Slashdot Mirror
Colin Powell Resigns
Anarcho-Goth writes "It is all over the media now. Secretary of State Colin Powell has resigned 'effective at your pleasure.' He says that he only planned to hold the position for one term anyway, but I'm sure the rumor mill has other ideas. This makes 6 resignations since the election. My local TV news described it as the most important position to resign so far. Isn't Secretary of State the most important cabinet position, period? Articles from CNN, The UK Guardian, The Associated Press, and Fox News."
speculated on for longer than that, that Gen. Powell would resign if President Bush were re-elected.
This was news last year. More than a year ago he said he would resign after one term. article.
I don't care about powell! When does bush and Chenny resign?
-------
Support Indy Music. Buy
The BBC provides a brief but interesting discussion of the "disengagement of Colin Powell".
A very important position, but most important? Perhaps in time of international crisis, it could be. However, we are past the crisis stage and into the shooting stage now, so I feel that Sec. of Defense is the most important. Of course, should we get hit again, ala 9/11, we'll all think that Homeland Security is the most important position!
HexaByte - he's a square and a half!
Would you vote for him? I would.
Powell's replacement will - I think - send a strong signal about the strategy a Bush 43B administration will pursue.
A moderate (like one of the current favourites for the job, John Danforth, the current US ambassador to the UN... though I don't know enough about him to know if the description is accurate) will imply that there will continue to be a level of debate between the neoconservative and less revolutionary wings of the administration.
On the other hand, appointing someone like Paul Wolfowitz to the job (another name bandied about, along with that of Condoleezza Rice*), will signal a continuation and even escalation of a unilateralist, force-based foreign policy that was pretty much dictated by the Pentagon for the last four years anyway.
(*Not sure how I feel about Rice. I suspect she's not quite as extremist as she's often painted as being. She is - I think - on record as saying she's not interested in remaining in her NSA position and that she's considering a return to academia. She's also a favourite to replace Powell but appears to prefer to take over Defence rather than State. She's a doer, not a talker, and doesn't like all the pomp and ceremony associated with the foreign affairs position.)
a world in progress...
Most cabinet members only stick around for one term (or less). Clinton replaced Warren Christopher with Madeleine Albright. See wikipedia for historical Secretaries of State.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Wow. Way to be on top of the news, guys. I think you've managed to beat the Daily Nebraskan to the story.
Yeah, I'm of the ignorant new generation, so sue me. But seriously, has anything like this ever happened? A close/disputed election, with the administration massively changed between terms? Is there any precedent for what we're seeing, and what did it mean last time?
UPDATE: Being reported that National security adviser Condoleezza Rice is to replace Colin Powell as secretary of state in his second term.
Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
When well those darn editors ever get it right? It's Fox "News".
501 Not Implemented
4 cabinet members, including the Secretary of State, resigned after Clinton was re-elected in 1996. A shakeup in the cabinet is standard operating procedure after an election. The world has changed (a lot) in four years. To think that the same exact people are the best ones for the job doesn't make sense.
Of course, the same thing could have been said about Bush, but we won't go there....
To be replaced by other rats swarming up from the bilges.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
I count 8 resignations: 4 in the cabinet today, and another 2 senior CIA officials. Plus, Ashcroft and another CIA official earlier. Was there another cabinet level that resigned earlier?
I don't know what this means; but I think it means something. I sure don't recall this many resignations for Clinton's second term...?
--
$tar -xvf
"I just can't take the lying anymore! ARRGH!!!!!"
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I wonder if many republicans are thinking that maybe they shouldn't have voted for Bush, due to what appears to be lack of confidence even within his cabinet...
- dshaw
The beginning of the end.
Bush plans to reorganize the various Departents so that instead of each Department being overseen by a single Secretary, now all the various deparments will be directed by a unified Cabinet Board of Directors. This is being done to facilitate cross-departmental communications and to better defend our country against the terrorists.
The Board will consist of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condaliza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz and Carl Rove. They will serve on the Board until we win the War On Terror.
I, for one, welcome our new Secretary Overlords. Heil Bush! Please make sure you have your papers ready.
Software Wars
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Condi will replace him.
This is no suprise, though. Powell has been talking about a one term job for a while. This isn't really too big of news, cabinet members very often only stay on for one term.
Well you don't think a fucking moron like Bush can actually run a country do you?
As of this last election, he can run about 51% of the country. (That is apparently how many morons we have.)
--Phillip
Can you say BIRTH TAX
Wow... If one of my children had a teacher who spoke like that of other countries I'd demand they be removed from the class.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
I'd be genuinely grateful to have someone who spoke intelligently and honestly to students about any country -- including the U.S. The purpose of a teacher is not to instill reverence in countries. Teachers are supposed to educate students, teaching them both facts and critical thinking skills. The post to which you replied seemed to hit the mark.
Ah... no. The parent post showed very little understanding of fundamentalist motivations and thought. It says that anyone who disagrees with the direction of popular culture must be motivated by fear and loathing. It's an uninformed perception designed to induce hatred and fear of anyone who happens to believe that moral values that have served civilization for thousands of years are to be trusted over more recent notions regardless of their popularity.
It means that it was a lot more fun to take over and run a country with a huge budget surplus and a military that is not slogging through a protracted insurgency in a foreign country. Remember the good old days of 2000?
With the treasury plundering complete, and insufficient resources to invade any more countries for the forseeable future, the next 4 years just aren't going to be nearly as much fun as the first 4. So, it's a good time to ditch any responsibility for trying to fix the mess and cash in with some lucrative private sector job, perhaps in lobbying or something else that allows you to convert your legacy government connections to cash.
Mod me -1, Troll, Insightful.
State Colin Powell's future plans. "The Washington Post" reports today that Powell recently reaffirmed his intention to serve in the Bush Cabinet for no more than one term.
Aug 23, 2003
Ed Barbar, President and General Manager, Furnit USA
On the bright side, Ashcroft is also resigning... what are the chances that his successor will re-expose the statue of justice? Or better yet, what are the chances that his successor will not regard the Constitution as little more than toilet paper?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Slavery was a moral value that "served" civilization for thousands of years. Indeed, southern churches cited the Bible when attempting to justify the institution of slavery, in the face of "more recent notions". I suppose that sort of fundamentalist thinking is now brushed off as the "exception to the rule", now that even the fundamentalists cannot afford to be racists. What hypocrisy.
"The slave who knows his master's will and does not get ready...will be be beaten with many blows."Luke 12:47-48
The Republican Party today is an uneasy coalition of the personal freedom economic laissez faire folks and the biblical literalists. They need each other to win but both pretend the other is not there.
Perhaps Secretary Powell was tired of pretending that the biblical literalist elephant was not under the table. His memoirs will be a great read.
