Mhm. There are of course some inherent Slippery Slope problems, and of course corruption of the system, but that's in all systems. The main point is that it should basically be a choice whether or not to be treated as an adult. Any given test should be pretty easy, and it should be based on what you know, not what you have (like property).

Just a very, very basic knowledge of, I dunno, the world, politics and critical thinking. Hell, the test part could be taken out completely, and it could be based on if you want to be treated as an adult, so you have to apply for a voting license.

The basic thing is that when you are voting, you are essentially deciding what you and others can do - you should have some qualifications for that, instead of just being over 18 years old.
In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
I second that! I hate that you can't even be hypothetical without being called a fascist. It is pretty entrenched that the world "owes" you rights out of womb. It doesn't occur to most, that rights by their nature are just an agreement with people. People take for granted most things about rights I guess.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Voting shouldn't be a birth right.


Voting should be earned by having at least a basic knowledge about the voting process, what it means and what the different parties and people stand for, I'm not saying that everyone have to be a pol-sci, but just to eliminate the "I voted for him 'cause I saw him on the tv-box" voters and let the people who do not want to know out of it.

I propose a two tier citizen level - one is "adults", who function as a normal adult today, with all the rights and privileges that we enjoy today - the other is "children" which essentially has the rights and privileges of a child (with certain modifications). The children have not yet grown up enough to take part in the political process and this growing up is not based on age, it's based on simple tests and willingness. That is, if I really want to be treated as an adult I can be done so by passing some simple tests, then I get the rights to vote, to enter politics, to essentially decide things for other people than myself.

Sure, it can be viewed as a slippery slope to fascism, but I still think it would be better than the straight representative democracy that exists today. I wouldn't have had my voting privileges until I was at least 20, because before that I just didn't care.

The biggest problem is if someone starts putting in values in the tests, so you for instance have to answer a question conservatively or liberally to pass, that would defeat the purpose and make the tests politically molding, rather than educating.

Anyway technocracy ftw.

I second that! I hate that you can't even be hypothetical without being called a fascist. It is pretty entrenched that the world "owes" you rights out of womb. It doesn't occur to most, that rights by their nature are just an agreement with people. People take for granted most things about rights I guess.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Voting shouldn't be a birth right.


Voting should be earned by having at least a basic knowledge about the voting process, what it means and what the different parties and people stand for, I'm not saying that everyone have to be a pol-sci, but just to eliminate the "I voted for him 'cause I saw him on the tv-box" voters and let the people who do not want to know out of it.

I propose a two tier citizen level - one is "adults", who function as a normal adult today, with all the rights and privileges that we enjoy today - the other is "children" which essentially has the rights and privileges of a child (with certain modifications). The children have not yet grown up enough to take part in the political process and this growing up is not based on age, it's based on simple tests and willingness. That is, if I really want to be treated as an adult I can be done so by passing some simple tests, then I get the rights to vote, to enter politics, to essentially decide things for other people than myself.

Sure, it can be viewed as a slippery slope to fascism, but I still think it would be better than the straight representative democracy that exists today. I wouldn't have had my voting privileges until I was at least 20, because before that I just didn't care.

The biggest problem is if someone starts putting in values in the tests, so you for instance have to answer a question conservatively or liberally to pass, that would defeat the purpose and make the tests politically molding, rather than educating.

Anyway technocracy ftw.

>> ^jwray:

Ever started a business? Ever bought a car? Ever made an investment in anything that required taking out a loan? Ever get fed/clothed/educated by your mother?
Just because you are fully self-sufficient now doesn't mean everyone can magically become such the moment they fall out of the womb.
Also, if businesses had to do everything with cash reserves instead of taking out loans, the economy would be slow as fuck. Ask any economist.

There's a huge difference between taking out a loan you can pay off, and running up all your credit cards to the limit with no plan for paying the bills. Guess which one resembles our fiscal policy for the last 30 years.

Talk about a loaded response of nothing.

First, if you want to have a discussion, start by talking to me, not at me [or others] as if I'm some uneducated schlub.

