Should we legalize the following?

[??????????]

Adultery: No
Pornography: Yes
Sodomy: No
Gay Marriage: No
Polygamy: No
Prostitution: Yes
Cigarettes: Yes
Alcohol: Yes
Marijuana: Yes
Hard Drugs: No
Gambling: Yes
Assault Weapons: Yes
Explosives: Undecided, leaning Yes
Pistols: Yes
Rifles: Yes

[JohnFKennedy]

Adultery: Yes
Pornography: Yes
Sodomy: Yes
Gay Marriage: Yes
Polygamy: No
Prostitution: Yes - Regulate it, Tax it
Cigarettes: Yes
Alcohol: Yes
Marijuana: No
Hard Drugs: No
Gambling: Yes
Assault Weapons: No
Explosives: No - Not including fireworks
Pistols: Yes
Rifles: Yes

[Katie G.]

oh, be quiet,  harry.

i am not a monster.  have you seen all my posts?  i have broken into double digits! haha.

[Brambila]

Adultery: Yes*
Pornography: No
Sodomy: Yes*
Gay Marriage: No.
Polygamy: No
Prostitution: Yes*
Cigarettes: Yes
Alcohol: Yes
Marijuana: Yes*
Hard Drugs: No
Gambling: Yes*
Assault Weapons: Yes
Explosives: No
Pistols: Yes
Rifles: Yes

*Depending on the states.

[Katie G.]

Adultery: Yes*
Pornography: No
Sodomy: Yes*
Gay Marriage: No.
Polygamy: Yes*
Prostitution: Yes*
Cigarettes: Yes
Alcohol: Yes
Marijuana: Yes*
Hard Drugs: No
Gambling: Yes*
Assault Weapons: Yes
Explosives: No
Pistols: Yes
Rifles: Yes

*Depending on the states.

depending on the states?  i thought the 'legalization' would be on a national level. oh well

[John Dibble]

Adultery: Yes*
Pornography: No
Sodomy: Yes*
Gay Marriage: No.
Polygamy: Yes*
Prostitution: Yes*
Cigarettes: Yes
Alcohol: Yes
Marijuana: Yes*
Hard Drugs: No
Gambling: Yes*
Assault Weapons: Yes
Explosives: No
Pistols: Yes
Rifles: Yes

*Depending on the states.

depending on the states?  i thought the 'legalization' would be on a national level. oh well

I think this is more of a philisophical question, not about 'who' should legalize it, mainly the 'should'. Bram just added the who.

If it was anyone but him though, it would be wierd that he would legalize polygamy and not gay marriage.

[ilikeverin]

Adultery: "Yes" - no criminal charges...and...."No" adulterers should be open to civil lawsuits
Pornography: Yes
Sodomy: Yes
Gay Marriage: No
Polygamy: No
Prostitution: No
Cigarettes: Yes
Alcohol: Yes
Marijuana: No
Hard Drugs: No
Gambling: Yes
Assault Weapons: No
Explosives: No
Pistols: Yes
Rifles: Yes

---

Looks like I win the prize for being the poster who is the closest to the opinion of majority of Americans.

How ironic that I am considered one of the most extreme posters on this forum, when in reality, I am the most moderate.

If I am such the bad guy, why are the people on my side?

Confusing times, heh?

Does that mean I'm the 2nd most moderate because I only have one different answer than yours (Gay Marriage)?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Adultery:  No
Pornography:  No
Sodomy:  No
Gay Marriage:  No
Polygamy:  No
Prostitution:  No
Cigarettes:  No
Alcohol:  No
Marijuana:  No
Hard Drugs:  No
Gambling:  No
Assault Weapons:  No
Explosives:  No
Pistols:  Yes
Rifles:  Yes

I fail to see what would be gained by banning cigarettes or alcohol...Prohibition was already tried once.....and as for cigarettes, that's not exactly going to go over too well either, and you'll just drive it underground, like alcohol.

I don't think any physically addictive drugs should be legal without a prescription.  When something is physically addictive, should be an presumption that the consumer is not buying it totally under his free will, and thus the production and sale of such products should be regulated by more than the free market.

[A18]

Assault Weapons: Over my dead body.

...

Sure that was a good choice of words?

[afleitch]

Adultery- Yes
Pornography- Yes- a 16+ limit
Sodomy- Yes
Gay Marriage- No. Civil Unions.-Yes. Leave it to the states
Polygamy- No, but leave it to the states
Prostitution- Yes. Legalise it to control it/tax it
Cigarettes- Yes. Age limit set by states
Alcohol- Yes. Age limit set by states
Majijuana- Medicinal only under doctors supervision
Hard Drugs- No chance
Gambling- Must be approved by voters in the state
Assault Weapons- No. Criminilise their sale as well as use
Explosives- No.
Pistols- Yes- only under licence and up to the states.
Rifles- No.

