think I should go around telling a lot of the people in CMV that they have great views that don't need to be changed, CMV. | Consider the possibilities for each OP you encounter. Possibility # 1 : The OP is posting in this forum specifically because they want their view challenged. They are either secure enough in their view that they aren't actually worried about said challenges, or they genuinely want to have their view changed. Thus, they won't particularly enjoy having you reassure them about their existing view. Possibility # 2 : The OP is here fishing for compliments, or with intent to troll, or is otherwise violating the spirit of the subforum. They might like getting your support, but do you really want to encourage people to do precisely what this sub isn't about? If you really want to let someone know you like what they have to say, just send them a personal message. | cmv |
I think I should go around telling a lot of the people in CMV that they have great views that don't need to be changed, CMV. | In similar instances - when I think OP's view is the correct one - I contribute downthread, by responding to challenges. I think the discussion and exchange of ideas is valuable. So while it is clear that you cannot directly respond top - level in the affirmative, I think it is totally OK further down the tree. In fact, I don't think a direct response in the affirmative is particularly constructive. As others have pointed out, it doesn't foster further discussion. | cmv |
I think I should go around telling a lot of the people in CMV that they have great views that don't need to be changed, CMV. | I actually believe that Rule III is integral to the value of this sub. Basically every other sub is already an echo chamber, where the hivemind simply reinforces the same ideas over and over again, where this is designed explicitly to change that, to go against the hivemind. This ( along with / r / science ) are about the only subs I'm aware of that critically examine what people think, and what's going on in the world. Without Rule III, we run the risk of devolving into Reaffirm My View, which damn near every other sub already is. Plus, as others have already said, you can always support OP's position downthread... | cmv |
I think I should go around telling a lot of the people in CMV that they have great views that don't need to be changed, CMV. | No, people need to have their views challenged. Being able to defend your views against criticism, standing up to those who tell you're wrong and in turn proving them wrong is what gives validity to one's views. Some people think that certain views are unchallengeable or exempt from criticism... that it's offensive to dare to show opposition to certain views. Those views are most often the ones that when challenged can't hold up to any criticism. Let's keep challenging views and let them stand up on their own merits. | cmv |
I don't believe gun control can be rationally justified CMV. | Why not say " any individual who can pass the same tests required to be a police officer should have access to the same power to arrest, pull people over, stop and frisk, etc. "? It was my impression that the tests for police officers and military are about training them to do specialized jobs, and not so much about granting them the right to carry a weapon. As it is, people can get guns without any kind of training. | cmv |
I don't believe gun control can be rationally justified CMV. | Requiring people to pass a test to certify competency with firearms is a form of gun control. Even soldiers don't have unlimited access to weapons - they are only issued weapons like explosives and missiles when on a mission that requires them, and nuclear weapons are restricted by codes that must be given from higher levels of command. In some ways, civilians have weaker restrictions than cops and soldiers, where all weapons are recorded in a registry that can be checked for signs of misuse. If a cops loses his duty weapon, he'll be in a lot of trouble. And cops and soldiers aren't allowed to carry everywhere - soldiers may be carrying their rifle when they travel on airplanes, but it's unloaded. It's just carried for transportation, not for protection. So, let's remove the distinctions, require people to qualify with their weapons on a range, register them and keep them in an armory when not in use, and make sure they face steep consequences if their weapons are used negligently or lost. That would actually be more restrictive than the system that most states have now. | cmv |
I think life is pointless / not worth living. CMV | If you think about it... the realization that life is pointless is incredibly empowering and liberating. In an ironic, sense the pointlessness of life actually offers the best chance of a'point to living.'There is no " the " point of life, but there can be " your " point of life. Now go out and try something you have never tried before and live a little. | cmv |
I think life is pointless / not worth living. CMV | You'll have eternity in which to be dead. So what's your rush? You've only got a handful of years to be alive. Might as well experience life during that bit of time. | cmv |
I think life is pointless / not worth living. CMV | Life is pointless, but that's no reason for it not to be worth living. Trying to find an " ultimate " purpose might be futile, as I see it ( and I think you do ) we're here by chance. But that in no way prevents us from finding our own meaning or just having fun. Life is enjoyable, it's exciting and interesting! I wouldn't like to die tomorrow because I would miss out so many exciting things, and I think that's reason enough to live. | cmv |
I think life is pointless / not worth living. CMV | Many people ask, " What is the meaning of life? " Well, life doesn't have one, it is just an occurrence. I'd say that, generally, the purpose of a species is to thrive and reproduce, thus becoming the dominant species of our planet. Humans have pretty much done this, so now the point of life is to just enjoy it. That feeling of enjoyment is worth living. Unless you are some emo kid who doesn't think that enjoying life is reason enough to live it, than there is your answer. | cmv |
I think life is pointless / not worth living. CMV | Life may be pointless but that doesn't mean it isn't worth living. You can make it worth living, you don't need to have goals or anything just enjoy yourself. Listen to music you like, read books you love, spend time with people that make you happy. Life can be fun so why not give it a go? | cmv |
I think life is pointless / not worth living. CMV | If you feel that life is pointless and not worth living, then what point does dying have? If it's not worth living, is there a worth in dying? What is the difference between the two? Are they equal? If they aren't equal, then the difference between the two might be where you begin to find your answer as to if there is a point or worth to living. | cmv |