I can't possibly form any intelligent opinions without spin! But for some reason it is missing. I just need two things explained about all these resignations:
1. The left needs to explain why this is proof that Bush's second term will result in the destruction of life on this and several nearby planets.
2. The right needs to explain why this is proof that Bush's second term is the second coming of Jesus and a new era of enlightenment.
All I'm seeing is reasoning and sensible conjectures! That's no fun! I want assinine extreme examples! Please help!
Parent is completely on-topic to grandparent.
I'm sorry, what does this have to do w/ Colin Powell?
[o]_O
Xenophobia, homophobia, racism, religious intolerance, and fear of witches have been accepted for thousands of years too... well, shee-it, I guess if it was good enough for my flea-ridden, dung-eating, covered-in-their-own-excrement ancestors living under a bridge in the Dark Ages, it's good enough for me!
Well, if you're scared of dissenting views, perhaps you'd do well to give away your children to someone who will be a better roll model.
Not that much. There are people downthread speculating on what the cabinet departures mean, whether it's a show of lack of confidence in the administration, etc. I am going to repost a comment of mine from another board which has to do with it. Sorry for recycle of a post, but since it is the same subject being discussed I felt it would be silly to write a new post saying the same thing.
I was listening to Powell's departing press conf (well he's not really
departing for some weeks/months) and he stated that he had always
intended to do one term only.
I quickly found a link from over a year ago that said as much.
I was trying to get into the shoes of people like Powell and
Ashcroft. If I had done so many different things and accomplished so
much in life, would I want to do the same exhausting thing for 8 years?
I don't think I would, unless the position had been my life's goal.
Since Powell came through the military, I doubt being Secretary of
State was super-important to him. Same for Ashcroft, who was, IIRC a
state politician up to four years ago and had nothing to do with the
Justice dept.
So maybe it's not so shocking that people are looking to change
careers or retire after 4 years of doing this sort of thing, which must
be extremely draining. The beginning of a new term sounds like a
reasonable time to do so while giving your resignation as little
significance as possible, whereas retiring in the middle of a term
would be viewed as more of a protest.
Ecce Europa - Web Design for Business
I agree that being old, doesn't make something right. That's not what I was trying to point out. I was pointing out that just because something is a popularly held belief doesn't make it right either. You shouldn't fear someone who takes a popular notion and considers it criticly. Xenophobia, slavery, racism, religious intolerance, fear of witches are all examples of past popular notions that were wrong. Acceptance of all religions (big difference between tollerating something and accepting it as right), and the idea that homosexuality is a normal variation of the human condition, are current popularly held beliefs that are also wrong. I'm not afraid of homosexuals any more than I'm afraid of deaf people who want deafness recognized as a normal variation.
Right now, Iraq is a mess.
Guess who is aggravating our situation? China. It has thrown its support behind Iran, which is supplying most of the insurgents in Iraq. The Chinese are morally bankrupt.
Anyone who thinks that people who are unable to have childern should not be allowed to get married is insane. Read what he said during interviews this election season, he just wasn't talking about gay people he was talking about ANYONE who could not have a kid.
It's too bad, he was the only one in that administration that was anywhere near sane.
Please acquire some critical thinking skills, and return when you do. Also, please refrain from pathetic attempts to rewrite your original argument when it is shown to be wrong. Homosexuality has been around for thousands of years (you know..that Greek civilization which inspired most of western culture; or probably, you don't). Right now, a preponderance of evidence suggests that homosexuality is genetically linked. It *is* a "normal variation of the human condition". Oh, and "tolerate" and "critically" are spelled that way.
"My local TV news described it as the most important position to resign so far. Isn't Secretary of State the most important cabinet position, period?"
No. Common misconception. Ever since the creation of the NSC (National Security Council, AKA "The organization that is/should already be doing almost everything that the Homeland Security department has been created to do") and the beginning of the Cold War, the State Department has been diminishing in power.
The Department of Defense (renamed from "Department of War" at the same time that the NSC was created) and the CIA are in a better position to offer near-instant results, while the State Department often takes years to accomplish even simple tasks. In the climate of the Cold War, many presidents liked instant results better, and so chose to neglect the State Department. The purges of the Anti-Communism movement pressured State Dep. officials to not "rock the boat", lest they lose their jobs, and the McCarthy and others were allowed to run rampant in the State Dep. looking for "pinkos" -- however, when McCarthy went after the Def. Dep., he was crushed and swept out of the way.
Nixon's administration saw a shift change of the NSA (National Security Advisor, head of the NSC, and the postion that Condi Rice holds) to a policy-making position, and to one more powerful in the realm of foreign relations than even the SoS. Everyone knows about Kissinger, Nixon's NSA, whether or not they know what position he held, but how many people can name his Secretary of State? Far fewer, I'd wager, and in fact I'd bet that many people would mistakenly guess that Kissinger was the Sec. of State, as he assumed many of the traditional roles of that position.
The modern SoS is predominantly concerned with making sure that the Dep. of State runs smoothly, while the NSA sets policy from within the whitehouse and governs a data set much larger than that of the SoS. Knowledge is power.
So, in many ways, the NSC, DoD, and CIA are much more powerful than the SD. That said, a president can always choose to give a department more or less power than his predecessors have. Perhaps that's what we'll see happen to the State Department if Rice moves there. Otherwise, it'd be a huge step down for her.
but we still have Donald Rumsfeld to leap inot the breach in our foreign policy.
That sound you hear is Don rolling around on deck, scattering shot and crushing the occasional powder monkey.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Second terms usualy start with some kind of a shake up. They often end in flames but that's a different story.
I'd be much more concerned about what's going on at CIA these days. Evidently they're losing senior spooks at an alarming clip. Sure, the agency needs restructuring, but these are the people we'd want to keep.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
It's an uninformed perception designed to induce hatred and fear of anyone who happens to believe that moral values that have served civilization for thousands of years are to be trusted over more recent notions regardless of their popularity.
The "fear and hatred" was directed at same-sex couples who wished to have the same rights as straight couples. If two women marry one another, it doesn't affect your marriage, your rights, or your church. It doesn't diminish your love for your spouse. It doesn't take away your rights to inheritance, family visitation rights in hospitals, family medical insurance, ability to qualify for a loan, lower auto insurance premiums, or any of the other things you could enjoy as a married person. This isn't an issue like rape, murder, mugging, child molestation, or robbery where there is a victim. We're talking about adults who want to make a legal, emotional, and, perhaps, spiritual commitment to their relationship.
As to "moral values," who are you to tell a gay couple that their relationship is immoral? Why should the teachings of your church be codified into law? Other churches have no problem with gay marriage so what moral right do you have to tell them that the marriages they want to perform won't be legally recognized? If you don't want to be in a church that performs same-sex weddings, that's your right.
