Gay Marriage vs. Vaccination

[JohnnyL]

People say laws should be about freedom and individual rights. People say laws should be for the good of society.

Here we have two big current hot topics in the USA: gay marriage and vaccinations. Gay marriage (EDIT: gay unions are wonderful, gay families are wonderful, etc.) is about individual rights (or so it is argued), but vaccinations are about what's best for society (or so it is argued).

Does society/ the masses not see the huge problems these two topics bring? How pro-GM tramples "what's best for society" and lauds "freedom and individual rights and diversity", and pro-vaccinations trample "freedom and individual rights and diversity" and laud "what's best for society"? Illogical. The principles are so messed up in society...

In addition, those two groups use "science" for support, while all true science--even as we know it now--says the opposite of what they are saying.

Hopefully others can say this better than I can...

(More edits to clarify and include, instead of putting on three tail enders in other posts...)

[Ezra]

There is not law stopping gay unions. They are free to sin. marriage gives tax breaks. It's a way to build a healthy future generation by trying to promote a healthy family environment.

Gay marriage is not a healthy environment to raise our future generations. So it should not be given the same tax breaks or incentives.

They are still free to screw eachother and dedicate that sinful Union how ever they please but they should not be given any encouragement to raise kids in that environment.

I'm not one for taxation period. But anything that discourages sin while still maintaining their freedom to sin is a good thing I think.

[TannerG]

People say laws should be about freedom and individual rights. People say laws should be for the good of society.

Here we have two big current hot topics in the USA: gay marriage and vaccinations. Gay marriage (EDIT: gay unions are wonderful, gay families are wonderful, etc.) is about individual rights (or so it is argued), but vaccinations are about what's best for society (or so it is argued).

Does society/ the masses not see the huge problems these two topics bring? How pro-GM tramples "what's best for society" and lauds "freedom and individual rights and diversity", and pro-vaccinations trample "freedom and individual rights and diversity" and laud "what's best for society"? Illogical. The principles are so messed up in society...

In addition, those two groups use "science" for support, while all true science--even as we know it now--says the opposite of what they are saying.

Hopefully others can say this better than I can...

(More edits to clarify and include, instead of putting on three tail enders in other posts...)

Very interesting questions. Hmmm. I'll have to think on this.

[jdawg1012]

(The use of "you" is a generalization, and directed at no one in particular. FYI.)

Bigotry doesn't make sense, because it's not rational, by definition. The same enemies of agency that want to deny gay people their God-given right to association, contracts and property rights are just as evil as the enemies of agency that want to force people into doing things to their bodies, such as having vaccines forced upon them, forcing them to carry pregnancies to term against their will, or any number of other whacko ideas.

Marriage should have nothing to do with government, and personal health issues shouldn't either.

Stupid people (and yes, they are stupid), think that they can force their neighbor to do something, and turn around and think that they, themselves won't be subjected to the same unrighteous dominion. Stop the pendulum from swinging, and it'll stop falling on your head.

Stay out of other people's business and mind you own, and stop trying to get government to subject your neighbor to your whim.

The end.

[mes5464]

(The use of "you" is a generalization, and directed at no one in particular. FYI.)

Bigotry doesn't make sense, because it's not rational, by definition. The same enemies of agency that want to deny gay people their God-given right to association, contracts and property rights are just as evil as the enemies of agency that want to force people into doing things to their bodies, such as having vaccines forced upon them, forcing them to carry pregnancies to term against their will, or any number of other whacko ideas.

Marriage should have nothing to do with government, and personal health issues shouldn't either.

Stupid people (and yes, they are stupid), think that they can force their neighbor to do something, and turn around and think that they, themselves won't be subjected to the same unrighteous dominion. Stop the pendulum from swinging, and it'll stop falling on your head.

Stay out of other people's business and mind you own, and stop trying to get government to subject your neighbor to your whim.

The end.

jdawg, I agree with you with respect to staying out of other peoples business, but the examples you listed above are crimes which have to be addressed by society.