I think life is pointless / not worth living. CMV | This post received a couple of reports. If OP had been expressing a strong desire to end their life, it would have probably been a better idea to post to / r / suicidewatch. But in its current form I see no harm in this type of post here at / r / changemyview. After all it is a view, so try to change it if you wish. How do you all feel about this? | cmv |
I don't believe that people are literally unable to afford college. CMV. | A lot of people ( myself included ) feel that if we have to take out a loan to get something, then that inherently means we cannot afford that thing. My view is pretty simple : if I can pay for something while having enough money left over to pay for my routine bills and essential expenses like food, then I can be said to afford that thing. If I cannot pay for something without needing to rely on loans or credit, then I cannot actually afford that thing. I would not have gone to college if doing so required loans, because I would have felt that the loans themselves indicate I am not able to afford it. | cmv |
I don't believe that people are literally unable to afford college. CMV. | The problem often isn't that poor people don't have access to funding for college ; the problem is that they're most likely to be unaware of the funding available. I think you're right, inasmuch as college can be more affordable than the lower classes make it out to be, but that it isn't that they're using it as an excuse not to go ; they don't know how the system works. With that said, there are people who do know and refuse to take loans or think it's not worth the outlay of time / money, etc. But by and large, when you hear someone say " I can't afford to go, " they believe it. | cmv |
I think federal congressmen in the United States should be given term limits ( 1x6 years for senate, 3 x2 years for house ). CMV | Why would we take power from the voters? That's what this would do, since it takes away a choice that a lot of people might want to make ( based on reelection stats, anyhow ). Additionally, the work they do in Congress isn't some job at a coffee shop where you learn it in two weeks. Having experienced people in those roles ( especially when they deal with foreign policy ) is a benefit. This " high turnover produces better results " idea makes little sense in any sector of the workforce, to include government. Removing individuals from Congress won't " fix corruption. " Anyone you put into Congress will behave largely the same, because they're responding to a system. You want change? You reform how Congress works, how lobbying works, things like that. I don't have any suggestions for you on how to reform it because I don't believe there's a problem requiring that kind of solution, but even if one does - - changing people out does nothing. | cmv |
I think federal congressmen in the United States should be given term limits ( 1x6 years for senate, 3 x2 years for house ). CMV | That would only increase the power of lobbyists. Right now, the people who know how the process works, how to draft legislation, get it through committee, and get votes on the floor, are members that have been there for a while. This might not be ideal, but they are elected. If we impose term limits, then who would be the new experts? Lobbyists. They don't have term limits, so they'll be there for decades, and newer members will go to them more frequently to write legislation. | cmv |
I think federal congressmen in the United States should be given term limits ( 1x6 years for senate, 3 x2 years for house ). CMV | politics is a learned practice. congressman make connections and relationships with each other, staffers, etc. along with this, it is incredibly important to have knowledgeable people in place making decisions, learning the issues and how specific systems work etc. california placed term limits on their state legislature back in 2008 ( i think ). they quickly changed this and extended term limits because by the time representatives learned how the system worked, they had to leave. TL ; DR, politics is much more difficult than people think, and relies heavily on relationships with other politicians. | cmv |
I think federal congressmen in the United States should be given term limits ( 1x6 years for senate, 3 x2 years for house ). CMV | Imagine your boss walked up to you and said " Hi, TenthSpeedWriter. We really like what you're doing for us. In fact you have years of experience, and are doing it better than anybody else we have hired. You're just an exceptional employee. Oh and by the way, you're fired. Yeah, nothing you can do about it, and don't bother looking for a similar job in the industry, you're just done. Yep, you've just been here too long, them's the rules. Bye. " That's term limits. They're generally a bad idea. | cmv |
I think Liberal Arts is a scam by Colleges to increase tuition. CMV. | As someone from Britian who essentially had to start choosing what to study at 16 ( picking A levels, need to do science and maths if you are going to apply for a degree in one of them, usually do 3 ), i'm really jealous of the liberal arts program. It gives you the chance to have a broader education that is actually taught to you. Yes i can go and research topics that interest me but it really isn't the same as being taught it in an enviroment with other people who share that interest. | cmv |
I think Liberal Arts is a scam by Colleges to increase tuition. CMV. | The single biggest reason for requiring liberal arts is that you will be in the workforce for 45 + years in most cases after you graduate from University. Things will change in your field, or your field may even become obsolete. If the university has only trained you to be able to do the things that are current in your field, and you don't have the capacity to self - improve, to self - educate, and to think critically, you will be left behind as things change. You, as an individual, claim to already have these capacities, but many students don't. The university has an interest in making sure all of its graduates can be successful in the long term, as employees, businessmen, researchers, and citizens. The university ( and society ) also has some vested interest in producing people who have a broader perspective on what it means to be human and live within an interdependent society. Teaching students to evaluate the why of their jobs is just as important as evaluating the how. They need to require these classes of all students because otherwise there are lots of students who need the broadening but who will not seek it out. It's somewhat of a self - selecting group, actually, of people who think " I'm going to be a chemist, I don't need / want to learn anything else, " but who actually very badly need to gain some perspective on life and some non - chemistry tools. | cmv |
