If you could change 1 law, what would it be?

??

Gay Marriage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Christ....

I would honestly want to see the US impliment some kind of beating for punishment of white collar crimes. I can't spell it, but "caning", what they did in Singapore to that American.

If you fine a CEO for screwing over stockholders or employees, it doesn't hurt hem. You give them 20 lashings and solitary confinement for a day or two, that has some staying power.

drago wrote:I would honestly want to see the US impliment some kind of beating for punishment of white collar crimes. I can't spell it, but "caning", what they did in Singapore to that American.

If you fine a CEO for screwing over stockholders or employees, it doesn't hurt hem. You give them 20 lashings and solitary confinement for a day or two, that has some staying power.

Nice! I like it

what about gay marriage?

this is a really cool idea. i'm impressed. now i need to think of our worst law..

I would change punishment all around. I would make it more harsh.

So are you saying you'd like there to be gay marriage, Reynolds?

i'm sorry booba but i can't say any more homo remarks or i will be banned

Sorry to hear that, Reynolds. Does this mean your remarks are pretty much "yes" "no" and "sorry"?

no my remarks will all just be somethink like this booba you are a ****** **** *** ****** ******.

Good. I get to use my imagination.

So do you have a law that you'd change? I wasn't sure if you were serious or not.

i'd have to think about it.

For a law that exists that I would change; I would probably strongly reduce the role of special interest groups and lobbyists by penalizing them and government officials for trading favors for self-serving policies

datrain711 wrote:For a law that exists that I would change; I would probably strongly reduce the role of special interest groups and lobbyists by penalizing them and government officials for trading favors for self-serving policies

Excellent, one I don't think I would've thought of. Good point, datrain.

thanks.

Also I'd probably make capital punishment a federal issue and specify what crimes it can be used for, it will help end the 12 years of appeals in death penalty cases

datrain711 wrote:thanks.

Also I'd probably make capital punishment a federal issue and specify what crimes it can be used for, it will help end the 12 years of appeals in death penalty cases

You can only change one. Which is more important to you?

more important to me is the issues with special interest groups

This is a good question,

I would say allowing Gay couples to marry and also make it easier for them to adopt.

Or legalizing marijuana for medicinal use nationwide.

The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one's spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.
I am not claiming that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse's social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse's health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between to unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.
Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reaching technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.
Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.

datrain711 wrote:
Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.

You make it sound like the State should only do things that benefit the State. Why in God's name did we free the slaves, that must have set us back years. You go from the south being able to make all that wealth based on taking advantage of people, to making the actually pay their workers. Gay marriage is in the same court. We do not want to give homosexuals tax breaks, because it does not benefit Uncle Sam and in our own way we make sure that we tax the hell out of them. Maybe we can even formulate it as some kind of punishment for being "different".

I love how the United States is supposed to be so forward thinking but when it comes down to it, we are probably one of the most resistant countries to change. At least countries that are not 2nd or 3rd world, with a stable government in place.

To me, marriage is, and always will be, a tax break and a party. That's what all the rich white 15 year old girls look for. They aren't looking for some spiritual connection, they are looking for everyone to indulge in their fantasy for a day and for them to be the center piece of a 20,000 dollar waste of money and time.

Until weddings get under control, I'm in the camp that heterosexuals shouldn't get married because they are the ones ruining it for everyone.

"You make it sound like the State should only do things that benefit the State."

Of course the state should concentrate on doing things that benefit the state, unless there is another specific circumstance that causes them to think otherwise

"Why in God's name did we free the slaves, that must have set us back years"

Actually, ending slavery spawned an era of huge progression. Remember that slavery was one part (albeit a big one) of the civil war. By ending slavery, we could begin taxing labor and regulating the economy. By stopping the secession of the South, we kept the country stable and powerful.

"I love how the United States is supposed to be so forward thinking but when it comes down to it, we are probably one of the most resistant countries to change. At least countries that are not 2nd or 3rd world, with a stable government in place."

You can't be serious with this. There aren't more than 10 countries in the entire world that you could even argue are more progressive than us. Think about the monumental changes that have happened for a country that has only existed for 232 years.

"Until weddings get under control, I'm in the camp that heterosexuals shouldn't get married because they are the ones ruining it for everyone."

How are they ruining it for everyone? Because of a high divorce rate? This doesn't make sense to me. What exactly is being ruined?

The state should not just do things that benefit the state. That is completely contradictory to any fundamental theory of government. The state should do what is in the best interests of the people.

This is getting into the realm of splitting hairs, but I think you could make a convincing argument that 15-20 countries are more progressive than the USA. Many EU members, Canada, and New Zealand might have a case.