This also isn't about protecting the sanctity of marriage. If it was, these same evangelical voters would be demanding that marriage licenses be denied to adulterers (like televangelists Jim Baker and Jimmy Swaggert), wife beaters, people who have had multiple divorces, drunks, drug addicts, or any of the other "fine couples" one can see on any episode of Cops.
A democracy is not supposed to be three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. As an American, I'm ashamed of the voters who chose to deny marriage rights to same-sex couples. I can only take comfort in the fact that, as a group, evangelicals are some of the least educated among us and that, through better education, we can fight this form of bigotry just as we fought against bigotry that oppressed blacks, mixed race couples, Jews, Japanese, Chinese, Mormons, and many others.
Bravo! I'm sick and tired of religious zealots trying to pass off their intolerance, hatred, and bigotry as "moral values."
On a serious note:
(Link)"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
My original argument was ambiguous. I clarified it. I didn't claim that all values that have been around a long time are correct. I was saying that a value that's been around a long time shouldn't be so easily discarded, and that just because something is new doesn't mean it's right or better.
What's wrong with protecting your children from views you believe to be dissenting from the truth, until they are old enough to develop the critical thinking skills to arrive at such a conclusion on their own?
Secretary of State is only important if you are going to be doing any negotiating and working with other countries. I think events in recent years have clearly demonstrated that statesmenship is not a high priority of this administration.
Thanks, Condi!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
I find it interesting that all the conservatives who mocked Kerry for "flip-flopping" on issues think it was very admirable for Powell to "be a good soldier" and change his position on issues to fit the party line. One year he was warning Bush against invading Iraq by using his Pottery Barn analogy ("You break it, you buy it") and the next he's there in front of the UN claiming that we've got irrefutable evidence that Saddam has WMD. If that's not a flip-flop, I don't know what the fuck is.
Yeah, don't let none of that filthy "truth" business get in the way.
While we're on the subject, if I had my way, I'd demand that anyone who beleives that Xian morality should be secular law should be removed from the gene pool.
We're talking about adults who want to make a legal, emotional, and, perhaps, spiritual commitment to their relationship.
I think the problem people on right have, is the government's percieved endorsement of gay mariage as good and right. I personally feel the solution to this problem (since I believe it is not right, but don't want the government enforcing my views on others) is to get government out of the equation all together. Let the government issue cival unions for any couple, gays, traditional marriages, or two elderly siblings supporting each other. The issue of marriage is to be decided by the church. I will choose not to attend a church that sanctions gay marriage, or to recognize such marriages.
as a group, evangelicals are some of the least educated among us
This is a biggoted statement. You'll find that evangelicals as a group have an average distribution of education and intelligence. I've not done any studies, but you shouldn't assume otherwise until you've done some studies.
Actually, Kissinger was Nixon's Sec. of State, too.
They get their brand names to campaign for Bush, then they quit when he's re-"elected". This administration never misses a chance for a scam. Where's Osama?
--
make install -not war
Stranger than you think... -dameron
Shit, forgot about that. Well, I sound like a bit of an ass now, don't I? At any rate, the main thrust of my post stands: SoS is considered, under most recent presidents, to be a lower position than SoD and NSA, and in some cases even the CIA director.
Actually, my philosophy professor in undergrad said the best time to teach philosophy is to kids. That's when their minds are like sponges, absorbing any information it can. That's the time when they are asking the most basic of questions, why? If they don't have the critical thinking training early on, chances are good that they'll simply conform to a comfortable clique as they get older. It's too bad that our teachers and most parents really aren't prepared to challenge the minds of young kids. Critical thinking is really difficult. You have to consider that the opposing viewpoint may be correct. For a lot of people, the idea that there may be a world beyond the blinders they wear literally sickens them. Ignorance is bliss...
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
The post election commentary in the US is divided between questioning the accuracy of the count of votes, or wondering whether the Democratic Party had to pay more attention to discussing "moral" values as part of its election activity. Outside the US, there is discussion about whether there is some social flaw in the American character that has led them to 4 more years of a George Bush Presidency.
While these considerations may provide a way to review what happened in the recent US election, they fail to raise questions that take a broader view. For example, such questions could include:
Traditionally, it is not that one can affect change in a situation unless one also tries to understand the nature of the problem. In the 2004 election, many people committed themselves to trying to replace George Bush. The call was to vote for "anyone but Bush".
Early on the Democratic Party narrowed its sights to John Kerry as the candidate. From there on, the "anyone but Bush" meant a vote for Kerry, arguing that he could realistically defeat Bush. The Democratic Party challenged the effort of Ralph Nader to provide an alternative, removing him from the ballot in whatever states possible. The Green Party decided not to campaign vigorously anywhere that the campaign might pose a threat to the election of Kerry. Several activists who had backed Nader in the 2000 election urged voters to vote for Kerry rather than Nader this time. Despite these efforts, Bush now has a second term in the White House.
One party, with two wings...
One of the problems with the 2004 election strategy of those hoping to defeat Bush, is that there was a mistaken understanding of what it means to be "realistic" in the kind of "two-party" system in the US. In a country like Germany, for example, a vote for a smaller party, like the Greens, made it possible for the Social Democratic Party to win re-election in 2002. In the US, however, such a vote, as with the Nader vote in 2000, could not be combined with the Gore vote, to give the Democratic Party the White House.
What this means, one is told, is that in the US, the votes for a candidate who is not from one of the two major political parties, are wasted votes. Thus, in the 2004 election, there was a determination to encourage a vote for the Democratic Party candidate, regardless of his position on important issues, such as the war in Iraq.
The Democratic Party in the US has a long history of deciding that it will pursue the vote of those who might otherwise vote Republican. With no external left opposition, the Democratic Party accepts the issues as the Republican Party presents them, but proposes it can implement the Republican agenda better than the Republicans will. Though this is not necessarily true on every issue, on the fundamental issues of foreign policy, and of domestic policy issues to support that foreign policy, the two parties form one party, with two wings. Essentially, in the US, on these important issues, both the Democratic or Republican Parties, will implement the same foreign policy. (For example, Clinton carried out the sanctions against Iraq and enforced the No Fly Zones. Bush then argued that his policy of invading Iraq was just a continuation o
Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
Like, it's ok to enslave people who have different color skin? It's ok to keep women as property? It's ok to burn someone alive because you suspect them of being posessed by the devil? It's ok to invade other countries and take their land as long as you are on the side of god?
Are those the moral values you refer to? Cause frankly I'd have to say modern morality still has a long way to go, but we've come a long, long way from those "good old days" the fundamentalists preach about.
