The marijuana, evolution, gay marriage debate take 2

Thanks again to my opponent for staying within the boundaries I had asked for at the beginning! I truly hope you did not feel "trapped". 1. "Alcohol has been around for as long as anyone can remember. It would be impossible to get rid of it all." So has marijuana. It would be impossible to get rid of marijuana. It would actually be a travesty as the plant itself is extremely versatile. Are you considering the plants extinction? "Excessive alcohol use led to approximately 88,000 deaths and 2.5 million years of potential life lost (YPLL) each year in the United States from 2006 " 2010"- http://www.cdc.gov... (Annual Causes of Death, By Cause 2013) Alcohol-Induced Deaths 29,001 Cannabis (Marijuana) 0 http://www.drugwarfacts.org... I started this subject with a reference to "The boy who cried wolf" Apparently you and the Federal Government see marijuana as a "wolf" I'm not seeing it.. looks like a sheep even when you cut it open. Alcohol however managed to slip into sheep's clothing. Cut that baby open and that wolf is going to kill your baby sister in a drunk driving accident! The moral of this analogy is that The "Authority" constantly warns me of a threat that isn't there and sanctions a threat that actually exists! Tell me.. Why should I trust this authority to dictate my life for me? Seems like it has it all backwards! "Water is limited where I live. The person that stared growing the marijuana bought the property and everything else under false pretenses." You are pointing your blame at the plant when clearly the culprit is the Colorado States regulatory system! That should be a problem with prohibition, not with a government regulated program. Sounds like you need to write your Senator or mayor. I smell a pretty lucrative lawsuit in the favor of the property affected! These "grow spots" will not disappear with prohibition. How else do you think 160 Million people get their weed under prohibition? "Marijuana can kill you just as other drugs can. food, drinks, and sports don"t end up with having guns in your face." False, unfortunately for your position the evidence screams otherwise! I used food drinks and sports to illustrate why "marijuana is bad for you" does not constitute prohibition! Having guns waved in your face is a completely different issue! It would be advantageous for them to find out where their property line ends. In this country, thanks to gun enthusiasts, they have every right to protect their property with lethal force, even regardless if they are protecting their livelihood! "You cannot smoke marijuana forever and still be able to take care of yourself" I think you can, plenty of people do. Willy Nelson and Tommy Chong may not be the sharpest tools in the shed but they have full capabilities! I don't think you have evidence to back up your statement "it can cause mental health problems" In some cases yes. Especially psychosis. (Schizophrenia and other mental disorders are genetic and or progressive regardless of marijuana consumption) Psychosis is indeed a problem. However I would argue that most people (sober or not) suffer the same illness. I just call it superstition! I am NOT superstitious. I know very well where to draw the line in the sand "What is real and what is not" It scares me how many "normal" people cannot determine that line! So I'm not ruling it out as a problem.. but I'm also not considering it as a legitimate basis for prohibition! Again this will not go away with prohibition. Why do you think prohibition works? You seem to be dreaming of a world where a totalitarian dictator would need to step in to see the kind of progression you are hoping for! 2. "That they can marry any sex they want, despite how immoral it is" That is exactly what this debate is about. I do not think homosexuality is immoral. That is your opinion. I have not been convinced in the slightest to see it the same way! I may not understand homosexuality (I think that's what makes me straight) but I learned by the past mistakes of this countries sordid history to give them the benefit of the doubt. In my experience discrimination or "entitled exclusivity" have become atrocities. Marriage at the end of the day is a financial institution. You claim that homosexuals must change their sexuality to enjoy the benefits of said institution. That would be assuming that you are right and being gay is a choice. I'm sure you found the same evidence I have for this argument which is inconclusive at best. You are taking the guilty until proven innocent approach to this. Which goes against everything that could actually make this the "best country in the world". Stop spouting liberty and justice for all if you do not mean it! "I do not think homosexuals are icky" Really? I kind of do. Its most definitely not entertaining nor acceptable to my sexuality. Morally however, I can't help but find an expansive "grey area"! Again I feel as though I'm simply giving them the benefit of the doubt. Clearly I don't accept the bible as my authority on the subject, that may be the reason we will never meet on the same page on this subject. "Sure if you love another woman and you are one, why can't it just be sisterly love, instead of marrying each other? The same with men, why can't it just be brotherly love? They just need to open their eyes and realize that their having sex with their own gender, which was never how it was supposed to be. They have this illusion that they love each other but it isn't a spouse kind of love." I'm going to need some evidence on how you came to this conclusion. We may not know everything about homosexuality but in most recent years every piece of evidence suggests that homosexuality is in fact a natural desire among a percentage of many different animal species! Even genetics has found links to identify the natural occurrence of homosexuality. Not to be crass but gross sex is gross sex. Heterosexuals do some messed up things to get off. Should that be reason to deny them marriage? Again, I don't get it either, its icky to me, but that doesn't mean I jump to conclusions and risk enabling some form of hate crime! http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.natureworldnews.com... 3. I'm going to try not be be rude here. I want you to know that we can remove this subject from this debate. This was indeed the "trap" that may have derailed this debate. No one can debate this subject without learning about it first. If you want to be sure about your arguments, you should do the research. Like I said "I didn't come from monkeys" "you weren't there" cats cannot become dogs" "show me the fossils" "DNA can't be changed" "breeding dogs"! All this proves is that your Public School has failed you! You took this stance long before you needed evidence for either side! All I can do here is point you in the right direction. I will give you my 8th grade version because I'm by no means an expert, but I have learned enough to remove any need for controversy! It would help you to see it like CSI. We may not have been there to bare witness to the event. But it left plenty of evidence behind to illustrate exactly what happened! When learning about natural selection it helps to have a teacher. Try Richard Dawkins. Despite his reputation among Christians and Muslims he is an educator first and foremost. While he may not satisfy your biblical notions, he will at least give you some direction to attack from (Know your enemy). Fossil records/Geographical placement Embryology/Molecular Biology Phylogenetics/Cladistics/Linean Taxonomy All of these fields cross confirm each other and provides the prevailing predictive model to help us understand our origins. Look it up, then tell me how i'm wrong.. out of charac