NY passes same sex marriage

[_harmony]

EAllusion,

While not everyone agrees on whether smoking should be banned in private establishments, nearly everyone agrees that the government should regulate public health.

There are very few "private establishments" wherein smoking is regulated. Any place where the public can enter and/or where non-owners work is considered public, and thus is subject to health regulations. Air, food, and water are all "public" and thus are subject to health regulations. I thank God for clean indoor air legislation by whatever means it's acquired. I refuse to inhale known carcinogens simply because some fool wants to damage his/her own lungs.

Private homes are not subject to regulation.

There is no such thing as the "right to smoke" in public. Smoking contributes to more lost work time, more health insurance claims, more deaths, more economic hardship than any other single health issue... and thus regulating it is well within the rights of public health regulations.

Incidently, the smoking rates for gay men is among the highest of any single population in the country.

[_EAllusion]

Cal -

Nearly everyone agrees that the government has a right to regulate certain sexual practices. There is disagreement about the details, but you can find at least some sexual acts that nearly everyone thinks is the proper purview of government. If you take specific, non-universal stances and say they are part of some universally agreed upon national moral fabric (which I do not think exists) by fitting them into highly broad categories, I think that game can be played with nearly anything. After all, the principle secular argument against gay marriage is that marriage is a device the government uses to encourage certain ideal procreative relationships. Fail as this might, that is a form of public health argument.

Harm -

Defining privately owned spaces that are made open to the public in a mutually voluntary way as public is a specific liberal argument that isn't exactly based on universally agreeable notions. No one is forcing you to go into any business that allows smoking. If you broaden your argument to things like insurance rates and other nonspecific economic impact that one's behavior has on others (as some liberals do) you've literally implicated if not every, then nearly every behavior people can engage in. Who you are sleeping with in your bedroom has those kind of indirect impacts on others too.

[_CaliforniaKid]

EAllusion,

I'm happy to entertain discussion of sexuality from a public health perspective. I'm all for providing condoms and educating kids about safe sex, for example. I also like when people use the public health arguments against gay marriage, because at least when the argument is on that turf, we can have an intelligent discussion about it. Unfortunately, those aren't the arguments I usually see. Instead we get a lot of tripe about protecting tradition and "what marriage has always meant".

If you take specific, non-universal stances and say they are part of some universally agreed upon moral fabric (which I do not think exists) by fitting them into highly broad categories, I think that game can be played with nearly anything.

You're right that there is no universally agreed-upon moral fabric in the world, but there is an established moral fabric in the United States that is generally agreed upon by Americans because it's established, and because that establishment has proven effective in sustaining the kind of society we like to live in. In other words, the American moral consensus is something we created, not something that already existed in nature, but the reason we created it was that it seemed to be the most useful set of values on which to found a pluralistic democracy.

Like it or not, the established values have a legislative standing that sectarian values do not. And for that reason, I'm happy to entertain the arguments of anyone who makes a serious effort to "play the game" of appealing to established values, as you put it, but I am not willing to entertain arguments for restriction of liberty in order to advance other, sectarian moral values. Those values, as far as I'm concerned, need to remain privatized.

Peace,

-Chris

[_harmony]

Harm -

Defining privately owned spaces that are made open to the public in a mutually voluntary way as public is a specific liberal argument that isn't exactly based on universally agreeable notions.

There is no such thing as "universally agreeable notions", at least in regards to public health regulations. We do the best we can with the science currently available, we present it to the public, and the public decides if they want to breathe clean air or smoke, whether by legislation enacted or by public vote. Every year more states jump on the clean indoor air idea, since vast amounts of public money is tied to dealing with diseases either caused by or exacerbated by smoking.

No one is forcing you to go into any business that allows smoking.

The public has spoken: they want clean indoor air. Your argument regarding the public entering businesses that allow smoking is moot. It's in the business's vested interest to not allow smoking, and thus not have maintenance costs related to smoke permeating the paint, not have insurance rates climb due to employees' increased claims, not have increased employee time loss due to illness associated with smoking, etc. The economic impact is staggering and the public is tired of paying for it.

If you broaden your argument to things like insurance rates and other nonspecific economic impact that one's behavior has on others (as some liberals do) you've literally implicated if not every, then nearly every behavior people can engage in.