Fundamentalism is the respite of those too desperate or too stupid to see things in anything but black and white. It's true for Islamic fundamentalists and it's true for christian fundamentalists. Only ours have less reason to be desperate.
Any "value" that promotes intolerance and bigotry against people who are not hurting anyone with their actions should most definitely be easily and quickly discarded.
New doesn't mean better. But Better most definitely means new.
uh... no again. clearly those are not the moral values I'm refering to. (those might be values, but they sure aren't moral) I clarified this in my other post in this thread.
This is an opinion I see expressed a lot. There are some that are biggoted and intollerant of those they think are wrong, and there are those who have love for and wish to help those they think are wrong. There is a world of difference between tollerance and acceptance. It would have to hate someone to tell them everything they do is good and well when I believe it will hurt them in the long term. I tollerate it when they refuse to see the truth of the matter, but I don't accept it as being right.
...the fact that perhaps these people are so disgusted with a corrupt president that they resign, or the fact that all these (quite frankly dangerous) positions will now be being filled with hand picked people by the people who run that president?
(Well you don't think a fucking moron like Bush can actually run a country do you?)
I did not know you had elections recently there.
This is a pleasent although somewhat strange way to find that there is life on Mars.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
posted before I read all the replies... live and learn, my apologies.
There is a world of difference. However, that is a balance not many achieve. If you cannot allow someone else to live their life without your judgement upon it, then it is unlikely... though maybe YOU are an exception, many are not... that you will be able to treat those people with tolerance.
My tolerance stops with those who refuse it of others. And tolerance does include allowing others to live their lives without persecution or interference, whether you agree with it or not, so long as they are not victimizing anyone against their wills.
Moral values that have served civilisation for thousands of years? You mean like Thou Shalt Not Kill, that kind of thing? Yeah, we've really been following THAT one closely.....
A quick glance through history will show you exactly how well civilisation has done.
http://instantbadger.blogspot.com
Passing judgements on people is not our place, all things can be forgiven. But we need to continue making judgements as to right and wrong. When people stop making judgements as to right and wrong, society will colapse.
It is a common human error to believe ones current moral or political views to be "eternal" or "unchanging". It can easily be shown that this is not the case. There are no non-trivial "moral values that have served civilization for thousands of years". That is a delusion.
/. readers argue about that. And such basic moral values don't really guide on issues of a modern society, now do they?
What you end up with are pointless statements like "killing is bad (in most cases)". Noone but
Look how gracefully she handled that China fiasco when the administration just took office, and how clever she's been about explaining how important a war in Iraq is to insuring American security, and she's almost never fooled by suspect intelligence, and how rarely she's been caught contradicting herself as she goes to sell the administration's adgenda to the news, and she looks like she's really on top of Iran, North Korea, the Sudan, and Al-Queda too.
Clearly she's a Henry Kissenger for the new Millenium. The republicans are absolutely right about one thing, affirmative action sucks.
Rumsfeld has a different view and does things like hand out promotions based on proper ideology as opposed to ability. Which is interesting since that's what many dictatorships do, and one of the things that help lead to the strategic defeat in Vietnam. A war to which Rumsfeld was opposed to, at least on practical terms, incidently.
He pulled a bullshit plan to bring peace and democracy to Iraq from a nobody Colonel who suggested it could be done with as few as 50,000 troops. And this is in fact what Rumsfeld proposed to the Pentagon. He was ultimately forced to comprimise to the force levels we see today.
With Iran, I think that they know that they need to at least secure a facility to enrich uranium against US munitions, or acctually build a few deliverable weapons in secrecy before they really test the resolve of an administration which isn't particularly moved by US opinion. No one is going to challenge US air dominance for them if they decide to roll the dice. Considering how close Taiwan came to developing a nuclear weapon in 1992, right under the noses of the IAEA; it's a far more sensible option for a totalitarian state drowning in revenue from $50 dollar a barrel oil.
My ass. His officer's loyalty oath isn't to serve the President's, it's to the American people, and preservation of our ideals as codified in the Constitution. He either forgot, or doesn't care. Ultimately, there was no real conflict for him. His only moral choice was to come clean, and use the pulpit of his position to tell the whole truth, without embelishment. That was the promise he made. And while what I think of him might not account to much, there is no denying that Arlington is full of those who sacrificed considerably more in service of those ideals, and found themselves far less powerfull to effect meaningful change in their favor. He's a coward. He would send American sons to die because the consequences of the truth would in some small measure cost him his station. He deserves all the sleepless nights. He could have taken pride in his integrity, but what he had is spent.
No. Common misconception
Well, no. Secretary of State is higher in the Presidential succession order than any other Cabinet Officer, behind VP, Speaker of the House, and President of the Senate pro tempore.
Secretary of Defense is two places farther down, behind Secretary of the Treasury, which puts him third of the three "important" Cabinet positions. I define "important" here as Secretaries ahead of the Attorney General in the succession order. All other Cabinet Secretaries come in after Attorney General (with Homeland Security at the bottom of the list).
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
The "fear and hatred" was directed at same-sex couples who wished to have the same rights as straight couples.
See, the problem is this: They *do* have the same rights as I do (as straight man). In fact, the *exact* same rights. There is no law that says says can't marry, just as there is no law that says straights can't marry. This is *not* a violation of civil rights issue.
Straights and gays are all allowed to get married! It just has to be to the opposite gender. But to say they are not afforded the same rights I am is false!
Same-sex marriage is a *new* right. Not the same right. And it's debatable as to whether it's "right" or not. Is incest "right?" How about beastiality? They don't effect you, right?
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
This "teacher" was not teaching philosophy. He was preaching dogma. Big difference.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
Truth? What truth? That was a long winded rant disguised as truth!
He could just as well be talking about how France is a bunch of surrender monkeys who prefer cheese and I'd still be disgusted with him.
We are not all christians. Not all christians are fundamentalists (see decline in church attendances). Not all fundamentalists are "scared" of change. Not all fundamentalists beliefs are bad.
Bah, what do you care. You've likely already made up your mind to just hate and believe that everyone is as bad as you like to think they are.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
"I'm not afraid of homosexuals any more than I'm afraid of deaf people who want deafness recognized as a normal variation."
What the heck does that mean: that you are unafraid of homosexuals (in which case your concerns about sex lives should end about there) or you are afraid of deaf people who would like to live a somewhat normal life? Because, that sentence combined with the prior sure makes it seem like the latter, which scares the heck out of me. You believe that homosexuality being a normal variation is wrong. Then you draw a parallel between deafness and homosexuality and conclude you have the same feelings about both. Wow. Just wow. Don't even both to respond, I just added you to my "hateful irrationals" list.