[A18]

depending on the states?  i thought the 'legalization' would be on a national level. oh well

I think this is more of a philisophical question, not about 'who' should legalize it, mainly the 'should'. Bram just added the who.

If it was anyone but him though, it would be wierd that he would legalize polygamy and not gay marriage.

Why is polygamy considered weird but not gay marriage?

I've noticed that some people have actually begun to speak that way. If you were going to 'legalize' (BS) gay marriage, legalizing polygamy sounds like a given.

And incest.

[Brambila]

Adultery: Yes*
Pornography: No
Sodomy: Yes*
Gay Marriage: No.
Polygamy: Yes*
Prostitution: Yes*
Cigarettes: Yes
Alcohol: Yes
Marijuana: Yes*
Hard Drugs: No
Gambling: Yes*
Assault Weapons: Yes
Explosives: No
Pistols: Yes
Rifles: Yes

*Depending on the states.

depending on the states?  i thought the 'legalization' would be on a national level. oh well

I think this is more of a philisophical question, not about 'who' should legalize it, mainly the 'should'. Bram just added the who.

If it was anyone but him though, it would be wierd that he would legalize polygamy and not gay marriage.

Woops! That Polygamy thing was actually an accident. It should absolutely be illegal, however, I believe so for the same reasons as homosexual marriage.

[opebo]

I'd leave this country if it every became this majority morality police that some of you guys want, heh.  

Making alcohol illegal was proven not to work in the prohibition (drugs is proven every day).  And then bedroom police scare the hell out of me.  Who wants the federal government controlling who they can and can't have sex with?

Lunar, how is the US not already a Moral Majority police state?  I'm getting out, as I do every year, to Thailand.  It is truly amazing how much more free life is on a day to day level in many other countries.  I highly recommend escape, if you can manage it, though I must warn you the forces of theocracy are on the move in almost every country, encouraged by religious NGOs.

[A18]

Gay 'marriage' is not illegal. Two men don't go 'get married' and then go to jail. This isn't about the 'Moral Majority' trying to force anything on anyone. It's about the Not-so-moral Minority trying to force something on everyone of us.

If a church or whatever else wants to honor it, that's fine. But marriage has a definition (not changing), and it is the only one the state should recognize.

Again...to anyone who said gay unions/whatever should be recognized but also said polygamy shouldn't be...what sense does that make whatsoever?

[ilikeverin]

Again...to anyone who said gay unions/whatever should be recognized but also said polygamy shouldn't be...what sense does that make whatsoever?

The slippery slope argument doesn't work.

[Lunar]

I'd leave this country if it every became this majority morality police that some of you guys want, heh.  

Making alcohol illegal was proven not to work in the prohibition (drugs is proven every day).  And then bedroom police scare the hell out of me.  Who wants the federal government controlling who they can and can't have sex with?

Lunar, how is the US not already a Moral Majority police state?  I'm getting out, as I do every year, to Thailand.  It is truly amazing how much more free life is on a day to day level in many other countries.  I highly recommend escape, if you can manage it, though I must warn you the forces of theocracy are on the move in almost every country, encouraged by religious NGOs.

I meant if it increased to the level that some people want it.  At the moment, it's just very annoying, but if it became unbearable I'd just pack my bags.

If I left, it'd probably be for Europe since I have EU citizenship.  There are some nice corners of Europe here and there.

[A18]

Again...to anyone who said gay unions/whatever should be recognized but also said polygamy shouldn't be...what sense does that make whatsoever?

The slippery slope argument doesn't work.

Who said anything about a slippery slope? I'm asking why polygamy shouldn't be recognized if gay marriage should be.

[??????????]

Adultery:  No
Pornography:  No
Sodomy:  No
Gay Marriage:  No
Polygamy:  No
Prostitution:  No
Cigarettes:  No
Alcohol:  No
Marijuana:  No
Hard Drugs:  No
Gambling:  No
Assault Weapons:  No
Explosives:  No
Pistols:  Yes
Rifles:  Yes

I fail to see what would be gained by banning cigarettes or alcohol...Prohibition was already tried once.....and as for cigarettes, that's not exactly going to go over too well either, and you'll just drive it underground, like alcohol.

I don't think any physically addictive drugs should be legal without a prescription.  When something is physically addictive, should be an presumption that the consumer is not buying it totally under his free will, and thus the production and sale of such products should be regulated by more than the free market.

Should caffeinated products be prescription only? Many doctors consider caffeine addictive.

[opebo]

Prostitution- Yes. Legalise it to control it/tax it

Why is everyone so hot to tax prostitution?  I mean it isn't going to make that much of a difference, and it will be damned hard to enforce.  I think it is absurd to say we'll tolerate it but 'regulate' it - how can you regulate what two people do in private?  You can only regulate their access to one another - as we do now, with entrapment, harrassing girls on the streets, etc etc.  