Which is why food is regulated, water is regulated, and air quality is regulated. You cannot feed the public without a permit and a food handler's card, because the public got sick when they ate at places that were not using wise food handling practices.

Who you are sleeping with in your bedroom has those kind of indirect impacts on others too.

I don't see why a homosexual couple need be assumed to be a bigger health risk to the public than a heterosexual couple.

[_EAllusion]

The public has spoken: they want clean indoor air.

That's not an argument. That's just saying, "My side won." In my State, the public has spoken. They don't want gays getting married. QED. If the public wants clean indoor air, they can vote with their feet and wallets instead of forcing everyone to agree with them. And, of course, this doesn't explain chewing tobacco bans.

Your argument regarding the public entering businesses that allow smoking is moot. It's in the business's vested interest to not allow smoking, and thus not have maintenance costs related to smoke permeating the paint, not have insurance rates climb due to employees' increased claims, not have increased employee time loss due to illness associated with smoking, etc.

Ok. Then I suppose a business should calculate the costs here vs. the benefits of attracting smokers instead of you running their business model for them.

Which is why food is regulated, water is regulated, and air quality is regulated. You cannot feed the public without a permit and a food handler's card, because the public got sick when they ate at places that were not using wise food handling practices.

Ok. I'm not sure if you are arguing the smoking ban issue here or not, but given the wide knowledge of the dangers of second hand smoke and the fact that it is obvious if a business has smokers in it or not, this is a different sort of problem than hidden dangers in food service. One implicit in the arrangement to enter the building, while the other isn't necessarily. One can be implied in a contractual arrangement, while the other has a problem of asymmetrical information. You could fix the latter with warnings, tort law, or eat at your own risk policies without resorting to hard regulation, but even if you want that an obvious distinction can be made here. You also seem to make no distinction between private property made open to the public and publicly owned property.

I don't see why a homosexual couple need be assumed to be a bigger health risk to the public than a heterosexual couple.

I'm not sure why you wanted to make it simply about homosexuality or public health. There are other kinds of economic impacts besides insurance after all. Though I suppose you could have a "sexual partner" license requirement like a fishing license, since sex with multiple partners is a health risk. Get caught without your license and you get a fine and 30 days in jail. America!

[_moksha]

My error-- I was probably projecting my own angst. My own state is a tad more conservative than Utah.

More conservative than Utah? Does such a place exist? (Deep South maybe?)

Arizona, Alabama and Mississippi are probably more conservative. There are a number of very conservative southern and western states.

[_why me]

Right, that was representative of the majority, and you never find straight people doing that.

What about lesbians? Don't they have the lowest instances of STDs? I guess god loves them best.

Actually, I think that it was and this was the reason for the spread of the virus. If gays had only one partner, the virus would not have spread as rapidly as it did. Gay sex is about anal sex where the blood can get into sores in the rectum. The rectum was not made for what gay men do to each other. The rectum does not produce a natural fluid to cater to another man. And since the gay lifestyle and culture at that time was multiple partners....well...the virus spread quite fast.

When the HIV virus was discovered, gays were encouraged to change their lifestyle behavior and think more in terms of monogamy. But as I understand it, some are now slipping back into unprotected sex and brief encounters.

Before the HIV crisis, gay men were concerned about hypatitis because of the sex that they do. And it is still a concern for them.

[_Yoda]

Being in New York in the 1970's before the AIDs crisis, the gay lifestyle was far from mainstream. I still remember the gay bathhouses where gay men would have sex with many partners. Plus the problem of going into a public toilet with gay men attempting to pick up other men in the toilet area.

One reason for the devastation of the gay community in the early 1980's in the Greenwich Village area of NYC was the fact that they slept with many partners. Thus, the HIV problem took many lives.

You have proved my point with your comment about Will and Grace. By hollywood bringing gayness into the living rooms of straight people, the tone was set for a softening of understanding for gay people and their lifestyle.

YOU have also proved MY point, Why Me. You are stereotyping what you believe the gay lifestyle to be in the 21st Century based on your observation of what it was like in the 1970's. You seem to be stuck in that era.

From MY observation of the gay lifestyle in the 21st Century, based on close friendships I have with several people I know who are gay, I can tell you that "the gay lifestyle" for those in monogamous relationships does not differ greatly from straight people in monogamous relationships.