Yes, forcing a person to take a vaccine is wrong, because it is a crime.
Abortion is the murder of an unborn child, and thus it is a crime.
Same-sex marriage is a crime because all children have a right to a father & a mother. The crime is against the child and any heterosexual marriage that was destroyed to make the homosexual marriage (family).
Marriage is defined by God and thus any variation of that is a crime.
Adultery is a crime, because breach of a marriage contract is a crime.
Fornication is a crime, because all children have a right to lawfully married parents.

Societies problem is we have stopped recognizing crime for what it is and we have stopped punishing for it.

[ajax]

Yes, forcing a person to take a vaccine is wrong, because it is a crime.
Abortion is the murder of an unborn child, and thus it is a crime.
Same-sex marriage is a crime because all children have a right to a father & a mother. The crime is against the child and any heterosexual marriage that was destroyed to make the homosexual marriage (family).
Marriage is defined by God and thus any variation of that is a crime.
Adultery is a crime, because breach of a marriage contract is a crime.
Fornication is a crime, because all children have a right to lawfully married parents.

Societies problem is we have stopped recognizing crime for what it is and we have stopped punishing for it.

I'd be interested in your punishment schedule for the above listed.

[Cookies]

Can somebody explain to me why vaccinated people care if others are unvaccinated? Can they still get the sicknesses somehow? I don't get it...

[mes5464]

Yes, forcing a person to take a vaccine is wrong, because it is a crime.
Abortion is the murder of an unborn child, and thus it is a crime.
Same-sex marriage is a crime because all children have a right to a father & a mother. The crime is against the child and any heterosexual marriage that was destroyed to make the homosexual marriage (family).
Marriage is defined by God and thus any variation of that is a crime.
Adultery is a crime, because breach of a marriage contract is a crime.
Fornication is a crime, because all children have a right to lawfully married parents.

Societies problem is we have stopped recognizing crime for what it is and we have stopped punishing for it.

I'd be interested in your punishment schedule for the above listed.

I don't want to derail the thread too much. I will start a new thread. Look for it.

[Thinker]

Bigotry doesn't make sense, because it's not rational, by definition. The same enemies of agency that want to deny gay people their God-given right to association, contracts and property rights are just as evil as the enemies of agency that want to force people into doing things to their bodies, such as having vaccines forced upon them, forcing them to carry pregnancies to term against their will, or any number of other whacko ideas.

I agree that bigotry ("intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself") is not rational.

Media would try to pretend that those who've developed homosexual preferences are being denied special rights.

Was it when homosexual lobbyists began harassing, that some were fooled into believing that special "rights" were earned just for having special sexual distortions?
What makes one particular sexual substitute better than the others?

Since when is it a "whacko idea" to honor life in children (developing humans)? Is it since bigotry in the form of killing as birth control is subscribed to?

Stupid people (and yes, they are stupid), think that they can force their neighbor to do something, and turn around and think that they, themselves won't be subjected to the same unrighteous dominion.

Yes, reminds me of those crying out bigotry while harassing anyone who defends marriage between a man and a woman.

Stay out of other people's business and mind you own, and stop trying to get government to subject your neighbor to your whim.

Excellent advice for those parading naked homosexuality in streets, TV, movies and the legal system.

[KMCopeland]

People say laws should be about freedom and individual rights. People say laws should be for the good of society.

Here we have two big current hot topics in the USA: gay marriage and vaccinations. Gay marriage (EDIT: gay unions are wonderful, gay families are wonderful, etc.) is about individual rights (or so it is argued), but vaccinations are about what's best for society (or so it is argued).

Does society/ the masses not see the huge problems these two topics bring? How pro-GM tramples "what's best for society" and lauds "freedom and individual rights and diversity", and pro-vaccinations trample "freedom and individual rights and diversity" and laud "what's best for society"? Illogical. The principles are so messed up in society...

In addition, those two groups use "science" for support, while all true science--even as we know it now--says the opposite of what they are saying.

Hopefully others can say this better than I can...

(More edits to clarify and include, instead of putting on three tail enders in other posts...)

Gay marriage is between consenting adults. They don't hurt anyone else and they don't trample on anyone else's rights by marrying. You may find it morally offensive but you have no constitutional right to demand a law against it -- since they don't infringe on your rights by marrying each other. "The right not to be morally offended" isn't constitutionally guaranteed.