Second, and most importantly, think before you type. If you even though about what you posted you'd know it would be impossible to have not been born, raised, fed, clothed, educated, etc. This entire point is completely pointless, since it's goes against the grain of reality, physics, bio-science, etc. Had those things not occurred, I wouldn't be here, now would I? The idea that you thought you had to ask if I was ever born, raised, clothed, etc...is just so amazingly ignorant.

Now then, to answer the valid parts of your post:

Yes, I've bought a car, on a loan.

Yes, I've made investments, on loans, such as my house/mortgage (which I pointed out earlier and you conveniently ignored, by the way).

Yes, I've had loans of other sorts, too.

None of those things contribute to a person being fiscally responsible.

I repeat. Having affordable loans do NOT contribute to fiscal irresponsibility. You don't have to be completely liquid in order to live within your means, and I never claimed that you did. What you CANNOT do, however, is eat expensive dinners every night when you cannot afford them. You cannot buy a 50,000$ car when all you can afford (even on a loan) is a 17,000$ car. You cannot buy new televisions when you're still paying off the one you own now. This should be common sense, and in that common sense, you should have understood that was my point to begin with.

Being fiscally responsible does NOT mean you have to be liquid. It merely means you should be able to afford the loans you do have, without drowning beneath them. If you cannot pay off your current loans without going further into debt, then don't get new loans.

It's a simple concept.

>> ^jwray:

Ever started a business? Ever bought a car? Ever made an investment in anything that required taking out a loan? Ever get fed/clothed/educated by your mother?
Just because you are fully self-sufficient now doesn't mean everyone can magically become such the moment they fall out of the womb.
Also, if businesses had to do everything with cash reserves instead of taking out loans, the economy would be slow as fuck. Ask any economist.
>> ^hPOD:
Calling people ignorant because they have different views/opinions than yourself is, in and of itself, ignorant.
Fiscal Responsibility isn't a vague-to-the-point-of-meaningless slogan unless applied to politicians/politics, be it on the right or the left, as IMO, neither are fiscally responsible. It's hard to be fiscally responsible when you aren't spending your own money. I live my life in a fiscally responsible way. Aside from my mortgage, I have no debt. None. I do not live beyond my means. I do not spend more now expecting everything to work out later, as sometimes it doesn't work out as we expect. That is fiscal responsibility.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
^'Fiscal Responsibility' is a vague-to-the-point-of-meaninglessness slogan designed for use by those too stupid to formulate their own arguments. It will indeed be interesting to see how well the tea party does tomorrow, as a gauge of just how easy it is to manipulate ignorant Americans.

Ever started a business? Ever bought a car? Ever made an investment in anything that required taking out a loan? Ever get fed/clothed/educated by your mother?

Just because you are fully self-sufficient now doesn't mean everyone can magically become such the moment they fall out of the womb.

Also, if businesses had to do everything with cash reserves instead of taking out loans, the economy would be slow as fuck. Ask any economist.

>> ^hPOD:

Calling people ignorant because they have different views/opinions than yourself is, in and of itself, ignorant.
Fiscal Responsibility isn't a vague-to-the-point-of-meaningless slogan unless applied to politicians/politics, be it on the right or the left, as IMO, neither are fiscally responsible. It's hard to be fiscally responsible when you aren't spending your own money. I live my life in a fiscally responsible way. Aside from my mortgage, I have no debt. None. I do not live beyond my means. I do not spend more now expecting everything to work out later, as sometimes it doesn't work out as we expect. That is fiscal responsibility.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
^'Fiscal Responsibility' is a vague-to-the-point-of-meaninglessness slogan designed for use by those too stupid to formulate their own arguments. It will indeed be interesting to see how well the tea party does tomorrow, as a gauge of just how easy it is to manipulate ignorant Americans.

It took me a while to actually figure out what I was looking at.

Now to intall windows into a pregnant womans womb. Any volunteers?

I think this is from Womb Raider 2.

1. The will of the people does not override the Constitution. The Constitution isn't being overridden, there's nothing in it about marriage either way. No one political party has the patent on hypocrisy. The legitimate State exists to preserve rights and protect private property, and since marriage is a legal contract it IS the State's business, and still would be even under the flawed 'marriage privatization' libertarian model.