I say end the stigma, and also recognize that there's a HUGE element of 'prostitution' in ordinary marriage and dating anyway.   Of course this gets to the root of the problem - the reason moralists (and particularly many women) so hate prostitutes is they undermine the market by selling 'it' cheaply rather than through the rip-off institution of marriage.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Again...to anyone who said gay unions/whatever should be recognized but also said polygamy shouldn't be...what sense does that make whatsoever?

The slippery slope argument doesn't work.

Who said anything about a slippery slope? I'm asking why polygamy shouldn't be recognized if gay marriage should be.

Easy....people should be able to marry whomever they choose, but no one should be able to have more than one marriage at once.   A contract of marriage implies exclusivity: that neither partner will marry anyone else.

Gay marriage is done between two consenting adults, who are both equal partners in the relationship.   Polygamous societies in the real world involve the coercion and submission of women to male authority.  When a man marries a second wife, the first wife may not have consented to that marriage, and becomes less equal than her husband in the family relationship.  Polygamous relationship are inherently unequal because some partners have more spouses than others.

I think you could come up with a theoretical argument for a single marriage involving more than two people (for instance, three lesbians all wanting to marry each other), that wouldn't necessarily involve inequality.  However, virtually all-real life polygamous society occur in places where women are forced to play a submissive role, so I think the theoretically misses the ultimately vile purpose of polygamy.

[A18]

Okay, whomever they chose...but why only one?

I'm saying three, four, seven women/men. Why shouldn't that be recognized?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Adultery:  No
Pornography:  No
Sodomy:  No
Gay Marriage:  No
Polygamy:  No
Prostitution:  No
Cigarettes:  No
Alcohol:  No
Marijuana:  No
Hard Drugs:  No
Gambling:  No
Assault Weapons:  No
Explosives:  No
Pistols:  Yes
Rifles:  Yes

I fail to see what would be gained by banning cigarettes or alcohol...Prohibition was already tried once.....and as for cigarettes, that's not exactly going to go over too well either, and you'll just drive it underground, like alcohol.

I don't think any physically addictive drugs should be legal without a prescription.  When something is physically addictive, should be an presumption that the consumer is not buying it totally under his free will, and thus the production and sale of such products should be regulated by more than the free market.

Should caffeinated products be prescription only? Many doctors consider caffeine addictive.

I'm not sure the extent to which caffeine is physically addictive...I don't think I've ever suffered withdrawal symptoms when I had to go without.  But even if it is addictive in some way, it is obviously orders of magnitude less so than nicotine, as evidenced by the array of "smoking cessation" products on the market, and the lack of similar products for caffeine.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Okay, whomever they chose...but why only one?

I'm saying three, four, seven women/men. Why shouldn't that be recognized?

If a husband chooses to marry a second wife, is the first wife also choosing to marry that second wife?

If no, this violates the exclusivity implicit in a marriage, and creates an unequal domestic relationship that our society is right to discourage.

If yes, I would suggest that the hypothetical is a poor reflection of real-world polygamous societies and not really worth debating.

[A18]

We're not talking about "real-world polygamous societies," are we? We're talking about our society.

Yes, they agree.

And what is this 'exclusivity implicit' crap? You're just saying this is a marriage, and this isn't. So in other words, the exact same argument as people who believe in real marriage.

[opebo]

Again...to anyone who said gay unions/whatever should be recognized but also said polygamy shouldn't be...what sense does that make whatsoever?

The slippery slope argument doesn't work.

Who said anything about a slippery slope? I'm asking why polygamy shouldn't be recognized if gay marriage should be.

Easy....people should be able to marry whomever they choose, but no one should be able to have more than one marriage at once.   A contract of marriage implies exclusivity: that neither partner will marry anyone else.

Gay marriage is done between two consenting adults, who are both equal partners in the relationship.   Polygamous societies in the real world involve the coercion and submission of women to male authority.  When a man marries a second wife, the first wife may not have consented to that marriage, and becomes less equal than her husband in the family relationship.  Polygamous relationship are inherently unequal because some partners have more spouses than others.

I think you could come up with a theoretical argument for a single marriage involving more than two people (for instance, three lesbians all wanting to marry each other), that wouldn't necessarily involve inequality.  However, virtually all-real life polygamous society occur in places where women are forced to play a submissive role, so I think the theoretically misses the ultimately vile purpose of polygamy.

I don't see how society has any business in ensuring that all relationships between free individuals are equal.  In fact very few are!  Working people are not equal to their bosses, but they entered into the contract willingly.  The same should be true of polygamous marriage.