I think Liberal Arts is a scam by Colleges to increase tuition. CMV. | Are you aware that a " well rounded education " in the way you are describing is how universities have always traditionally operated? As in, this is how it has been for literally hundreds of years. It's not a conspiracy to raise tuition, it is a matter of the depth of your education. A depth that employers expect you to have when you graduate from a university. A professor once told me that his job was to turn us into scholars. In return he asked that we acted like one. Part of that is taking classes outside of your field. Newton was one of the best physicists and mathematicians to have ever lived. He also deeply studied literature ( esp the bible ) and wrote the entirety of his work in Latin. This isn't some trick to make you get a bunch of student loans, it's a classical education... if you didn't want a university education you should have gone to a community college or a vocational school. | cmv |
I think Liberal Arts is a scam by Colleges to increase tuition. CMV. | At the end of the day, you're going to get a degree from University of X, and you'll be telling all future prospective employers, all future co - workers and colleagues, and all your future friends and acquaintances that you're a graduate of U of X. If you communicate like an engineer, then U of X looks bad. If you appreciate art like a physicist, U of X looks bad. A lot of it has to do with ensuring their graduates make a good impression on people, and having a well - rounded education is actually a really good way to relate to a wide variety of people. Besides, if Steve Jobs hadn't taken a calligraphy class, Macintosh might not have developed the robust font system that ( 1 ) we still use and ( 2 ) helped ensure their market niche. | cmv |
I think Liberal Arts is a scam by Colleges to increase tuition. CMV. | I agree to an extent, but one of my humanities courses is Critical Thinking. We can all benefit from learning the pitfalls of daily reasoning and knowing how to avoid them, not to mention that the textbook will outright say some things are false and explain why ( such as homeopathy, creationism, and others. ) There are also courses in logic, which are also good to know. It helps you analyze reasoning as a whole and is a step up from critical thinking. | cmv |
I think Liberal Arts is a scam by Colleges to increase tuition. CMV. | Looking at my degree plan, the " Liberal Arts " courses I had to take amounted to about 14 hours, or 10 % of my total credit hours ( however this does not include my citizenship / history courses which add another 12 hours ). Personally, I found the few classes outside of my major ( Computer Science ) to be a welcome break from intense study and project periods, on top of teaching softer skills like writing, speaking, and cultural exploration. I think this is a matter of varying students and institutions and you may have just gotten a poor choice. Furthermore, there's no rule against taking these classes out of a normal semester. You can definitely get them out of the way in summer or winter semesters and essentially negate your loan issues. | cmv |
I think Liberal Arts is a scam by Colleges to increase tuition. CMV. | My brief response to you would be that you seem to be turning everything your life into a commodity and analyzing your life solely in terms of economics, which makes me fairly sad. Basically, life ought to be more than a balance sheet, in my opinion. Alongside that, I think that it is a profound mistake to assume that one should choose a life path at all, much less one that comes at the expense of new experiences ( educational or otherwise ), at the age that one must declare one's ( first? ) college major. I say this as a Physics and Philosophy double major that attended a liberal arts college, did graduate work in Religious Studies, played poker for a living for five years, managed restaurants, did business consulting, and now work in private education administration, and I'm only 32 years old. Every single thing that I've done and studied has had a direct benefit to my life, even if a lot of those things haven't been connected in any discernible way. | cmv |
I think Liberal Arts is a scam by Colleges to increase tuition. CMV. | Most the time it's to create " well - rounded " students. I enjoyed some classes, others not so much. But. If there is one thing that " liberal arts " type classes ( english, government, ethics ) has taught me, it's how to bullshit work in a minimum amount of time but still do a decent job. Other areas ( STEM in particular ) don't seem to cater to developing abilities like that. | cmv |
Marriage as a legal institution should be abolished. CMV | It is established as part of society that most people enter long term monogamous relationships. Being in such a relationship changes many practical aspects of your life, particularly if you have or adopt children. For the law to not have a name for two people in a long term monogamous relationship would leave out most of society at some point in their life. And having legal definitions is important not just for government benefits but private contracts as well. If an employer uses wants to give you and your partner benefits, there needs to be a legal definition for who that other recipient is. By having no such thing as a " marriage " you are still defining the word but defining it in a way that excludes the vast majority of society. To eliminate it as a legal concept would be like eliminating " parent " as a legal concept. It is a fact of society, and requires a legal definition, you would simply have that definition be " no one can be married " which doesn't help anyone's cause and would never happen. | cmv |
Marriage as a legal institution should be abolished. CMV | Think about the laws that discriminate married people. Take me for instance. I make enough money that I don't qualify for any government aid, but not nearly enough to pay for healthcare out of pocket. Not even close to enough. My fiance is pregnant, and now we are getting married on Saturday. She makes about $ 1000 a month, and when we get married we won't qualify for any help with birthing a child, but if we had stayed single she would have qualified for wic, healthy beginnings, food stamps, etc etc etc etc. This discrimination against unmarried people is disingenuous as best because it neglects the negative effects of being rewarded for making bad decisions vs being on your own when you make the right decisions ( purely from my religious perspective, which happens to be the large majority perspective in this country ). | cmv |