On the other hand, you stand to hurt a great many other people by refusing to vaccinate or be vaccinated. Therefore you stand to put other peoples' rights to life, and therefore, also their pursuit of happiness, in grave danger. So there's constitutional justification to require it.

You have a right to demand that vaccination be safe. I don't believe you have the right to refuse it without a medical reason. You put too many other people's rights in danger when you do.

[jdawg1012]

On the other hand, you stand to hurt a great many other people by refusing to vaccinate or be vaccinated. Therefore you stand to put other peoples' rights to life, and therefore, also their pursuit of happiness, in grave danger. So there's constitutional justification to require it.

You have a right to demand that vaccination be safe. I don't believe you have the right to refuse it without a medical reason. You put too many other people's rights in danger when you do.

Here's where I disagree with you. (Unless you're just reiterating the argument of people who are pro-forced vaccination, and it's not your opinion, then I just disagree with them.) Other than that first "you," all "yous" (from this point onward) are mere generalizations, not intended to any single poster.

First off, you don't have the right to force anyone to get a vaccination. Not even kids. ESPECIALLY not kids who are not your own. You have the right to prohibit people from entering your private property for any number of reasons (say if they have a gun against your wishes, aren't vaccinated, etc.), but you don't have the right to force them to get the vaccine (or not be able to have a gun on their own property, etc.).

Likewise people have the right to hole up in their house (with their kids, until they're adults) and never leave it, because they can't tolerate people who believe differently, because they're scared gay people exist, because they're scared their children will see alcohol, because they're worried about catching diseases, or because they don't want to get vaccinated, or any other of a number reasons, rational or irrational. That's their right. Their right isn't to change you, their right is to stay on their own property, or that of like minded people, or come out in public, with the caveat that they must obey public laws (which in turn are governed by a limited number of rights guaranteed by the Constitution.)

This whole problem comes from people who want to bludgeon their neighbor with the government, and then cry and whine that government is too big and outside it's bounds when it turns onto them, next. If you want limited government, STOP GROWING IT.

And any "it's for the the children" arguments are nullified by common sense. I won't even respond to that level of irrationality besides to say: "Your children are your responsibility, not mine. If you don't want them to see something, hide THEIR EYES. Don't expect your neighbor to modify their behavior because you want your children in a bubble. If you don't want them to learn something, TEACH THEM, YOURSELF. Don't expect your neighbor to have money stolen from them, through taxation, and not have a say in what they are taught. And if you don't want them to catch a disease or face health risks, SAFEGUARD YOUR CHILD. Don't expect everyone else to stop eating peanuts, take injections, or anything else, to spare your child from the consequences of life in public. Provide for them yourself. Protect them, yourself, in your own home or on your own property. And teach them yourself, what principles you want them to learn.

STOP TRYING TO MAKE YOUR NEIGHBOR DO YOUR JOB OF PARENTING BECAUSE YOU'RE SCARED, LAZY, OR INTOLERANT."

"It's for the children" is a complete cop-out. Be a parent, stop trying to force others to change because you're afraid Junior will grow up to disagree with you. Good parents teach their children to reason and listen to the Spirit. Bad parents (who currently abound), have no idea how to parent and want the entire world to change, because little Johnny or Susie (Or, in Utah, "Kaayllyyn," or "Jaroom"), can't possibly see, hear, or think, something that doesn't affect your sensibilities. Your repeated efforts to vainly control your neighbor to keep your children from exposure to the real world will only turn on your head, because you can't selectively grow government to only affect your neighbor, and passing over your rights. EVERYONE'S RIGHTS ARE TRAMPLED AS YOU FEED THE BEAST OF GOVERNMENT. Bank on it. Then you'll whine again.

Stop the pendulum from swinging. Or suffer from its consequences. It's liberty or tyranny, you don't get to choose tyranny for your neighbor, and liberty for yourself. I'm tired of enemies to agency playing the victim.

YOU DO NOT HAVE A GOD-GIVEN RIGHT TO GOVERN YOUR NEIGHBOR, ONLY YOURSELF. YOU HAVE NO MORAL HIGH-GROUND IN DOING SO. NONE. GOD WILL NOT PROTECT YOUR IMAGINED RIGHT TO YOUR NEIGHBOR'S DECISIONS. STOP PLAYING GOD.

