This land is my land, this land is your land

I have a hard time writing on here. First I have to attempt to form an opinion on complex issues, then I have to make sure it doesn't line up with yours, then I have to decide how provocative or melodramatic I should be (should I compare the Arizona law with Jews having to carry around their papers in Nazi Germany?)

I don't know much about the law, but you said it "instructs state law enforcement agencies to ascertain the citizenship status of anyone reasonably believed to be in the country illegally." Apart from watching somebody hop over a fence, I don't know many other ways that you can tell that someone is reasonably an illegal immigrant.

Statistically, if you take a large group of Hispanics and a large group of Caucasians, there will be many more illegal immigrants in the Hispanic group. This means if you're looking for illegal immigrants and you target Hispanic people you have a better chance at finding them. It's racial profiling, but it seems to work. It works in the short term at least. I don't know what the long term effects are on a nations image or on a group of its citizens when they are treated as second class.

You've painted a nice picture of illegal immigrants as people who come into our country with heads on pikes and leave them out as lawn ornaments, but I was watching the news on ksl last night and I got some different facts. While studies in Utah have been "inconclusive", on a federal level they are "definitive" that illegal immigrants have a positive impact on the economy. Also, while many think that they send all of the money they make back to their families in Mexico, the average amount of money sent is between 10 and 15 percent of their paycheck.

Can't the police already check out anybody who is acting legally suspicious? Do they really need a new law to remind them to check Hispanic people twice?
You say the country is being invaded by people who break our laws. If you're going for a technicality, then yes, every illegal immigrant has broken one law.
It's estimated that the population of Utah is about 4.8% illegal immigrants. The Utah State Prison (go aggies) only holds prisoners who have committed a felony. Over the past 8 years 5% of the prison population was undocumented immigrants. That means that an illegal immigrant is just as likely to commit a felony as any other Utahn, so beware of your neighbors.

I only have statistics for Utah, but I'm sure the problem is worse in Arizona. Senator Russell Pearce, the author of the Arizona bill, said, "They're rapists, they're drug runners, they're human smugglers." This criminalizes all undocumented immigrants and turns feelings of hate toward them, and not just those committing the crimes. When the only difference between a Hispanic US citizen and an undocumented immigrant is a piece of paper or place of birth it's easy to see why some Hispanic US citizens are feeling attacked.

I know you use the phrase, "shut up" a lot, but I think the legal Hispanic community has some legitimate concerns to be voiced.

*all numbers and statistics are from ksl

When a man [supposes he] loves a woman

There are people in the United States who participate in arranged marriages, but I'm assuming your point was that the whole western dating scene should be switched to one of arranged marriages.
You mention that dating wastes lots of time and money. If you're dating properly, I wouldn't consider time spent on dates as wasted time. You may not end up with your wife at the end of the night, but time spent dating is generally more fun (or at least interesting) then most daily tasks.
I'm assuming you're going to follow the "standard" family stereotype where the man will provide for the family, and the woman will take care of the kids and the house. All you have to pay for while dating is a bit of entertainment and food for another person a couple times a week. Once you get married you will be paying for another person's food, bills, housing, car, etc. Your money problems will just get worse. You're living the good life now, enjoy it while you can :)

I haven't spent too much money on dates, but I do feel that many girls have it easier financially during the "dating" years. Since guys are usually forced to be responsible for dating, you get to choose the cost and frequency of your dates. Dates don't need to be extravagant. You can simply go out for a cup of coffee (or a glass of milk). You've spent hundreds (possibly thousands) more than me on dates, but under the classification system of "not married" or "married" we are in the same position. I'm not planning on dieing alone either. (thanks e-harmony)

You are expecting way too many lifestyle changes from this new system of dating. I highly doubt that the few hours a week you spend dating are what's stopping you from writing a novel (in fact, being a published author would probably help your dating). Also, I doubt you've spent enough money on dating to finance an expedition to Everest, including the necessary training.
If most people had that extra time, they'd probably spend it doing more of what they already do (some extra tv time or time for more homework). Usually not doing something exciting with your life isn't due to a lack of time.