2. You talk about "new" rights as if they are something bad which should be feared. Is one of the two major political movements more concerned with actual consequences than the other? Yes. The Right defends traditional values, for better or for worse. Why? To be mean? Or is it because 99 out of 100 "new" ideas fail?

Straight people currently have the right to marry whoever they fall in love with. Gays just want the same right. That is a lot less scary than giving slaves their freedom or women the right to vote. I don't see what all the fear is about.

The left has no real idea what the ultimate effects of legalizing gay marriage will be. We're talking 30 years of sketchy, activist-driven data versus 5000 years of history, during which no lasting society or moral thinker--religious or otherwise--condoned gay "marriage". It could be harmless, or it could turn the legal system and society on its ear. What personally ticks me off is if gay 'marriage' proves harmful to society, the left will deny it and try to hide the evidence.

3. Marriage is not about children. A rather large part of it is. Should we take away the right of the single parent to raise a child because they are not getting input from the opposite sex? No, but if the left cannot admit that two loving parents are better than one, then once again we are mired in intellectual dishonesty and the disavowal of common sense.

Never mind the fact that gay couples already have the right to adopt children despite not being married. Get over this argument, it is lame. Marriage is about two people joining together on their journey through life. That might involve children, it might not. It might involve a business venture, it might not. It might involve the purchase of property, it might not. There are as many different types of marriage as there are different people. And the only people damaging the "sacred institution of marriage" are the people trying to label it and restrict it.

Society has a right to define what relationships it values the most. If society decides one man/one woman legally bound works the best, then it has the the right to place that union on a pedestal. Gays like to make this all about them and how they're being persecuted over a "right" that IS new, but there is a line out the door and circling the block twice of relationship configurations society will also not place on "the pedestal".

Like a great number of Americans--though obviously not a majority--I couldn't care less about what gays do in their personal lives, but nor will I pretend there are no consequences for legitimizing 3% of the populations' will over the other 97%.

Freeing slaves, giving women the right to vote, legalizing drugs or prostitution...these aren't even blips on the radar compared to the fundamental societal changes that legalizing gay 'marriage' might bring.

I don't expect agreement here, just acknowledgment that there are other points of view, thoughtful and well-intentioned.














>> ^MaxWilder:

QM,
1. The will of the people does not override the Constitution. I love how Conservatives want to keep the government out of everything. Except the bedroom. And a woman's womb. And the science lab. And where certain buildings are placed. And... well the list of hypocrisy goes on and on. The simple fact is the government should not be in the business of deciding who can marry whom. It is between the individuals involved, and no one else.
2. You talk about "new" rights as if they are something bad which should be feared. Straight people currently have the right to marry whoever they fall in love with. Gays just want the same right. That is a lot less scary than giving slaves their freedom or women the right to vote. I don't see what all the fear is about.
3. Marriage is not about children. You can have children without getting married. You can get married without ever having children. You can raise a child alone, or with a vast extended family in the house. Should we take away the right of the single parent to raise a child because they are not getting input from the opposite sex? Never mind the fact that gay couples already have the right to adopt children despite not being married. Get over this argument, it is lame. Marriage is about two people joining together on their journey through life. That might involve children, it might not. It might involve a business venture, it might not. It might involve the purchase of property, it might not. There are as many different types of marriage as there are different people. And the only people damaging the "sacred institution of marriage" are the people trying to label it and restrict it.

QM,

1. The will of the people does not override the Constitution. I love how Conservatives want to keep the government out of everything. Except the bedroom. And a woman's womb. And the science lab. And where certain buildings are placed. And... well the list of hypocrisy goes on and on. The simple fact is the government should not be in the business of deciding who can marry whom. It is between the individuals involved, and no one else.

2. You talk about "new" rights as if they are something bad which should be feared. Straight people currently have the right to marry whoever they fall in love with. Gays just want the same right. That is a lot less scary than giving slaves their freedom or women the right to vote. I don't see what all the fear is about.