Sig under construction since 1998.
What right-wing bullshit. Gays don't have the same rights if they can't marry the person with whom they are in love. You have that right. They do not. Don't play ignorant word games with me, homophobe.
Same-sex marriage is a *new* right. Not the same right.
In the same sense that mixed-race marriage was a "new" right when it became legal. But you probably opposed that right, too, didn't you?
And it's debatable as to whether it's "right" or not. Is incest "right?" How about beastiality? They don't effect you, right?
Not even close to an analogy since incest causes genetic defects and beastiality victimizes animals.
You still didn't address the crux of the argument:
I think the problem is that many of these people recognize no absolute right or wrongs. What is good for me might not be good for you. Reading this thread it seems like everyone is simply talking past you as their frame of reference is so different from yours and mine.
"Not even close to an analogy since incest causes genetic defects and beastiality victimizes animals."
Why do you say that?
With proper birth control incest should cause no genetic defects as there will be no children. Just as it is with gay couples. As to bestiality being victimizing to animals, who knows? Don't be surprised when one day someone seeks a marriage license to marry their favorite pet. I rather expect polygamy to make a comeback as well. Now that the walls have been breached, all manner of couplings become a possibility.
What right-wing bullshit. Gays don't have the same rights if they can't marry the person with whom they are in love. You have that right. They do not. Don't play ignorant word games with me, homophobe.
Right-wing bullshit... Like everyone who opposes same-sex marriage is a homophobe? Because of this little slip I refuse to answer you too much, you're obviously not serious.
The law states a man and woman can marry. A gay man can marry a gay woman. A straight man can marry a gay woman, etc. This is what I mean by saying we have the *same exact rights*. But you can ignore that and claim the law states "anyone can marry whomever they please."
In the same sense that mixed-race marriage was a "new" right when it became legal. But you probably opposed that right, too, didn't you?
No, I don't (can't say "didn't" because I was born after this was an issue). But that was still a *new* right. It was a right I agree with though. Oh, wait. I'm a homophobe, so I'm probably also racist. I obviously meant to say "Colored men can't marry white women!"
BTW, have you noticed that you're just as zealous and simple minded as your supposed opposition? "Who are you to say what society should accept as normal marriage practices?" I never said anything about degrading marriage, or the sanctity of marriage BTW. Just that Gays do *NOT* have less rights than straights. We are all limited by the same law the same way.
If I claimed my religion required me to marry my sister, would it be religious prosecution to not allow me to exercise my right?
But wait, I'm a homophobe. I can't really be making a point can I? Nor do I expect anything but "left wing" crap from you...
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
This is an opinion I see expressed a lot. There are some that are biggoted and intollerant of those they think are wrong, and there are those who have love for and wish to help those they think are wrong. There is a world of difference between tollerance and acceptance. It would have to hate someone to tell them everything they do is good and well when I believe it will hurt them in the long term. I tollerate it when they refuse to see the truth of the matter, but I don't accept it as being right.
Your bigotry and intolerance don't surprise me at all when you cannot even spell the word "tolerance" correctly which means that you have hardly read enough texts about it. Should you have read and written the words "tolerance", "tolerate" and "tolerant" anough times, you wouldn't write
"tollerance", "tollerate" and "tollerant" now. So please read something and educate yourself. You may start from wikipedia.org/tolerance or indeed dictionary.com/tolerance.
I think the problem people on right have, is the government's percieved endorsement of gay mariage as good and right. I personally feel the solution to this problem (since I believe it is not right, but don't want the government enforcing my views on others) is to get government out of the equation all together. Let the government issue cival unions for any couple, gays, traditional marriages, or two elderly siblings supporting each other. The issue of marriage is to be decided by the church. I will choose not to attend a church that sanctions gay marriage, or to recognize such marriages.
That is an extremely enlightened and reasonable approach. Though I think that "married" is on way too many forms, in too many laws, etc. to be replaced with another term. People should just recognize that a legal marriage and a church marriage are two separate things.
This is a biggoted statement.
Untrue. It's based on studies and population distributions.
You'll find that evangelicals as a group have an average distribution of education and intelligence. I've not done any studies, but you shouldn't assume otherwise until you've done some studies.
I have seen reputable studies and they show that evangelicals are less likely to have a college degree than the rest of the population. Just look at where evangelical Christians make up the largest percentage of the population. It's states like Missisipi, Alabama, Arkansas, etc. It's sure not college towns like Boston or Princeton.
But that was still a *new* right. It was a right I agree with though.
Interesting way to look at it. Do you feel that being able to marry someone of a different skin color was not a 'right' until it was codified into law as such?
Or was it a 'right' that existed all along, and the law was merely ammended to point out that it could no longer be actively denied?
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Like everyone who opposes same-sex marriage is a homophobe? Because of this little slip I refuse to answer you too much, you're obviously not serious.
It wasn't a "little slip." It was a carefully considered word that accurately describes people who try to oppress gays -- as you are advocating. I'm deadly serious and if you won't answer me, it's because your arguments don't hold water.
No, I don't (can't say "didn't" because I was born after this was an issue). But that was still a *new* right. It was a right I agree with though.
No, it was not a new right. The existing right to marry was simply denied to mixed race couples just as it is now being denied to gay couples.
The law states a man and woman can marry.
It was not until the "Defense Of Marriage Act" of the 1990s that most states had any prohibition against same-sex marriage. Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, and Rhode Island still have not adopted DOMA and have no prohibitions against gay marriage. So for over 200 years, there was no prohibition against same-sex marriages in the vast majority of the country and laws denying the right to marry to same-sex couples were only crafted recently.
I never said anything about degrading marriage, or the sanctity of marriage BTW.
Then just why do you want to prevent same sex couples from marrying? Do you feel threatened by such marriages? Do you feel that your religious beliefs should be made the law of the land? What is your motivation.
Just that Gays do *NOT* have less rights than straights. We are all limited by the same law the same way.
So we can make insulin injections illegal and then claim that it's not denying a right to medical care to diabetics because insulin is illegal for everyone. A damned good analogy to what you're claiming.
If I claimed my religion required me to marry my sister, would it be religious prosecution to not allow me to exercise my right?
First off, it's not a "right." It a tenet of your religion. Secondly, it would not be religious persecution because laws against incest were not passed specifically to limit the rights of people of your faith. Laws against gay marriage were intended to limit the rights of people because of their sexual orientation.
BTW: It's "persecution," not "prosecution."