I remembered that there are some funny quotes from one of Jerry Seinfeld's stand-up acts where he talks about how surprised he is that so many people are getting married. Are that many people out there really just stumbling across the one person that is perfect for them and that they want to spend the rest of their life with?
I didn't happen to find the Seinfeld quotes, but I happened upon a different quote that sort of summarizes the pressure in the Mormon community (which is quite different from the people who have told me not to get married before 30).
Any young man who is unmarried at the age of twenty one is a menace to the community.-Brigham Young


These replies are taking a long time. I think we should write more frequent, but shorter, segments in the future. I'll just mention some other concerns of mine briefly.
You are relying on your parents to find you a mate. What about people who don't come from a family as nice as yours?
Instead of dating now, once you have kids you need to date around for their partners.
Isn't the history of arranged marriages usually just deals made for power/land/money/social influence, etc.
If you loose your parents before you're 25, who chooses your spouse?
People that are good together "on paper" might not like each other too much in person.
I agree that many people should spend longer considering if they are ready to get married or get a divorce. But is it better to separate from somebody who you are no longer happy with and get a fresh start, or just suffer through the rest of your life with them?
When you make divorce more unacceptable, people can try to get away with more without fear of ending the relationship. This can lead to abusive relationships that go on for too long because divorce is not an option.
I don't know how the low points in a relationship are when the marriage is arranged, but I bet the high points are a lot better when you're with somebody that you actually love.

"I suppose I love you"? Really? Is that what we're aiming for?

Penny for your thoughts, taxes for your votes

This is a complex issue. It takes a bit of thought to come up with reasons why I hypothetically disagree with you other than the fact that you are taking away rights.

I agree that those using the government's systems are generally going to vote for more free stuff.
That's a problem with democracy, we assume the population is good and will vote for what's best. We hope that people will be willing to vote so that everybody has equal rights. Democracy works best if everybody follows the golden rule and treats others as they want to be treated (and love's thy neighbors).

The fact that someone has fallen on hard times doesn't mean we should worsen the matter by neglecting their voice. If anything, they might have some helpful insight to prevent others from sharing their fate. If somebody is abusing the government systems, we need to fix the system. When we give people without jobs as much money as they would make if they went out and got a job, they find no reason to work. I think instead of taking away votes of the poor, we need to change the welfare system, and other such systems, so that it isn't worth it to abuse it. We don't need to punish those who are using it correctly.

One factor that makes this difficult is you need to determine the net effect of an individual on the government. Over the course of their life, are they helping or hurting the US? If somebody has worked for 20 years, then is on unemployment for a few months, do they loose their voting rights? Can somebody who is on unemployment for most of their lives just get a job at McDonald's every four years in November when they want to vote, and then quit shortly after?

It's interesting how 'Rights' can be taken away. If you commit a crime, you often loose your 'right' to bear arms (depending on how you interpret that right.) Most 'rights' are really just rewards you get for following the law. With that being said, I disagree with the real you and I'm leaning toward the hypothetical you. You "DO NOT" agree with this in any way, and none of that was your opinion, etc. I have a hard time arguing against it though, because I think I agree with it.
I know it's not perfect, but I don't see anything immediately wrong with suggesting that voting is a reward earned by those who contribute to society.

Voting is already messed up. People, myself included, often vote for issues and candidates based on how they are presented, not on the actual ideals behind them. Maybe making people earn votes will motivate them to work harder. If not, I doubt it will mess up the system too badly.

This topic is draining me. I'm overwhelmed thinking about the voting system in America, the motivations behind people's actions, all kinds of psychology stuff (like how people can manipulate others to vote certain ways), how effective I think Democracies are, and many other things.
I keep typing and deleting entire paragraphs and thought processes, and the only reason this posts looks like it does is because I decided to post it at the time I did. Had I worked on it for another hour, it would look nothing like what you see now.
I don't know my opinion, and I keep counter-arguing any points I try to make. Next can we please discuss something that doesn't involve the whole government process. (My brain is a soft goo, like an overcooked noodle straight out of a Magic Bullet)
I'm not sure whether I should end this with a frustrated scream, or a moan of despair.