He can do His job. Now, do yours, and parent, responsibly.

D&C 134:9
We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

This scripture NECESSARILY indicates that people that disagree with you are not Godless, just because their religion is different from yours.

If you can say that God doesn't want same sex-marriage, vaccinations, or any other "pick-your-pony" topic, ANYONE else can say contrary and you have equal footing under the law, and God's gift of agency. Because just as you may believe God doesn't like gay people or gay's right to marriage, someone else may believe God loves His gay children, and condones gay's right to marriage. NO ONE RELIGIOUS SOCIETY IS TO BE FOSTERED AND ANOTHER PROSCRIBED. There are religions that believe in same-sex marriage. It's a religious right, JUST AS MUCH AS TEMPLE MARRIAGE. You can disagree with it, but God (through scripture) says you can't proscribe it. Government denies your ability to control your neighbor anymore in this manner. You losing that unrighteous dominion, so now you can teach your children whatever form of marriage you think is right, and do your job, but you can't limit gay people from marrying for much longer.

Get over it.

[Ezra]

People say laws should be about freedom and individual rights. People say laws should be for the good of society.

Here we have two big current hot topics in the USA: gay marriage and vaccinations. Gay marriage (EDIT: gay unions are wonderful, gay families are wonderful, etc.) is about individual rights (or so it is argued), but vaccinations are about what's best for society (or so it is argued).

Does society/ the masses not see the huge problems these two topics bring? How pro-GM tramples "what's best for society" and lauds "freedom and individual rights and diversity", and pro-vaccinations trample "freedom and individual rights and diversity" and laud "what's best for society"? Illogical. The principles are so messed up in society...

In addition, those two groups use "science" for support, while all true science--even as we know it now--says the opposite of what they are saying.

Hopefully others can say this better than I can...

(More edits to clarify and include, instead of putting on three tail enders in other posts...)

Gay marriage is between consenting adults. They don't hurt anyone else and they don't trample on anyone else's rights by marrying. You may find it morally offensive but you have no constitutional right to demand a law against it -- since they don't infringe on your rights by marrying each other. "The right not to be morally offended" isn't constitutionally guaranteed.


On the other hand, you stand to hurt a great many other people by refusing to vaccinate or be vaccinated. Therefore you stand to put other peoples' rights to life, and therefore, also their pursuit of happiness, in grave danger. So there's constitutional justification to require it.

You have a right to demand that vaccination be safe. I don't believe you have the right to refuse it without a medical reason. You put too many other people's rights in danger when you do.

How can a nonvaccinated person endanger a vaccinated one????

If that were true why vaccinate at all???

Great logic. Non vaccinated people are only a danger to themselfs. They don't hurt anyone eles your judgment of them is hypicritacle.

[jdawg1012]

How can a nonvaccinated person endanger a vaccinated one????

If that were true why vaccinate at all???

Great logic. Non vaccinated people are only a danger to themselfs. They don't hurt anyone eles your judgment of them is hypicritacle.

This is an irrational argument, because you ask questions, and then proceed to lambaste the lack of answers. While I don't agree with forced vaccinations, I can explain the things you ask about.

How can a nonvaccinated person endanger a vaccinated one???? If that were true why vaccinate at all???

The argument is rarely that they're worried about a non-vaccinated person infecting a vaccinated person. In general, the argument is that persons too young to be vaccinated (there are age requirements for vaccines, if you didn't know), are at risk of exposure by infected people. Thus, if everyone was ostensibly vaccinated and immune to the disease, they wouldn't be carriers and the little children--too young to the vaccine--wouldn't be exposed.

Great logic. Non vaccinated people are only a danger to themselfs. They don't hurt anyone eles your judgment of them is hypicritacle.

Now you know the error in your statement. But I agree, that forcing your neighbor to do your will (whether it be directed at gay people or public health decisions) "for the public good," and then expecting to get your way when that same hammer comes down on you, is hypocritical. I prefer to eliminate the scope of that hammer. Rather than the common tactic of being a hypocrite, and whining at the impotence of falling in one's own pit (dug for their neighbor).