We could pretty much expect that Powell would resign. The POTUS undermined him at every turn, and forced him to defends a war with information that was complete and utter nonsense. Now our Incompetent Leader has promoted among the most inept of his followers to the most important position in the area of US foreign affairs. And one who is entirely lacking the expertise needed for current US foreign policy needs. The Soviet Union hasn't been important to US foreign affiars for 10 years. Rice was a disaster at NSA, failing utterly in the job. She will continue that track at State, while probably trying to purge State of everyone who disagrees with the Incompetent Leader. It's bad enough that Bush required loyalty oaths before people were allowed to attend campaign events. Now he wants loyalty oaths from people who are supposed to put the nation ahead of it's individual leaders. Remember the last President who did this? Think Watergate.
It wasn't a "little slip." It was a carefully considered word that accurately describes people who try to oppress gays -- as you are advocating. I'm deadly serious and if you won't answer me, it's because your arguments don't hold water.
Then it was an incorrect carefully considered word. I do not fear homosexuals, nor do I wish to oppress them. I don't think I've ever even stated my support or nonsupport of gay marriage yet. Lets not reduce the argument to mud slinging.
No, it was not a new right. The existing right to marry was simply denied to mixed race couples just as it is now being denied to gay couples.
Well, then we're disagreeing on semantics here. You think "foo" is a right, and nothing else defines it as such (please explain how same-sex marriage is a "right" but my example of my religion requiring incest is not). I'm saying "foo" is a right, so long as it's legal. I'm NOT, however, saying that the law is always correct, so don't make this mistake.
BTW, a law that states "Marriage is a union between one man and one union" is discriminating against more than just homosexuals. How about polygomy(sp?)? Marriage with animals? Inanimate objects? Dead people? etc.
So we can make insulin injections illegal and then claim that it's not denying a right to medical care to diabetics because insulin is illegal for everyone. A damned good analogy to what you're claiming.
It is a good analogy. But we're quibling here. In your analogy it's a right denied to *everyone*. Denying the ownership of automatic weapons to all citizens is not *just* denying the right to the NRA. Nor has the NRA every claimed it was as they'd be called nuts if they did ("You're discriminating against people who want to own guns!").
Then just why do you want to prevent same sex couples from marrying? Do you feel threatened by such marriages? Do you feel that your religious beliefs should be made the law of the land? What is your motivation.
This I will answer, if you answer the bit about polygamy, beastiality, incest, etc. (what makes same sex marriage "okay" but not those?). This may surprise you, but I'm not forcing my religion on anybody. I have no religion (I'm not even baptised, consider myself agnostic). Marriage is historic and *natural*. I don't consider homosexuality to be as nature intended (nevermind God). The very fact that we populate through heterosexual relations is proof enough of this. I'm not saying that homosexuality is *wrong* per se, but that society shouldn't endorse it. IOW homosexuality is a sexual deviance (like BDSM, etc.). This is a little difficult to explain in a short time through text. But try not to take this as much more "mean spirited" than I mean it. It should be "accepted" as okay, but not codified as a right ("You have the right to free speech, to bear arms, and to have same-gender sex").
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
If you were unaware, there is a subculture of deaf people who want deafness recoginized as a normal variation of the human condition that should not be "treated" or "fixed" because it is perfectly normal. They are motiviated by the desire to perserve "deaf culture" in the face of modern medical techniques like coclear implants. This view is wrong. However I am not afraid of the people who hold this view. I'm not a deafophobic. Your strong desire to label me as hatful and irrational because I disagree with you says more about your rationality, tollerance, and biggotry than it does about mine.
links?
Actually, there isn't. One of the definitions of philosophy is "the pursuit of wisdom." How do you know what is wisdom without considering arguments that you may not agree with? Is wisdom only arguments you agree with?
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
A pursuit of knowledge != preaching dogma to children.
I thought that was pretty clear. Would you call a crazy nut in the street declaring the end of the world a philosophical teacher? Or one asking if you've "found Jesus?" Would you want either of them teaching your children?
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
Lets not reduce the argument to mud slinging.
Deal. Please accept my apologies for my temper.
Well, then we're disagreeing on semantics here. You think "foo" is a right, and nothing else defines it as such
Marriage is a right. It's recognized by state and federal laws.
I'm saying "foo" is a right, so long as it's legal. I'm NOT, however, saying that the law is always correct, so don't make this mistake.
So then we can agree that gay marriage was a right throughout most of the U.S. until the 1990s, when it was made illegal. Prior to that, there was no law against it in most states.
In your analogy it's a right denied to *everyone*.
The right to marry someone of the same sex is being denied to *everyone*.
This I will answer, if you answer the bit about polygamy, beastiality, incest, etc. (what makes same sex marriage "okay" but not those?).
Fair enough. I don't have a problem with polygamy between consenting adults. Beastiality victimizes animals that can't give consent. Incest is likely to lead to genetic deformities.
This may surprise you, but I'm not forcing my religion on anybody. I have no religion (I'm not even baptised, consider myself agnostic).
I admit to being surprised. I am an atheist.
Marriage is historic and *natural*. I don't consider homosexuality to be as nature intended (nevermind God).
Homosexuality is common in nature as you can see in this article. It occurs throughout the animal kingdom, from swans to apes to penguins.
The very fact that we populate through heterosexual relations is proof enough of this.
It's only proof that reproduction is a heterosexual act, not that every single animal is intended to be part of the reproductive cycle. Look at bees: The only fertile female in the nest is the queen bee and male worker bees do not fertilize any eggs.
I'm not saying that homosexuality is *wrong* per se, but that society shouldn't endorse it. IOW homosexuality is a sexual deviance (like BDSM, etc.). This is a little difficult to explain in a short time through text. But try not to take this as much more "mean spirited" than I mean it. It should be "accepted" as okay, but not codified as a right ("You have the right to free speech, to bear arms, and to have same-gender sex")
There is mounting (no pun intended) evidence that homosexuality is influenced by nature more than nurture. There are genetic traits associated with homosexuality. So, unlike BDSM, it's not simply a lifestyle choice.
I am a liberal (no surprise there). I believe that the government should not be limiting people's rights unless it is to protect others. Preventing two consenting adults from getting married in the legal sense of the term "married" isn't protecting anyone. It's curtailing the rights of those people in order to codify the moral beliefs of third parties into U.S. law. This isn't about making something legal. It's about making it illegal. That's an important distinction.
How the fuck is this shit modded insightful? Gah, slashdot has really gone to the dogs.
Or, perhaps the pursuit of knowledge is knowing the difference...
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
Comment removed based on user account deletion
God's immutable word has been recorded in scripture, unchanged, for thousands of years. That's what I was referring to. Not human interpretations, sects, or movements.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
:) Very entertaining read. Seriously though, you're missing the whole part about being redeemed from the curse of the law. If we accept Jesus, God's laws are written on our hearts. A common misunderstanding.
Marriage is a right. It's recognized by state and federal laws.