3. Marriage is not about children. You can have children without getting married. You can get married without ever having children. You can raise a child alone, or with a vast extended family in the house. Should we take away the right of the single parent to raise a child because they are not getting input from the opposite sex? Never mind the fact that gay couples already have the right to adopt children despite not being married. Get over this argument, it is lame. Marriage is about two people joining together on their journey through life. That might involve children, it might not. It might involve a business venture, it might not. It might involve the purchase of property, it might not. There are as many different types of marriage as there are different people. And the only people damaging the "sacred institution of marriage" are the people trying to label it and restrict it.

Interesting comments.

There was a recent study that concluded the female relatives of male homosexuals produce more offspring... so the idea is that these genes generally produce more offspring, but in rare circumstances produce much less offspring (because the person is homosexual).

That being said, there are also non-genetic biological forces at work in at least some forms of homosexuality. There was a study that concluded higher levels of stress hormones in the womb during certain periods of the fetus' neural development feminize certain parts of its brain.

So something can be largely biologically determined, even if it's not largely genetically determined.

>> ^highdileeho:

@ yogi, I don't have an answer, it would be arrogant to assume anyone does. I believe that the 'homosexual=genetic" idea has no real scientific basis YET. I don't think that it isn't true, or that it's a big consiparcy. I just think that without empirical evidence, people should not just accept this theory. Based on the evidence that supports the theory of genetics=homosexuality, it can simply be refuted with this theory. If homosexuality is genetic, why is it that these genes are not only being passed on, but that these genes seem to be increasing? Logic tells me that if your homosexual, then you are removing yourself from the gene pool, with a few exceptions like the douche in this story. Certianly over thousands of years we would likely see at least a reduction of this charctaristic. We can see a dying off of the red haired and left handed gene, but not the homosexual one? My point is that there isn't enough information to support one argument or the other, and we shouldn't be quick to accept either as being true or false without further scientific understanding. And yes, I have read the studies that suggest the genetic argument, but they are using social sciences as the basis for their research (hair whorlds and left handedness) and not the more scientificlly sound, human genome as evidence.
The woman was right, the language and intent of this law holds negative connotations and assumes that homosexuality is something to be cured, it is shamefull.

@Yogi, to address your initial comment, I'm sure it's become apparent to you that the answer is almost never an either/or when it comes to questions of nature versus nurture. In fact, I think the majority of scientists roll their eyes when such a question is raised nowadays. The reality is that the two are largely inseparable and interact with one another. So, there might be:
(a) some biological / genetic markers or differences,
(b) shared and unshared environmental influences,
(c) complex interactions between the two.

From what I remember of the science, a greater number of older brothers is predictive of homosexuality, but only in men. I believe this is supposedly due to varying levels of androgens in the womb. I think a particular pattern of balding and certain finger length ratios were also predictive. I think monozygotic twin studies find higher rates of homosexuality in a twin if the other one is gay, but this is probably confounded because they almost always have shared environmental influences. Examinations of brain anatomy has revealed slight differences too, but the question then becomes one of causation. Anyway, you get the idea, there seems to be evidence for genetic factors - but exercise caution in interpretation - I bet there are great counterarguments to those studies. (Plus I'm reciting from memory and might be completely off track, it's been a while.)

With regard to gender differences, I would reiterate what I have said before on this site. The perceived differences between men and women exceed the actual measured differences. There is greater within-gender variation than there is between-gender variation. I wanted to cite a study here that shreds the common perception of gender differences to pieces, but I am so swamped in papers right now I don't have a hope in hell of finding it. Sorry.

@NetRunner, why you gotta be so nice? Let's just pretend fight for funsies.

Why do we have to have labels? Don't we all start out as female in the womb? Does that not mean were all straight/gay?

That would mean your dad would have to get my butt pregnant, and you'd be a turd baby.

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
I think if my dad met you 27 years ago, you'd be my mom. That's right. You would have the pleasure of being my mother. Conception is a miraculous thing...in that nobody has to do anything right for it to happen.

this wombs for you buddy.

I think if my dad met you 27 years ago, you'd be my mom. That's right. You would have the pleasure of being my mother. Conception is a miraculous thing...in that nobody has to do anything right for it to happen.

this wombs for you buddy.

Most of us men spend the first 9 months of our existence trying to get out of the womb, and the rest of our lives trying to get back in.