[KMCopeland]

On the other hand, you stand to hurt a great many other people by refusing to vaccinate or be vaccinated. Therefore you stand to put other peoples' rights to life, and therefore, also their pursuit of happiness, in grave danger. So there's constitutional justification to require it.

You have a right to demand that vaccination be safe. I don't believe you have the right to refuse it without a medical reason. You put too many other people's rights in danger when you do.

First off, you don't have the right to force anyone to get a vaccination. Not even kids. ESPECIALLY not kids who are not your own. You have the right to prohibit people from entering your private property for any number of reasons (say if they have a gun against your wishes, aren't vaccinated, etc.), but you don't have the right to force them to get the vaccine (or not be able to have a gun on their own property, etc.).

I don't think anyone should use physical force on anyone's children to make them get vaccinations. I do think there's a good constitutional argument for not allowing them to attend school without vaccinations, because it protects other people from the diseases they may spread around if they are un-vaccinated.

D&C 134:9 "We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied."

Amen.

[jbalm]

I don't think anyone should use physical force on anyone's children to make them get vaccinations. I do think there's a good constitutional argument for not allowing them to attend school without vaccinations, because it protects other people from the diseases they may spread around if they are un-vaccinated.

This makes sense.

[jdawg1012]

I don't think anyone should use physical force on anyone's children to make them get vaccinations. I do think there's a good constitutional argument for not allowing them to attend school without vaccinations, because it protects other people from the diseases they may spread around if they are un-vaccinated.

This makes sense.

+1, Agreed then, absolutely.

I should note that I think there's no constitutional right to public education (or having other people pay for it), but since we have such a system set up, I think government can absolutely bar people from attending school without meeting certain qualifications, set forth by the public at large. How that policy is set forth, though, is a completely different apple cart to turn over.

When I was going to attend college for a second time, they wanted me to prove I had vaccinations (which I had had). However, since it was in a different state, and many years after my last round, I would have refused to have any more vaccinations, even the ten year boosters. (I got very sick after mine at age ten or eleven, which I won't go into). I understood that, if according to the policy I couldn't attend without another round of injections, that I simply wouldn't attend. I didn't demand the University cater to me, I would have simply refused to attend the University that demanded vaccinations. Luckily, it worked out that they didn't force me to get them.

But if I didn't want my children to have them, then I wouldn't expect them to be able to attend public school. Like I said, people have the right to stay at home (and homeschool), in those cases.

[Ezra]

I don't think anyone should use physical force on anyone's children to make them get vaccinations. I do think there's a good constitutional argument for not allowing them to attend school without vaccinations, because it protects other people from the diseases they may spread around if they are un-vaccinated.

This makes sense.

No it does not. You are still saying nonvaccinated spreading a diseases to vaccinated. Which can't happen. They could only spread to other non vaccinated kids. And that would be there choice.

But if you look at other country's that don't have or force vaccinations. They have had the same decline in disease as the vaccinated country's dew to normal human immunities that have build up as a normal coarse of nature. Survival of the fittest.

So it dosent make much sense to discriminate aginst those who choose not to pump Mercury and other weird non natural substances into their children at a young age tell they are old enough to make their own choices about getting the shots or not.

[jbalm]

jdawg already addressed that.

[Ezra]

Ebola has a vacation?

[JohnnyL]

Interesting reading comments. Some have continued to show the just what I am talking about. :-\

Summary: The top two arguments right now are showing how the same side ("Satan's group", for lack of better term) can use one side of the coin and refuse the other for one topic, then turn right around and use the other side of the coin and refuse the first side for the second topic. I can't doubt but that everyone at the top of S'sG knows it.
When it's convenient and supports my beliefs, it's true. When it's inconvenient and attacks my beliefs, it's false.
Then, use bad science--CONVENIENT science--to back up your position, wile you ignore the (sometimes better, sometimes not) inconvenient science.