:-) No hard feelings.
Lets take a step back.
Marriage historically has had limitations on "allowed membership" so to speak. It began as an institution of religion. Typically one would need to belong to said religion to be allowed to marry someone of that religion. It was a very religious thing.
The greeks allowed homosexual relationships, but they never (AFAIK) allowed for homosexual marriages.
Fast-forward to today. It's more of a state recognized thing, with some religious undertones. I myself am of no religion, but will be getting married next year. So I can understand the view that marriage is less an institution of religion now.
So what *is* marriage? Well, I guess it's just a state and socially recognized union of two people in love. *Who* those two people are, and whether it's exclusive to those two people) is up to the society and state. I would wager more the former myself. Though due to some finangling, "married" has also developed legal and tax status.
Historically, yes, the religious of this country have imparted their view of marriage on the rest. But that's because most of the nation was christian. And why not? A society must have some common ground to agree on "right" and "wrong". Now I'm not saying it should necessarily be legislated, but any society needs a basis for what is and what is not acceptable.
It's curtailing the rights of those people in order to codify the moral beliefs of third parties into U.S. law. This isn't about making something legal. It's about making it illegal. That's an important distinction.
That's true. But we do it all the time. It's illegal to walk around in public nude, to wear offensive clothing in public, and many other public displays. Society does need a common set of accepted practices IMHO, and often the government is the way it is done. Sure, the US is a bit more "puritan" than other nations, but we choose to be so. Though given that Massachusetts now allows for same-sex marriage...
Homosexuality is common in nature as you can see in this article. It occurs throughout the animal kingdom, from swans to apes to penguins.
That's true. We see it in humans too. But it serves no purpose IMHO. It's an oddity of nature.
To tell you the truth, this is a subject I'm still not totally sure on. I've gone back and forth a few times on it. At the moment I'm having a hard time justifying same-sex marriage though. It *is* a change (not just since the 1990's though - when were any homosexuals allowed to marry before that? I can only accept it as having been "okay" if anybody succeeded). I've known gays, had some as friends and coworkers. But I still don't think it's something society should accept. As you say, polygamy, and other "oddities" are right down the same path.
If it is a genetic predisposition, that may change things. It's difficult to say, and I'm not sure that it can be proved. Some people just like strange things, and at some level one may be genetically predisposed to BDSM.
Well, some things to think about... Thanks for the discussion.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
I did a bit of research. A 1994 book by the late Yale Historian John Boswell ("Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe", Villard, New York, NY,) demonstrates that Greece and many Christian churches both sanctioned and sanctified unions between partners of the same sex, until modern times. That book lists the original texts and English translations of a number of religious ceremonies:
Office of Same-sex Union, (and similar names), 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th & 16th century translations, Greece.
Office of Same-sex Union, 11th century Christian church in Greece.
The Order for Uniting Two Men, 11-12 century, Old Church Slavonic.
Office of Same-Gender Union, 12th century Italio-Greek.
An Order for the Uniting of Two Men [or Two Women], 14th century Serbian Slavonic.
Order of Celebrating the Union of Two Men, prior to 18th century, Serbian Slavonic.
So what *is* marriage? Well, I guess it's just a state and socially recognized union of two people in love. *Who* those two people are, and whether it's exclusive to those two people) is up to the society and state. I would wager more the former myself. Though due to some finangling, "married" has also developed legal and tax status.
And that's where we get into a legal quagmire. If a gay couple cannot marry, they cannot enjoy the same legal benefits that a straight couple can. Don't underestimate how intertwined marriage is with the law and even with such things as benefits at someone's place of work. If I am a straight parent with a wife, she is covered by my employer-provided health insurance. If I am a gay parent with a partner at home, he would not be covered. If my wife were in the ICU, I could visit her. If my gay partner were in the same ICU, I would not be allowed to visit. (I am straight, so feel no need to be delicate in any reply you may post).
That's true. But we do it all the time. It's illegal to walk around in public nude, to wear offensive clothing in public, and many other public displays.
But I submit that there is an important distinction. A marriage is not a public display. A child seeing two women in a car has no way to know whether they are married, for example.
That's true. We see it in humans too. But it serves no purpose IMHO. It's an oddity of nature.
But you wrote: I don't consider homosexuality to be as nature intended (nevermind God). Apparently nature did intend it.
To tell you the truth, this is a subject I'm still not totally sure on. I've gone back and forth a few times on it. At the moment I'm having a hard time justifying same-sex marriage though. It *is* a change (not just since the 1990's though - when were any homosexuals allowed to marry before that? I can only accept it as having been "okay" if anybody succeeded). I've known gays, had some as friends and coworkers. But I still don't think it's something society should accept. As you say, polygamy, and other "oddities" are right down the same path.
I can only comment on my philosophy. Human sexuality is a complex thing. One person might be into BDSM while another might only be sexually aroused while wearing diapers. Still others need to be ridden around like ponies with bits in their mouths and saddles on their backs. If we start legislating and deciding, as a society, what is "right" from a sexuality standpoint, most of us will find ourselves in some minority of which the others disapprove. If we allow a male-female couple to marry even though their idea of sex involves rubber pants, nipple clamps, and urine (sorry for any offense if that was too graphic), then who are we to tell a same sex couple that they cannot marry and are, thus, denied the benefits that go along with marriage?
I believe that the government should be looking for ways to maximize freedoms, not curtail them. If two
Yeah. People who believe that smoking is wrong are bigots. People who believe that heavy drinking is wrong are bigots. People who believe that eating meat is wrong are bigots.
?
One can think that something is wrong without judging people for doing it, just like one can know hating people based on their skin colour is wrong while still doing it.
You're as much a bigot as the people who go around pestering gays (which, if you're smart you will note does not include anywhere near a majority of religious people).
What a retarded argument. Please tell me you were on some sort of mind altering drug when you posted that.
You think that "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is a bad guideline because sometimes it doesn't get followed?
A child is a school to learn, not to determine whether their teacher is lying or not.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
"and the idea that homosexuality is a normal variation of the human condition, are current popularly held beliefs that are also wrong"
You are just spouting whatever comes to your mind, mainly to justify your own biased believes. homosexuality, and the acceptance thereof, is not 'a current popular held belief' at all, it's as old as the street.
The old greeks and the roman empire were instances where it was condoned and accepted in a way that surpasses many 'current' countries, and that for hundreds of years. In many, many cultures, throughout history, homosexuality has been accepted (or not) for longer or shorter periods. There is nothing 'current' about it, neither is it just a popular fad, as you seem to indicate.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Hmm...though I agree with almost all what you said, I must note that the issue of incest is rather brushed off a bit to easily.