(Sorry I didn't quote any philosophers or anything - unless you count Barney Stinson)

Closing -- Willis

It seems to be time for some apologizing and explanation.

I chose to post those 17 reasons because as I said, I was short on time, and you wanted to keep blog momentum up. However this does not mean that I just posted the first text I could find. I do believe gay people are unfairly picked on. That is why I chose to post in support of them with my name on the post.
If it seems I took your attacks too personally, I believe a counter example would be if you posted an excerpt on the benefits of republicanism from their website, and I countered with a post attacking republicans, and calling all of their ideals stupid.
Even if I didn't agree with my first post on this topic, I feel that you can't attack a subject or ideal, and then get upset when somebody fights back.

As far as the horse example goes, I find the big difference here the fact that horses are not human and do not follow the other laws of our society. Horses are not taxed, they don't attend jury duty, they aren't going to college or running for office, etc. I don't enjoy the frequent comparisons of gay people with animals which seem to deem them as less than human. I also don't think that we should make decisions based on a small handful of possible scenarios that you admit are "far-fetched".
I still think gay couples should have the right to marry despite the stance of "America".

I didn't mean to say that I don't value your opinion. I was trying to imply that calling one political side names tends to make one seem like an extremist for the other side. People tend to listen to extremist opinions feeling that there is too much spin to determine the truth, or that the extremist doesn't know what they're talking about because they've closed off the other side of the discussion. I was attempting to do this is a somewhat comical manner, but apparently I failed.

I also never called you a stupid, ignorant, bigot. I don't consider you an older generation, nor did I intend to imply that anybody older than me is a bigot. In my mind I had a picture of a grandpa telling his grandkids that he can't believe they let them negros buy their own houses and vote. Back in his day ....
I know that I didn't call you ignorant, because I probably would have thought it was spelled with 2 r's and then given up on the word and changed my train of thought.
The nu-uh comment was simply to represent the childish argument path we were headed down consisting of-
"I think [.....]"
"You're stupid!"
"Nu-uh, you're stupid!"
"Your mom's stupid!"
*punches thrown*


As for my leaving my "petty arguing" and returning to the discussion, I think I made many valid points which were backed by scientific evidence. I'll admit that my post was a bit hostile, and I apologize for that. I didn't mean to attack you personally. I was simply trying to convince readers of my point of view, but I wrote the post while feeling defensive.

If my posts have truly convinced you to be alright with a homosexual couple choosing to commit to each other, even without legal status, then I consider it a success.

While I never expected our debates to be entirely professional, this one seems too serious for the jovial manner in which we typically debate things. I suggest future topics along the lines of "What's really going on in 'The Prestige'", or "The phonetics of the word Warm".

Making Civil Rights a Reality

Yes, actions affect people, and we live in a democracy. That doesn't mean that popular opinion is always right, or that ballots cast by a public that is often uninformed or misrepresented should end any discussion on improving our country. And if you're referring to Proposition 8 as the people speaking out against gay marriage, many people voted for it because it was marketed that voting no on prop8 makes citizens give away their religious freedoms. There are multiple youtube videos where many females sign petitions to end women's suffrage, but that doesn't mean they think women shouldn't be able to vote. Political manipulation doesn't prove something is right. If you're going to convince me to vote against gay marriage, you'll need more than "everybody else is doing it".

Also, your comments about pot smoking liberal abortionists reinforces your position as being far from politically moderate and leads me to value your opinions at a level I normally reserve for Sean Hannity or Nancy Pelosi.

I believe there will be a time in the future when the older generations of bigots die out and when gay rights will be recognized. But why does every group of human beings seeking equality have to go through the same struggles and the time being treated as inferior? I'd like to speed up the process and get to the happy ending instead of just waiting for things to get better.

While you make a few arguments based on logic (like the desire to have a male and female support figure in the home), most of your arguments are based on a strong hatred toward gay people. Face it, people that you dislike (for whatever reason) are going to get tax breaks. Democrats marry, people who enjoy 3D movies or the movie "Hot Rod" get married, Tools get married, and they all enjoy tax breaks. You pay taxes to live in America. You can't oversee all weddings and choose which ones you don't want to pay for. Plus, I imagine weddings wouldn't even be visible on a pie chart of government spending.

