Terrell Brown wrote: > I don't understand why people like heterosexual sex. What's your point?
The point is that lots of people don't understand and don't like what other people do, but not understanding and not liking doesn't justify limiting other people's choices if they have negligible impact on you. Before I get lost in detailed responses I want to reiterate my position. 1) I don't support a right of smokers to pollute the air of an unwilling public. 2) If smokers are not polluting anyone else's air, then no one should have the right to tell them not to smoke. 3) I believe that it is possible for businesses to create smoking areas that will assure that the air of non-smokers is not polluted. Laura Waterman Wittstock wrote: > It's disingenuous to put smoking, network television, and gay > sex in the same group of "moral decisions." There is no question > that gay sex, for example, is not a moral decision. Sex is clearly part and > parcel of the human condition. Perhaps you are thinking of those who choose > not to have sex for religious reasons. Otherwise, sex is a natural, normal > part of human existence. And gay sex is part of natural, normal human > existence. Who, what, and where you choose to have sex is most definitely a moral decision. To assume that something is "natural" is a moral decision: that is if you mean to infer that "natural" is some how better than "unnatural." For guidance please refer to the definition of "moral": http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=moral You seem to believe that you have tapped into the Truth in ways that others have not, when in all likelihood people probably just believe in a different version of the Truth than yours. Each of your statements is an assumption or conclusion that may not be shared by people with a different perspective. The point is that whatever conclusions you draw about existence, you should allow others to draw their own and not impose yours on them, unless their actions directly impact you. It's called "tolerance" (again, please see definition): http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=tolerance Mark Snyder wrote: > Krasnoff's comparison of HIV being spread through gay sex to > secondhand smoke is just as disingenuous as Atherton's comparison > of a smoking ban to the numerous other "moral decisions" he listed. As Mr. Krasnoff clarified, his point is that gay sex IS a public health matter. I would agree (of course so is straight sex). A moral decision: relates to principles of right and wrong in behavior; expresses or teaches a conception of right behavior, and refers to some standard of right behavior. All of the behaviors I listed implicitly involve an assumption of "right" or acceptable behavior or they wouldn't be socially acceptable. I don't know where people get off suggesting that their political views are not moral decisions. Laura Waterman Wittstock wrote: > However smoking is a matter of health -- public health. Smoking is a > private choice, yes. But smoking in public where others' health is > endangered, is not private choice. What if businesses insure that others' health is not endangered? > We just have to get on with it and do it. Unpleasant as it might be to the people who don't agree with you. Michael Atherton Prospect Park REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