I think that parents are obligated to prevent children from eating any kind of unhealthy substance ( candy, snacks, soda ) until they reach a certain age. CMV | My short answer, the main purpose of giving kids healthy food is so that they carry on with healthy eating habits when they are adults. Any sort of prohibition ( instead of moderation and educations ) leads to kids eating / drinking large amounts of whatever was forbidden by their parents as soon as they can make the independent choice. It's better for a kid to grow up thinking that a sweet is a treat you can have once in a while rather than for it to be a taboo and for them to go overboard once they're independent. I think there are two flaws in your argument : 1. That we make rational health - conscious choices about what we eat all the time. Nobody thinks sweets / sodas are healthy, we consume them for pleasure / convenience etc. 2. That prohibition is a good way of educating children in healthy habits. Thus, it is healthier for parents to encourage moderation and education rather than repression and prohibition. ( Which in my opinion extends to other stuff beyond sweets, but that's another issue ). | cmv |
I think that parents are obligated to prevent children from eating any kind of unhealthy substance ( candy, snacks, soda ) until they reach a certain age. CMV | Who would determine what constitutes " unhealthy "? I know there are common sense factors at play such as overall nutritional value and effect on wellness. But when it becomes an issue of " child abuse, " there needs to be a rigidly defined set of criteria. This would require a government agency to determine what qualifies as prosecutable " abuse food. " Let's take a ( semi ) recent example. In 2011, Congress attempted to define tomato paste used on pizza as a vegetable. So a parent, under this law, who fed their kids exclusively on pizza would legally only be guilty of feeding their kids well - rounded, healthful meals. Therefore, you would be taking away a parent's right to make dietary decisions for their children. Let's say the beef lobby gets a definition of " healthy " through that requires a certain number of servings of red meat with at least one meal a day. Parents that follow vegetarian dietary practices for themselves and their children could then be charged with " child abuse " even though a common sense definition of healthy could include such a diet. | cmv |
I believe that police should be restricted to using rubber bullets, billie clubs, and tazers. CMV. | You make a serious factual error - British cops do carry guns, but only specialized firearms officers with specific training and authorization for their use. The vast majority of police work does not require a firearm. On the NYPD, most cops will go years if not their entire career without ever firing their weapon in action. So there is an argument there to not routinely carry firearms. But there will always be some situations where deadly force is necessary. Tasers, rubber bullets, and other less lethal weapons are used in cases where the threat is not immediate because they may fail. There are many cases where it takes multiple zaps from a taser or beanbag rounds to bring down a criminal, especially if they're on drugs or wearing body armor. Even heavy winter clothing will dull the blow or block the barbs. Against an attacker with a knife or a gun, that's enough time to inflict a lethal injury. So while the police are overmilitarized in America and often too quick to use deadly force, they still need the option, even if it ought to have further restrictions and training requirements associated. | cmv |
I believe that police should be restricted to using rubber bullets, billie clubs, and tazers. CMV. | Because the people that the police needs to arrest have handguns, shotguns, and automatic rifles. Good luck trying to get an officer in the ghettos of chicago to go on patrol without his gun. Welcome to the USA. My belief is that a lot of excessive police brutality in this country is largely due to the availability of firearms in this country. If I was a police officer, I'd feel a lot less on edge if I knew I wasn't going to get shot at. | cmv |
I believe that in 2000, in response to the controversy over the outcome in Florida during the Presidential Election, they should have just had a do - over, i. e. reheld the election in the Florida. CMV | You appear to hold the following faulty assumptions : The process was stopped because it had become infeasible to determine collective voter intent in a reasonable amount of time. The decisive problem with the vote was voters ( or workers ) being insufficiently " knowledgeable " about the process. Rather, the controversies ( and their resolution ) were almost completely political, and the process of trying to conduct a revote would only have made it worse. | cmv |
I think that " In God We Trust " should be removed from American Currency. CMV | In principle this is a very legitimate point, but when looking at the reality of our country we have much higher priorities than remaking the existing currency designs which work just fine. Isn't it more reasonable to at least wait until a new design is necessary for another reason and then simply leave it out rather than wasting time and money removing it from the current versions of bills? A new currency design brings many costs not just for the government but for ATMs, vending machines, and many other pieces of infrastructure in the country. It should not be done just for an aesthetic difference. This is assuming a redesign is ever necessary. If physical dollars are slowly being replaced by debit, credit, and prepaid cards of various sorts should we really care about it? In a decade or so this will probably be akin to arguing about changing the design of the penny. | cmv |
I think that " In God We Trust " should be removed from American Currency. CMV | Well I'll throw my hat in to get a conversation going ( as a devil's advocate ). Most of America is Christian so we should endorse'our'religion. Furthermore most people would choose to have this on our money by a popular vote. What would your opinion be if there was a vote and the majority of America voted to keep the text? What's your opinion on swearing on the bible to'tell the truth and only the truth'in court? If you are against that too, what's your opinion on how to pacify those who think that because of the lack of biblical retribution, more people will lie on the stand? | cmv |
I believe that a utilitarian society is the only morally just one. CMV | A morally just society is of no practical use if it cannot survive against a less morally just society. Imagine two neighboring villages. One village is a utopia, awesome place to live, the villagers are really nice to each other and there is no crime. The other village is a shithole inhabited by barbarians, terrible place to live but they are really good at conquering other villages and killing people. Guess which one is going to survive? So I ask, what good is maximizing happiness for a society if a less happy society can conquer it? | cmv |
I believe that a utilitarian society is the only morally just one. CMV | Why wouldn't you choose something that balances utilitarianism with another one that protects individuals as well? You've mentioned flaws ; therefore, why wouldn't you attempt to fill those flaws with elements of other philosophies? Also, The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas | cmv |