You say, "They have the same right to obey the law as traditional couples do, but they feel oppressed and thus justified." Gay people aren't breaking the law, they are trying to fix it. It's not like they are sneaking around having weddings or anything. Your argument is that one group should obey the law just as any other group. You could have said black people have the same right to obey the law as white people. The problem comes when the law is different for the two groups.

Now instead of talking about American politics, let's shift over to ethics. You mention multiple times that being gay is "unnatural". If your definition of unnatural is "contrary to what nature intended" or things that don't occur in nature by default, than being gay is as natural as having red hair. A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior, has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them. [ Bruce Bagemihl, Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, St. Martin's Press, 1999; ISBN 0312192398] (Ok, now this is getting serious. You've got me citing things.)
Plus, Marriage itself is unnatural. Animals don't wear white dresses and have ring ceremonies. Movies, Television, and indoor plumbing are also unnatural, but I don't see you boycotting those.

You're also assuming that gays are extremely promiscuous based off of some stereotype you have of them. I could assume that all strait couples are promiscuous if I got my perception of them from reality tv shows. And what does sexual activity have to do with marriage anyway? Does a virgin have a higher right to marriage than someone who is sexually experienced? It's not like we have limited marriage licences and we need to marry the virgins first so they can finally have sex.

As far as Greece and Rome go, they also had Brunettes. Ergo, Brunettes are the downfall of civilization?

Although marriage and children are often spoken of together, they are not dependent on each other. You can have kids without being married, or be married without having kids. This means that in straight couples the ability to have children has no bearing on whether they should be allowed to marry, but in gay couples it does?
You say #9 is stupid but you use the exact argument that they are mocking earlier in your post about how conservative families are better because the parents are able to reproduce. Couples that can have children very rarely adopt. The very fact that gay couples can't reproduce means they can only help to reduce the number of children in orphanages.
And although your "That's stupid" argument is very strong, I would like to rebuttal with a, "nuh-uh, you're stupid".

You say that no one will tell you that a child is better off without a male and female parent. It all depends on the parents. I think a kid would be raised better by Tom Hanks and U2's Bono than by Paris Hilton and Kanye West.
Who will tell you that a child is better off without two loving parents?

You say homosexuality is a choice. That's a debate in itself. I won't choose sides, but I'll let you know that there are just as many people who insist that homosexuality is not a choice. The American Psychological Association has a statement about homosexuality on its website under the question "What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?" that states, "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." [http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html]

Last week in the skyroom you asked if it is racist to not be attracted to people of other ethnicities. Then YOU stated yourself that "it's not my fault, it's not like I can choose who I like". Does this mean that gay people are more powerful than you and somehow they can make choices that are simply beyond your control?

With all that being said, you can't use your opinion that homosexuality is a choice as a fact or basis for other arguments.

And even if being gay were a choice, murdering someone has the direct consequence of depriving another person of their freedoms and their life. Being gay has the consequence of loving another human being. You chose to be a journalism major, can I take away your right to a fair trial or your right to vote yet?

Gay people don't expect special treatment, they expect FAIR treatment.

I see you have another stupid response to number 5. (I am commenting on your use of the word "stupid" as a response, not on the fact that I think your response is stupid.) Gay people currently have less rights than other people, and also have hate crimes committed against them. What's wrong with comparing them to other groups of people who shared those criteria? The fact that a majority of black people voted for proposition 8 doesn't change the fact that gay people deserve the rights that black people have.

"It's true, legalizing gay marriage sets a dangerous precedent. I could make an example but it would appear absurd (but it wouldn't be too far-fetched)."
Um... What???
...It's true, playing the piano leads to impotence. I could make and example, but it would appear insane (but it's not entirely impossible).