Personally, we don't have to be in "Satan's group" to do this; as Jesus seemed to tell Peter, whenever we support Satan's plan even in a detail, we're on his side, so to say, though we might generally be in "Zion's camp". In addition, most people use bad science because it's often the only one they know and can (have the ability to) accept--and I don't mean that in a derogatory way, but every mind has limits, even when it comes to people who should have the gift of the Holy Ghost "looking for" truth. (See the self-deception thread for more on that.) For example, the discussions in the highest councils of the church are that: discussions (and debates), even about truth. As some have mentioned, it often takes time, previous truth (from somewhere), and a softened heart to come to truth. Discussion can bring about clarity for both sides (not necessarily compromise); etc. But while there may be many facets of A truth, there is A truth.

(To excel in debate, you must be able to understand and argue for the other side, not just yours.)

Now, the topic that most are discussing is not this, but: How do we balance "what's best for society" vs. "freedom and individual rights and diversity". "What are(is) the limits of our society, as to the safety of our society? Or even better for most of us, what does our societal contract--the Constitution--say about that? What do supreme judges, especially, say about this (majority and minority)? Maybe that's a good topic for another thread. ;)

[KMCopeland]

Can somebody explain to me why vaccinated people care if others are unvaccinated? Can they still get the sicknesses somehow? I don't get it...

Good question. Forced me to read up on it.


Looks like they should care because some people who have been vaccinated can still get it (something like 10%-20%), some people can never get the vaccination for legitimate health reasons so they're always vulnerable, and since you don't have full immunity until you've gotten the second dose, and you don't get the second dose until you're 4 or 5 -- that leaves a lot of children at risk too.

[JohnnyL]

Can somebody explain to me why vaccinated people care if others are unvaccinated? Can they still get the sicknesses somehow? I don't get it...

Good question. Forced me to read up on it.


Looks like they should care because some people who have been vaccinated can still get it (something like 10%-20%), some people can never get the vaccination for legitimate health reasons so they're always vulnerable, and since you don't have full immunity until you've gotten the second dose, and you don't get the second dose until you're 4 or 5 -- that leaves a lot of children at risk too.

Does it make sense? THEY are sick, so OTHERS should take something harmful and dangerous, just in case. Because when others get vaccines, they can, especially for a period of time, pass it on to others... :-\

If no one got vaccinations, everyone would actually be much safer.

If someone got sick--someone with immune system problems--are there other ways to take care of the problem? Sure. What can Western medicine do for viruses? About nothing! It's all a farce--look, we're trying hard, but it's those non-vaccinated people!" Serious? Take a look at the real facts, not just the MSM-reported pharmaceutical studies. There are PLENTY of them out there.

Herd immunity? If anyone wants to go there, it's called survival of the strongest, which means those susceptible to vaccines shouldn't be supported in this area, as they will pass on the inability to fight the disease. (No, I don't believe in this, but if herd immunity people want to talk...)

Do vaccines work? Any "double blind, scientific studies"? Nope!! Any long-term studies? Nope! As the skepdic site just said, "Remember, correlation is not causation!" Lol.

[Fiannan]

In "The Descent of Man" Darwin questioned the policy of vaccination in that it allowed weaker individuals to survive and breed more weaker individuals. He also speculated the Bubonic Plague strengthened the genetic strength of populations exposed to the pandemic.

[KMCopeland]

Can somebody explain to me why vaccinated people care if others are unvaccinated? Can they still get the sicknesses somehow? I don't get it...

Good question. Forced me to read up on it.


Looks like they should care because some people who have been vaccinated can still get it (something like 10%-20%), some people can never get the vaccination for legitimate health reasons so they're always vulnerable, and since you don't have full immunity until you've gotten the second dose, and you don't get the second dose until you're 4 or 5 -- that leaves a lot of children at risk too.

Does it make sense? THEY are sick, so OTHERS should take something harmful and dangerous, just in case. Because when others get vaccines, they can, especially for a period of time, pass it on to others...

Yes, it makes sense. And the measles vaccine isn't harmful and dangerous.

If no one got vaccinations, everyone would actually be much safer.

That is completely insane.

Do vaccines work? Any "double blind, scientific studies"? Nope!! Any long-term studies? Nope!

As is that.

[Fiannan]

KMC, if you want to mandate vaccination to reduce disease then why not mandate male circumcision as that reduces disease spread as well?