In the Israel v. Palestine conflict, Israel is by far in the wrong and the US should cut ties with the country. CMV | " Cutting ties " with a country with Nuclear Weapons doesn't seem like a good idea. Israel is in a very politically volatile time and I would doubt they could get out of this peacefully on their own. I would advocate the US stay on and help settle the conflict as opposed to doing a hands off approach. | cmv |
In the Israel v. Palestine conflict, Israel is by far in the wrong and the US should cut ties with the country. CMV | It's irrelevant whether Jews or Palestinians are more native to Israel. Israel is a sovereign nation with the right, like any other nation, to protect its citizens and to self preservation. These rights are not more contingent on meeting anyone's idea of ethical perfection than any other country's right to exist is. Meanwhile the Palestinians have continuously aimed their attacks at Israeli civilians for decades. Israel is right to do whatever it can to keep weapons out of Gaza for that reason, and before the wall Israel suffered from constant suicide bombings... The Palestinians could have made peace at various times, but they, or a large constituency within them, want all or nothing. Since Gaza is ruled by terrorists who have vowed never to make peace, the Palestinians as a whole lack the political ability to make peace now. | cmv |
we are all neo - slaves to the systems CMV | Everything is the tale of a slave, because we are always slaves, so long as any human beings interact. On the other hand, I'd say each transition makes the slave less of a slave. ( Even 8 to 9, because symbolic perceptions are pervasive. ) Practically, if I considered the American political system, I'd say that all nine are still enslaved, because there is no protection of inalienable rights from ordinary democratic discretion. ( True, those rights in America haven't been kept completely inalienable, but since the abolition of slavery I'd say we've done a decent job, relatively. ) If you made that # 10, that would be a huge transition, enough for me to say that we're not really slaves in a political sense. ( Societal and existential senses are another story. ) | cmv |
we are all neo - slaves to the systems CMV | I'm not sure which system this allegory applies tow, whether it's the free market system ( 10, 000 employers ), or the democratic - republic ( 10, 000 lawmakers ) In the first case, you're always welcome to start your own business and become one of the 10, 000 masters. In the second instance, run for political office. | cmv |
we are all neo - slaves to the systems CMV | At what instant does one turn from a child into an adult? There's no clear answer. Are you saying that if there's no crisp transition, then we're all still slaves? | cmv |
Guns are fetish objects. CMV | How do you feel about owning a car that can exceed the speed limit? Guns have a wide variety of uses. People collect them for their value. People use them for hunting and sport ( this includes target shooting ). People use them for self defense. I do think your view is based on your perspective. You should spend a day with an educated gun owner. I have no appreciation of baseball because I have never played it, don't watch it and don't know many hardcore fans. I know there must be something to it to drive people to such passion, and I respect that, but I don't personally know what it is. | cmv |
Guns are fetish objects. CMV | Many people feel safer with a gun in their home. Home invasions and muggings do happen, and in those cases I think the overwhelming majority of people would want to be armed. Gun owners just think about that possibility before it happens. | cmv |
Guns are fetish objects. CMV | If people facing specific threats need guns in your opinion, then everyone needs guns. If you waited for a specific threat to occur, it would be too late to acquire and train to use a gun properly at that time. The proper use of a firearm takes practice and the building of good habits. You should not wait for a specific threat that could affect you emotionally to start trying to learn gun safety. | cmv |
Guns are fetish objects. CMV | I can't testify to the empowerment issue, but I think you're right on entertainment. But who says hobbies have to be practical? There are many aspects to gun ownership : some like the history of firearms, some appreciate the engineering that makes them work, some care for firearms passed through the generations, some like owning expensive things, some like to shoot for marksmanship, some like to hunt. Think of it as darts or golf with some history, physics, and a bang! | cmv |
I think the term " Social Justice " is intellectually dishonest at a fundamental level CMV | You want to be convinced that the social justice movement shouldn't be able to use the term social justice? Language can be sloppy and very accurate at the same time and what is important for communication is that there are accepted definitions of the words we use. " Social Justice " describes a large movement with very different goals and objectives which are all sorted under " promoting equality ". You don't have to agree with it as long as enough people agree on that definition. There's no denying that the term was chosen deliberately to portray their goals in a positive light. But all movements do that. Pro life, pro choice, and the Tea Party have all been chosen to show their goals in the most positive light possible. That doesn't make it wrong, it's just smart. | cmv |
I think the term " Social Justice " is intellectually dishonest at a fundamental level CMV | It's a dumb word, sure, but as long as people understand what the speaker means, it serves its purpose. There are probably lots of other words that are semantically absurd / weird / ill thought - out, but which persevere nonetheless, simply because coming up with a new word is hard. For example : In Swedish politics, conservative ( or, well, konservativ ) means pretty much what it means in the US and in the rest of the world : Low taxes, morality laws, etc. However, Sweden has been ruled more or less constantly by the social democratic party ( way to the left of your liberals if you're American ) from 1920 until 2006. Conservative, at its core, comes from the Latin conservare, meaning " to retain ", in the sense that they want to retain the status quo because too much change in too little time can be harmful. However, in Swedish politics, the status quo is a leftist one and the parties called conservative are right - wing. We still use it, however, because people understand what we mean by it - even if the etymology makes little to no sense in our political climate. | cmv |