I'm not sure what Drago means by "ruining" either, but I'm pretty sure I agree with him on the topic. Heterosexuals have been cheating on, abusing, and divorcing their spouses in mass numbers since the very first marriage. Is there any evidence that gay people would be more likely to commit spousal abuse or infidelity? Is there anything to indicate that gay people are more likely to wind up in loveless or sham marriages? Are gay people more prone to neglect, abuse, or run out on their children? Again, straights have been doing an amazing amount of that since the dawn of time, so I'm not sure how anyone can say that gay marriage would threaten the sanctity of anything.

ethan wrote:The state should not just do things that benefit the state. That is completely contradictory to any fundamental theory of government. The state should do what is in the best interests of the people.

This is getting into the realm of splitting hairs, but I think you could make a convincing argument that 15-20 countries are more progressive than the USA. Many EU members, Canada, and New Zealand might have a case.

I'm not sure what Drago means by "ruining" either, but I'm pretty sure I agree with him on the topic. Heterosexuals have been cheating on, abusing, and divorcing their spouses in mass numbers since the very first marriage. Is there any evidence that gay people would be more likely to commit spousal abuse or infidelity? Is there anything to indicate that gay people are more likely to wind up in loveless or sham marriages? Are gay people more prone to neglect, abuse, or run out on their children? Again, straights have been doing an amazing amount of that since the dawn of time, so I'm not sure how anyone can say that gay marriage would threaten the sanctity of anything.

Sanctity of marriage only exists in the Bible and from what I understand, the Bible is not supposed to have any baring on the laws of the United States.

the state does consists of the people. The state must do what benefits the state, or "the majority of the people". allowing gay marriage doesn't benefit the majority of the people.

ethan wrote:The state should not just do things that benefit the state. That is completely contradictory to any fundamental theory of government. The state should do what is in the best interests of the people.

This is getting into the realm of splitting hairs, but I think you could make a convincing argument that 15-20 countries are more progressive than the USA. Many EU members, Canada, and New Zealand might have a case.

I'm not sure what Drago means by "ruining" either, but I'm pretty sure I agree with him on the topic. Heterosexuals have been cheating on, abusing, and divorcing their spouses in mass numbers since the very first marriage. Is there any evidence that gay people would be more likely to commit spousal abuse or infidelity? Is there anything to indicate that gay people are more likely to wind up in loveless or sham marriages? Are gay people more prone to neglect, abuse, or run out on their children? Again, straights have been doing an amazing amount of that since the dawn of time, so I'm not sure how anyone can say that gay marriage would threaten the sanctity of anything.

how does allowing gay marriages benefit society? There are millions of crappy heterosexual relationships, but marriage as an institution, and the state as a whole must deal with these because it is in the state's interest to propogate society. letting 3 dads raise a little boy doesn't benefit the state in any manner. In fact, besides pleasing the gay community, I don't see why the state should consider it at all

datrain711 wrote:the state does consists of the people. The state must do what benefits the state, or "the majority of the people". allowing gay marriage doesn't benefit the majority of the people.

My problem with that is the majority of people are not always right.

drago wrote:

datrain711 wrote:the state does consists of the people. The state must do what benefits the state, or "the majority of the people". allowing gay marriage doesn't benefit the majority of the people.

My problem with that is the majority of people are not always right.

well then I might suggest that you are an anarchist

My friends call me "matt the flag burner"...because my first name is matt...and, well you can figure out the rest.

Datrain, you are taking a highly limited view of what benefits society. I would say that a responsible, loving couple raising a child does benefit society in many ways. A well balanced child contributes in school, in the community, and eventually in the work force. Happy parents are more productive and more likely to add to a feeling of community. Social efficiency and civic engagement are two tremendously important things in continuing a good society, and well-raised children lead directly to both of these things. You're grasping at straws to say that the mere production of more humans is the only interest the state has in regards to children. You're also mistaken in the assumption that something is either for or against the interests of the majority. There are many shades of gray, and not everything is "helps me or hurts me".
Finally, I still have to take issue with the way you equate the state and the majority. The government is an independent actor, it is not the same as the people. As much as we expect it to act in the interests of the people, that does not mean that it is the people. Our country is based on a theory of majority rule with minority rights, meaning the majority cannot deny the minority anything that would be granted to the majority.

ethan wrote:Datrain, you are taking a highly limited view of what benefits society. I would say that a responsible, loving couple raising a child does benefit society in many ways. A well balanced child contributes in school, in the community, and eventually in the work force. Happy parents are more productive and more likely to add to a feeling of community. Social efficiency and civic engagement are two tremendously important things in continuing a good society, and well-raised children lead directly to both of these things. You're grasping at straws to say that the mere production of more humans is the only interest the state has in regards to children. You're also mistaken in the assumption that something is either for or against the interests of the majority. There are many shades of gray, and not everything is "helps me or hurts me".
Finally, I still have to take issue with the way you equate the state and the majority. The government is an independent actor, it is not the same as the people. As much as we expect it to act in the interests of the people, that does not mean that it is the people. Our country is based on a theory of majority rule with minority rights, meaning the majority cannot deny the minority anything that would be granted to the majority.