Your argument invited a "spirit of contention", and my response wasn't sugar coated either. If you'd like to head toward a more factual debate, I'd be interested in you providing a list of reasons why gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Marriage is what brings us together today

I decided to write a post on gay marriage, but I don't really have the time to fully research the material and form all of my ideas right now. So in order to maintain momentum and give topics for discussion, I am going to borrow my post from the satirical Facebook group "Gay Marriage Killed the Dinosaurs".

Gay Marriage Killed the Dinosaurs

This group is for people who understand the grave risks of gay marriage. Some suggest gay marriage will merely undermine one of our most fundamental societal institutions, causing countless straight couples to get divorced because exclusion of gays was the only thing holding their marriage together.

But we know better. Gay marriage killed the dinosaurs. If we let liberal activist judges in Massachusetts and California set the course, the blood will run in rivers. Mixed with molten lava.

Top 17 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong

17. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

16. Gay culture is a new fad created by the liberal media to undermine long-standing traditions. We know this is true because gay sex did not exist in ancient Greece and Rome.

15. There are plenty of straight families looking to adopt, and every unwanted child already has a loving family. This is why foster care does not exist.

14. Conservatives know best how to create strong families. That is why it is not true that Texas and Mississippi have the highest teen birthrates, and Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire have the lowest. This is a myth spread by the liberal media.

13. Marriage is a religious institution, defined by churches. This is why atheists do not marry. Christians also never get a divorce.

12. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why our society has no single parents.

11. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

10. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

9. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

8. Gay marriage should be decided by the people and their elected representatives, not the courts. The framers checked the courts, which represent mainstream public opinion, with legislatures created to protect the rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Interference by courts in this matter is inappropriate, just as it has been every time the courts have tried to hold back legislatures pushing for civil rights.

7. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because "separate but equal" institutions are a good way to satisfy the demands of uppity minority groups.

5. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

4. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

3. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

2. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

1. METEORS and VOLCANOES.

Closing Arguments -- Willis

"Lowly personal attacks"? Don't try and play the victim. Although slightly informal, this is a debate blog. You started your post by making claims such as that you don't say "I hate Freshman" and similar phrases. I simply disputed your false claims. If we were debating about impulse thrusters in space shuttles and you claimed to have majored in Aeronautical Engineering, you would be falsely leading people to trust your opinion. If I tell people, "Ben Wood is no rocket scientist", it's not a personal attack. I just don't like our readers being misled.

Freshman in general may be dressing less modest than last year's freshman, but why single them out? Every class is dressing sluttier than the previous year. My grandma will vouch for the fact that college seniors now dress more provocatively than they did when she went to school. Also, you're "validating" your theory by assuming that every person you see dressed like a slut is a freshman, and every modest person you see is an upperclassmen.

I apologize if my take on your no freshman rule came off as insulting. Your decision to not date freshman is a logical one, based on the fact that you are more likely to find somebody that matches your maturity level in an older crowd. The problem is that the underlying assumption in your post is that all freshman are immature. With blanket statements like "if you're older than 21 and dating an 18-year-old YOU. ARE. A Dirtbag. Plain and simple." you imply that the 18-year-old has nothing emotionally or intellectually to offer the 21-year-old, so the 21-year-old must be into the 18-year-old for purely physical reasons. If our example Alexis came to you and she was technically a freshman, but she was emotionally mature and didn't fit into the freshman stereotype you have in mind, I maintain that you would try and date her. It would be silly not to.

My 18 vs 17-year-old comment was meant to show how rules distinguishing different actions for different ages should be allowed some give. Without a calendar you wouldn't even know when the change from 17 to 18 happened. Your exact words were, "older than 21 and dating an 18-year-old", not over 22. I'm only splitting hairs to show that the age limit you impose is not a strict one. I believe it is simply based on what maturity levels you assume each age comes with. If you're not sure where to draw the line, then you can't get too mad at people for crossing it.

I agree that people should think before they act, and not blindly follow all social norms. What I am trying to do is convince readers of this discussion to treat people they come across on a case by case basis. Making generalizations about people and failing to look deeper can lead to missing out on a lot of things. In 5 years from now I just don't want you to be guilt stricken, sobbing with your head on the floor knowing that you passed up a chance to date Alexis Bledel.