I think the term " Social Justice " is intellectually dishonest at a fundamental level CMV | Not just " justice ", SOCIAL justice. The " social " is no less important than the " justice ". What social justice people are aiming for is a just society. It's not the same thing as, say, criminal justice : the goal is to make society fair for everyone. This is NOT what conservatives believe ( by the root meaning of conservative, as in resistance to change ). A core principle of conservative belief is that even if society is unfair it's probably unfair for a reason and we should fix it only very slowly if at all. So you get conservative politicians who are okay with income inequality being as bad as it is now, who are against gay marriage, and generally against activism to change society in general. This is obviously opposed to activism to make society more fair as well, thus conservatives are against social justice. | cmv |
The electoral college is bad for America. CMV | the electoral college is in the broadest terms a popular vote measure. with a winner take all the state votes. Now politicians redistricting counties in their parties favor is a whole nother story. | cmv |
The electoral college is bad for America. CMV | You don't understand it because there is no real reason other than entrenched two - party politics and the historical weight of inertia. The most elegant solution I've seen proposed came from, I believe, the California legislature in the wake of the 2000 debacle. It was proposed that states individually pass laws to the effect of : " This state will apportion 100 % of its electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. This law will take effect upon the last state passing an identical law. " It's an easy end - run around the nonsense of the Electoral College ; each state has the right to determine how its electors work, so it wouldn't require any constitutional meddling. | cmv |
The electoral college is bad for America. CMV | We are 50 countries united by a federal republic. We are not provinces of a whole nation. We are 50 nations. Why does no one ever understand this? The popular vote is a bad idea because we were never intended to be a " nation ". We are a union. | cmv |
The electoral college is bad for America. CMV | The electoral college system could be improved, yes ( a question of how is a pragmatic nightmare ). But it's not inherently bad, and it's better than the popular vote. It was designed to consider the opinions of many people from many states, because let's face it, some states have clear ideological differences from others. If you're worried about minority opinions within the states not having an influence, try the national 60 + million voters who lost the popular vote in the last general election. Plus, through the electoral college system, congresspeople can consider the voting percentages in their districts and state when making political decisions in congress. This is a lot more helpful than looking at the national popular vote as a whole and saying " well, the nation leans more toward Obama, whatever that means ". | cmv |
Gay Marriage? | Actually, the term " Gay Marriage " should be illegal. It's marriage either way. Be it between Heterosexuals or Homosexuals. This distinction between " Gay Marriage " and " normal Marriage " is undermining the whole point of equality. | cmv |
CMV - I believe that most countries as they are now are too large to do their jobs properly, and that a much more regionally focused government bound by a weak federal government would work better. | You said about 100 000 population for each of these sub division, it seems extremely small, there would be thousands of them. How would you treat urban areas larger than these? What about legislation? You mentioned only bill of rights at the federal level. You mean thousands of different regulations for companies, civil law, etc.? Wouldn't it be extremely wasteful and make extremely hard for example for companies to work nationwide? How could any federal level decision making work with thousands of representatives? I mean the UN is pretty much a trainwreck many times and there are only about 200 states. | cmv |
CMV - I believe that most countries as they are now are too large to do their jobs properly, and that a much more regionally focused government bound by a weak federal government would work better. | Strong federal governments are important to unify countries. The Feds represent the whole country in international politics and so it's important to allow them to ( as it were ) force certain things upon minorities. For example, not everyone in the US supports gay marriage, but President approximates that a majority does, and so the official stance of the US is pro - gay rights. If these county - states could make their own policies on anything they wanted, then there would emerge some very opposing views and the country would lose its unity. I think if you want more local autonomy it's better to just go with making them all countries of there own, but that brings a lot of other, bigger problems with it. | cmv |
CMV - I believe that most countries as they are now are too large to do their jobs properly, and that a much more regionally focused government bound by a weak federal government would work better. | The thing about this model of government that strikes me as immediately problematic is that the federal government is what keeps the nation coherent and unified, and without it, that'd very difficult to leave up to chance. If each little county - state has broad leeway in determining its own affairs, then the very first time that one of them really doesn't like something the others are pushing to do, it's going to secede. And the others aren't going to do anything to stop it, because hey, why risk a war just because one little state wants out? No sense spending money and lives right? And then the next state that wants out is gonna realize how easy it was for the first one, and so on and so on until the federation splinters into a sea of independent nations. And then Canada invades and makes us all watch hockey, and I think most of us can agree we don't have the time to learn the complex, confusing set of rules governing yet another sport. | cmv |
I think child support should almost always be mandatory, but for a specific reason. CMV | If it's truly for the good of the kid, shouldn't the support be paid by the state, which will be able to pay consistently and reliably? Forcing the father to pay and basing the amount on his paycheck categorically means it is not for the good of the child ( or, absurdly, that some children deserve more good than others from birth ). The father may lose his job or be otherwise unable ( or unwilling ) to pay, and the child will be left without support. Therefore it is not about the good of the child. | cmv |