So what is your argument for gay marriage? That some well-adjusted kids might come out of it so gay couples deserve all the social and economic rights of a heterosexual couple? And i'm not mistaken that something is either for or against the interests of the majority. It IS one or the other, not both, and not neither.

the government is not an independent actor. It cannot satisfy 100% of its population, but it doesn't act at the behest of itself, its acts only because people allow it. A King that inherits the throneis an independent actor, not a government.

People that abuse drugs might also be productive in the community, should that be a right too? You can cherry pick little benefits all day long, i'm sure. But just simply allowing gay marriages will be costly to the government. In my opinion, the benefits have to override such a cost in order to consider changing the rules.

Also, have you even considered the "other" marriage issues that will soon be raised. Should we consider 3 dads and one child a family? Or what about bisexual parents? what about polygamy? what about when someone eventually wants to marry an object?

Finally, statistics show that homosexuals have a life expectancy of almost 20 years less than the general public. Is this a lifestyle we want to encourage to our youth?

1/3 of homosexuals have been sexually abused by their partners. Homosexuals cannot donate blood because it is too risky. Homosexuals are 4 times more likely to be depressed, 3 times more likely to have anxiety, and 4 times more likely to commit suicide.

but hey, it sounds like the government should encourage this behavior. give me a break

People are going to argue this both ways. But the point that I cannot stress enough is that laws are changed when it is in the best interest of the government to change them. I think it is 100% clear at this point that it is not in the government's best interest to give full rights to gay couples. Maybe at some point it will be, but it isn't even close at this point

datrain711 wrote:

ethan wrote:Datrain, you are taking a highly limited view of what benefits society. I would say that a responsible, loving couple raising a child does benefit society in many ways. A well balanced child contributes in school, in the community, and eventually in the work force. Happy parents are more productive and more likely to add to a feeling of community. Social efficiency and civic engagement are two tremendously important things in continuing a good society, and well-raised children lead directly to both of these things. You're grasping at straws to say that the mere production of more humans is the only interest the state has in regards to children. You're also mistaken in the assumption that something is either for or against the interests of the majority. There are many shades of gray, and not everything is "helps me or hurts me".
Finally, I still have to take issue with the way you equate the state and the majority. The government is an independent actor, it is not the same as the people. As much as we expect it to act in the interests of the people, that does not mean that it is the people. Our country is based on a theory of majority rule with minority rights, meaning the majority cannot deny the minority anything that would be granted to the majority.

So what is your argument for gay marriage? That some well-adjusted kids might come out of it so gay couples deserve all the social and economic rights of a heterosexual couple? And i'm not mistaken that something is either for or against the interests of the majority. It IS one or the other, not both, and not neither.

the government is not an independent actor. It cannot satisfy 100% of its population, but it doesn't act at the behest of itself, its acts only because people allow it. A King that inherits the throneis an independent actor, not a government.

People that abuse drugs might also be productive in the community, should that be a right too? You can cherry pick little benefits all day long, i'm sure. But just simply allowing gay marriages will be costly to the government. In my opinion, the benefits have to override such a cost in order to consider changing the rules.

Also, have you even considered the "other" marriage issues that will soon be raised. Should we consider 3 dads and one child a family? Or what about bisexual parents? what about polygamy? what about when someone eventually wants to marry an object?

Finally, statistics show that homosexuals have a life expectancy of almost 20 years less than the general public. Is this a lifestyle we want to encourage to our youth?

1/3 of homosexuals have been sexually abused by their partners. Homosexuals cannot donate blood because it is too risky. Homosexuals are 4 times more likely to be depressed, 3 times more likely to have anxiety, and 4 times more likely to commit suicide.

but hey, it sounds like the government should encourage this behavior. give me a break

This is in direct relation to living in a close-minded society, not the individuals themselves. Do you not think that this would be eliminated if homosexuals were given the same rights as everyone else?? And allowing homosexuals to get married is not encouraging the behavior, but not allowing them to be married is oppressive and unjust....in my opinion.

The only way they will ever change it is to give "marriage" a different name. Call it a merger or a union and get it over with. I for one would not get married in a church so i wouldn't mind the different title.

RCBooba wrote:

This is in direct relation to living in a close-minded society, not the individuals themselves. Do you not think that this would be eliminated if homosexuals were given the same rights as everyone else?? And allowing homosexuals to get married is not encouraging the behavior, but not allowing them to be married is oppressive and unjust....in my opinion.

What about if 3 bisexuals living together want to raise a kid? Or incest couples? I don't know how this is oppressive, marriage is a privilidge. or are we forgetting that