They are generally two income households. Just like any other couple, gay monogamous couples are worried about making house payments, raising children, etc.

[_harmony]

The public has spoken: they want clean indoor air.

That's not an argument. That's just saying, "My side won."

Well, yeah. By the biggest percentage ever voted in my state, and every county passed it. That's the public voice saying exactly what the public wants, I think.

In my State, the public has spoken. They don't want gays getting married. QED.

Evidently the folks in NY don't agree with you.

If the public wants clean indoor air, they can vote with their feet and wallets instead of forcing everyone to agree with them.

You understand the power of the ballet box now. They can and continue to vote... with their ballots.

And, of course, this doesn't explain chewing tobacco bans.

Epidemic mouth cancer and precancerous legions, escalation of teenage users, blah blah blah... you know the drill, same as I do. Did you really think chew was harmless?

Ok. Then I suppose a business should calculate the costs here vs. the benefits of attracting smokers instead of you running their business model for them.

Not me. The public. John Q Public.

Ok. I'm not sure if you are arguing the smoking ban issue here or not, but given the wide knowledge of the dangers of second hand smoke and the fact that it is obvious if a business has smokers in it or not, this is a different sort of problem than hidden dangers in food service. One implicit in the arrangement to enter the building, while the other isn't necessarily. One can be implied in a contractual arrangement, while the other has a problem of asymmetrical information. You could fix the latter with warnings, tort law, or eat at your own risk policies without resorting to hard regulation, but even if you want that an obvious distinction can be made here.

Both are health issues regulated for the public welfare, because the science underlying the regulation shows the connection between the laws and the results.

You also seem to make no distinction between private property made open to the public and publicly owned property.

Neither does smoke.

I don't see why a homosexual couple need be assumed to be a bigger health risk to the public than a heterosexual couple.

I'm not sure why you wanted to make it simply about homosexuality or public health. There are other kinds of economic impacts besides insurance after all.

Indeed. I mentioned a few.

Though I suppose you could have a "sexual partner" license requirement like a fishing license, since sex with multiple partners is a health risk. Get caught without your license and you get a fine and 30 days in jail. America!

Now you're just being facetious.

[_EAllusion]

Well, yeah. By the biggest percentage ever voted in my state, and every county passed it. That's the public voice saying exactly what the public wants, I think.

You seem to be arguing that simply because a law passes, it is a wise, just law. That's inane, but what other argument are you offering with this repeated statement? Gay marriage bans have passed by wide majorities in numerous states, but you aren't here defending that.

You understand the power of the ballet box now. They can and continue to vote... with their ballots.

Here's the difference between my solution and yours. In my world, people who want establishments that offer the opportunity to smoke can exist along side those that don't. As long as both groups' have a large enough population and desire, different establishments will exist to cater to boths' interests. This maximizes people's chance to find what works best for them individually. In your world, you plan working to force people to make the choice that you personally like with their only recourse being to seize back bayonet of the government.

Epidemic mouth cancer and precancerous legions, escalation of teenage users, blah blah blah... you know the drill, same as I do. Did you really think chew was harmless?

I fail to see what this has to do with harm to others, which is what I was replying to. I realize you have two distinct arguments here. 1) Secondhand smoke is dangerous to others and 2) Smoking causes heath care costs to go up, justifying people regulating their behavior.

My point was in response to the former. As for the latter, since smokers tend to die younger their health care costs are nearly a wash. But even if they weren't, you are setting a dangerous and ill-considered precedent if you favor stripping people of their freedom if their choices result in a slight increase in insurance premiums.

Not me. The public. John Q Public.

You seem to be advocating a particular position that you want John Q. Public to adopt that entails running businesses for them. You made an argument that banning smoking will be a good business decision. If that's the case, businesses are free to adopt it without legal bans. It's increasingly clear that you think John Q. Public is justified in forcing people to do pretty much anything in the name of their personal health, but the point is if your argument was persuasive, then it wouldn't be necessary to invoke the law.

Neither does smoke.

The heck? Then why are you Ok with people being allowed to smoke in their own homes? In fact your who line of argumentation here implies you favor banning smoking everywhere. Smoking doesn't stop being dangerous to people in houses.