I think child support should almost always be mandatory, but for a specific reason. CMV | Part of the problem is that you seem to implicitly establish that causal responsibility should mean financial responsibility. I don't know a better way to do this, but why does someone being the biological father mean they are necessarily responsible when they haven't entered into a childbearing contract with the mother? Until the point that abortion is legally ( and biologically ) viable, keeping the child is solely the choice of the mother. And until this point we don't grant the child any rights, so by the letter of the law the father's rights should triumph. If after this the woman has a child, it is her decision to do so and another agency not involved in the decision shouldn't have to bear responsibility. | cmv |
[ CMV ] Marriage is an unnecessary component to our society | Marriage is a contract between two people. A merger of two corporations. It allows the one to make decisions for the other when they are absent or unable to make decisions for themselves. It provides for the common distribution of their assets. Its purely business and necessary in a society where people chose to be in ( semi ) permanent relationships. | cmv |
[ CMV ] Marriage is an unnecessary component to our society | The legal aspect you mention already exists. You can already create a legal arrangement for someone to make medical decisions on your behalf, you can already create financial entities to split tax. They're cumbersome and much more red - tape - involved than getting married, but they exist. I think the problem with your view is that marriage is something else, a lifelong committed relationship, to which our society bundles in a bunch of other things automatically ( all this legal stuff that you are talking about ). But you seem to think this complex of legal rights is marriage, but that's really not what we mean by'marriage '. Which is why you're whole avoiding the social aspect comment is actually avoiding the question itself. | cmv |
[ CMV ] Life imprisoned folk should be allowed to euthanize themselves | The purpose of life imprisonment is to punish someone though. If we as a society wanted to " rehabilitate " someone we would imprison them for a shorter term, not for the rest of their lives. By allowing prisoners in for life to euthanize themselves they are essentially getting out of their punishment. It's not fair to their victims or the state for them to get off " easy. " | cmv |
[ CMV ] Life imprisoned folk should be allowed to euthanize themselves | Absolutely not. This is a horrible idea. People who are imprisoned for long amounts of time ( or people who have received the death penalty ) have access to more appeals and more tools to force review of their cases. Allowing people to kill themselves'early'might benefit some, but I am willing to bet that it would also result in an awful lot of innocent people killing themselves before that fourth or fifth review of their case finally proves them innocent. | cmv |
[ CMV ] Life imprisoned folk should be allowed to euthanize themselves | The prisoner is almost certainly not qualified to perform euthanasia, and presumably doctors wouldn't participate, Hippocratic oath and all. And that leaves... the jailer, leading to the " did this person really want to die? " question raised by / u / TheBeatlesLiveOn | cmv |
I dont think manslaughter or any crime committed accidentally should be considered a crime. At all. CMV | I get where you're coming from and it's not fair, but overall society would have a hard time functioning if we allowed people to recklessly injure others without consequence. Keep in mind that not all accidentally caused death is punishable. It's only when you cause death when you're doing something you shouldn't have been doing in the first place. So it's partially a matter of luck, but not purely so. For example, a friend of mine killed a cyclist with her van. She was driving reasonably, and the cyclist was drunk and in a place he should not have been. It was ruled that my friend did nothing wrong, and she was not charged or punished at all. | cmv |
I dont think manslaughter or any crime committed accidentally should be considered a crime. At all. CMV | We punish " accidental " crimes when the person who committed them was acting in a reckless manner. For instance, if you are driving while intoxicated and you kill someone, it's reasonable to assume you didn't mean to kill them. However, the fact that you were intoxicated means you didn't take reasonable precautions to avoid killing them. On the other hand, if you're driving responsibly and a little kid unexpectedly jumps out from behind a car and you kill them, you're likely to avoid punishment because there was no way you could have avoided the accident. | cmv |
I dont think manslaughter or any crime committed accidentally should be considered a crime. At all. CMV | Most'accidental'crimes usually have very high thresholds o fnegligence. Ie you weren't trying to kill them, but you were doing something incredibly dangerous that you knew had a risk of serious harm / death. So we discourage people from doing these things. | cmv |
I dont think manslaughter or any crime committed accidentally should be considered a crime. At all. CMV | I'm partial to restitutive theory on punishment ( when restitution is reasonably possible, so ignore the manslaughter thing for now ), so intent is sort of irrelevant when we're concerned with undoing the damage done to the victim. If restitution isn't reasonably possible, though, I think I'm more partial to preventative punishment. And the preventative justification for punishing manslaughter is that if someone knows that manslaughter will be punished, they'll try harder to avoid it. | cmv |
I dont think manslaughter or any crime committed accidentally should be considered a crime. At all. CMV | Interesting. At the civil level, if a person behaves recklessly, or hasn't taken reasonable precautions to avoid harm, they are held responsible. At the corporate level, where profit underlies all decisions, risky behaviour that affects masses of workers and consumers goes unregulated and unpunished. Negligent behaviour just doesn't exist in big business. | cmv |
I dont think manslaughter or any crime committed accidentally should be considered a crime. At all. CMV | Negligence is an accidental crime, should that not be criminal? The point of making those things criminal isn't because they're accidental, it's because even if it was an accident you're still responsible. If, for instance, you accidentally kill someone while acting in a negligent way to their safety, the accidental part doesn't minimize the fact that you're still responsible for someones death, and that's why you get charged. | cmv |
There are no " nice " feminists on this subreddit CMV | How do you expect to have your view changed? The only way that is possible is if a person comes here says, he / she is a feminist without believing all the things you stated. How do you know that person is telling the truth without any other form of evidence? Furthermore, everyone who challenges you on any of your views immediatly gets classified as " not a nice feminist ". If you want something more out of this CMV than just the opportunity to express your political views, you need to explain how your view can be changed. | cmv |
There are no " nice " feminists on this subreddit CMV | By this logic, I don't think I could consider you a nice MRA. We recently had a discussion about whether or not women should be allowed to go topless, in which your view was that they should not be allowed to because it was taboo. From my point of view, you were supporting laws that discriminate against women. What is discriminatory and what theoretical models explain behavior, and even what the word'equal'means depend on the views of each individual. Two people can both be fighting for equality but hold radically different views of the current state of the world and what needs to be done to make the world more equal. This doesn't make either of them'nice '. Everyone should be critical of their own beliefs and try to eliminate their own biases whenever possible, but I think that to insult people who have reached different conclusions than you did is intellectually dishonest, and it shuts down conversation and critical thought. | cmv |
There are no " nice " feminists on this subreddit CMV | Not entirely sure what you mean by the patriarchy, but when it is socially acceptable to blame victims of rape, what else would you call that? And there is a wage gap between men and women who do exactly the same jobs. That's not some conspiracy theory. | cmv |
There are no " nice " feminists on this subreddit CMV | You're making the claim " There are no X that are Y. " Then adding the stipulation, " If X then Z. If Z, then not Y. " You've created a closed circuit in which it's impossible to both accept your premises and dispute your assertion, rendering this thread irrelevant and a violation of Rule II. | cmv |
Regardless of my views on abortion, I feel murdering a baby after it is born / outside of a mother's womb is murder / infanticide. CMV. | I am pretty sure that there are no actual cases of fetuses surviving abortions. I also remember there recently being a fake controversy about this. And even if this did happen the fetus would have no chance of surviving, especially considering that abortions are only legally performed before a fetus can survive outside the womb. I would like to know : who is arguing that it's okay to kill a baby that is outside of the womb? I have never heard anyone holding this opinion. | cmv |
Regardless of my views on abortion, I feel murdering a baby after it is born / outside of a mother's womb is murder / infanticide. CMV. | Just because a baby is born doesn't mean he's going to live for long. A late term abortion 24 weeks involves a fetus that might look as if it is healthy but it has severly underdeveloped internal organs. Being born around that time means that it is very likely it will have birth defects which take heavy rounds of medication to try to counteract. There's also a good chance that it won't help. If it is unlikely that such a baby will survive for long, isn't it more humane to directly end their life instead of letting them suffer for days or weeks? | cmv |
Regardless of my views on abortion, I feel murdering a baby after it is born / outside of a mother's womb is murder / infanticide. CMV. | If I were a baby accidentally'born'during an attempted abortion, I be pretty okay having my skull crushed with forceps or'suctioned'(? ). What's the problem? At that stage in life, a baby still derives its entire value from its parents. It always bugs me when people choose to take responsibility for someone else's newborn child. I mean, yeah it feels a bit purposefully kill a baby fresh from the womb, but honestly what's the loss? If my 6 year old cousin were murdered, I'd be pretty steamed because I think she's a bright and kind kid. But if she were to have died to a messy abortion, I wouldn't be very upset at all. There's loads of potentially cool people denied the horror of existence every time I don't let some guy bend me over. | cmv |
It's the Republican's fault for voting to keep Guantanamo Bay open. CMV | Read the amendment. Nothing prohibits moving prisoners. All that's prohibited is moving them to the US / US territory. Bagram Air Base, for instance, is not in the US or US territory ( and last I knew hosted more involuntary guests than Gitmo ). Obama wants it as a political issue - he wants to blame the evil Republicans. The truth is that there are many options for moving prisoners other than relocating them to the empty federal prison in rural Illinois where they'd like to put them. And as an aside, Gitmo will never close. That's not the topic of discussion. The topic of discussion is whether prisoners will be transferred away. | cmv |
It's the Republican's fault for voting to keep Guantanamo Bay open. CMV | Devil's advocate here. There were 10 Democracts who voted with the Republicans, which had they voted with their party would have swung the vote the other way. No Republicans voted against it, had the Democratic party held together more strongly, the amendment would not have passed. So you can't place all the blame on Republicans. | cmv |
I've believe that the Liberals are'wrong'regarding US economic and fiscal policy. Also Krugman is a hack. CMV | Why do liberals never advocate for higher capital gains tax or higher estate taxes? They do constantly, but get stone - walled. Republicans refuse to budge on either of these issues. But most liberal Democrats would like these taxes increased in addition to higher income taxes on the top bracket. | cmv |
I don't believe there are any arguments against same - sex marriage that aren't based on religion. CMV | DEVIL'S ADVOCATE - I'm 200 % pro gay rights, gay marriage and gay marijuana. Just kidding, I'm not at all. The best argument against same - sex marriage is, of course, that some people don't like it. | cmv |
I don't believe there are any arguments against same - sex marriage that aren't based on religion. CMV | I have to preface the rest of this by noting I don't at all agree with what I'm about to say, I've just argued with enough people to know some of the arguments they make. The most common, non - religious argument against same - sex marriage is that institutionalized marriage is meant to incentivize couples to reproduce and keep the species going. I know this is somewhat a moot point considering overpopulation issues, but traditionally this was the reason for institutionalization of marriage. It also creates economic growth, since adding individuals to the society means you're adding another consumer : baby products and services and further consumerism once the child gets older and develops its own consumeristic needs. This is also why the tax benefits that come with marriage give benefits to spouses with children. You can file maritally as a single tax return and get deductions based on how many children you have who you mark as dependents. You may not like the argument, but it's certainly an existing argument that isn't based on religion. | cmv |