:-)
Logic dictates, when using your arguments, that it should be allowed. Genetic defects are not caused by incest, but by repeated procreation by incest. apart from the question whether or not this gives you the right to forbid it, one should also note that genetic defects are not part of the equasion, per sé.
People could use condoms or other means not to make children with genetic defects; after all, current relationships (and marriage) hasn't got the obligation to create children, let alone healthy genetic-defect-free children, as far as I am aware. So what if they make sure they can't get children? Then your objection, even if it was a valid one, dissapears.
And what if they simply can't? Let's say two adult brothers do it with eachother...no way of genetic defects. And you are all for gays to have the same rights. And you claim that it should be allowed, as long as it doesn't affect your marriage, your rights, or your church. Well, it doesn't.
So, logic dictates you would/should accept incest, and even the union of siblings, following your own reasoning. Do you?
If you don't, I'm curious how you're going to talk you out of this one.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
It is true that because something has been so in the past doesn't mean it is right or wrong now. In fact, I suspect wrong and right are higly subjective, differing from culture to culture and timeperiod to timeperiod.
This might make you nod, but it also means, that there is no absolute right and wrong, like you seem to believe. What was wrong 1000 years ago can now be right, and what is right today can be wrong 1000 years from now.
If you say "it is a currently held popular belief that's wrong", you mean YOU think it is wrong, in this time, in the surroundings and culture you grew up with. It doesn't make it wrong in any absolute sense, invoking god or the bible or not. this is ofcourse true for my beliefs too; I'm fully aware that they are derivates from my own culture, upbringing, education, learning, society, mentality of friends and family, etc.
However, there are some differences between your view and mine (or that of fmaxwell). First of all, it is true that you don't know what is 'better', untill the views are allowed to clinch with eachother. It is basically true that, while new doesn't mean better, better definately always means new. You *can't* get anything better, if you don't allow anything new, agreed?
Secondly, and more fundamentaly, fmaxwel has a point: even if both viewpoints are regarded as opinions of oposite sides, it still is true that *we* don't try to impose our viewpoint on you, while you (or at least the reborn xian side) tries to impose their view. We do not forbid you to marriage to whome you see fit, but you (idem) do.
I am not to happy about the lifestyle some homosexuals develop and seem to praise neither; their mass demonstrations and 'gay parades' seem like a bunch of crazy oversexed-and-thriving-on-shock-value nuts together, but still I find they have the same rights as all the rest of humanity that live on this little piece of space-floating dirt we call Earth.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
"male worker bees"
;-)
;-)
:-)
Ermm...actually, all worker bees are female.
Male bees a drones, and basically only serve to do it with the queen once in their lifetime (if they get lucky
As for your whole debate: I think you both are right in a sense, but your 'oponent' is strictly (and in some way absurdly) himself to the leglislative aspect of 'rights', while you (and me) realise there is something else then legislature and lwas. You have the legal part and the ethical part of 'right'. Laws and rules only aproximate what is just in a moral and ethical way, and don't always succeed. (what your oponent also said, btw).
That said, in a sense it is denying a right through wordplay and semantics; things politicians are very good at. You can make a law saying a person can only penetrate a pussy, and claim it's fair because it counts for everyone. But everyone knows, including the politicians that bring it up and make it into law, that this means homosexuals wouldn't have any chance of legaly having sex, for instance.
A law that is 'for everybody' doesn't make it a just law, nor does it diminuish the ethical rights homosexuals or other people have, I'm sure we can all agree to that.
PS.I would appreciate a response to my 'incest-question' post
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
"And why not? A society must have some common ground to agree on "right" and "wrong". "
;-)
Yes, but it is preferable to have a modern libertarian common ground that has a great tolerance for other viewpoints and trying to deal with issues on a rational and logical basis with as premise that an individual should be as free as possible - then some biased opinions based on religious feelings and interpretations of a book written thousands of years ago by some largely uneducated people from primitive tribes.
"But it serves no purpose IMHO. It's an oddity of nature."
Purpose? Purpose? Nature does not *have* any purpose. It's not meant to serve any purpose. The whole of nature can be looked at as an oddity, including heterosexuality. Infact, with the same reasoning it IS an oddity: during millions, nay, billions of years procreation was done by cloning themselves. Heterosexuality was an oddity that probably happend by some mutation following darwinian principles... thus maybe we should forbid it too?
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
well, that is exactly the kind of fundamentalism I was talking about; you don't find it only with muslim fundamentalism, you know.
For me, God is a human concept. Jesus, though he may actually have existed is just a human being, not the son of God. Interpretations of the bible or other religious assertations have no sway in my opinion. I only accept rational and logicalm concepts based on common premises. Everything else is just crap.
Don't take me wrong: I can acceptothers have a religion that governs their lives, only for me, whether you speak about God or elves or magical dragons (see Carl Sagan), it's just the same. I don't think it has any moral superiority based on religious or other fantastic concepts. I think most will agree in modern times, otherwise there wouldn't be a seperation between state and religion.
You are entitled to your religion but it does NOT hold more truth then any other philosophy, idea or copncept on itself. Seen the ambiguity, I prefer rationale and logic above religious feelings every day of the month.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
I actually don't know if you were being ironic or not.
I hope you were, because it's such religious-nutty crap.
I will claim another truth; that you, nor anyone else has anything to say that is more validated because it is derived of his religion. you either accept that, or you don't, but the seperation of state and church might give you an idea about the matter.
As it is mentionned in a book of Carl sagan; you either use logic in your debate or not; if you do, then logic is the way to to proceed, if you don't, then why shopuld I waste any of it on you and your reasonings? Is it that difficult to see that your viepoint is NOT worth anything more then anyone else? and even if religieus considerations are the measurement, then what about muslims and all the other religions? Clearly, if you think God has the final answer, then the god of mulsims and the deities that are worshipped in India have the same rights.
claiming only the catholic god and the bible has the only possible true answer is arogant, and can't be justified in any way, exept maybe by the feeling people have their religion is absolutely right (which isn't the perogative of reborn christians, I may add).
It is amazing to see how difficult it is to swallow that concept for xians (and other relgious based people). The bible, God, Jesus, Mohamed, Jahwe, Shiva, etc. have NO sway in things, and if they had, who would determine what and how? It is an OPINION of you personal that God rules everthing, and everything should be rules according to gods' laws, but it remains a mere opinion, not worth anything more then the opinion of another person. After all, why would your God be more 'right' then Shiva or any other god? Because you say so? Because it says so in the bible? that are all subjective, biased statements.
Using logic and rationale is the only way one can actually progress ; denying that, and you deny any meaningful debate on the matter.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Apart from the question whether any religion is all that consistent, it IS possible to have a consistent and internal logical construct, that is based on nothing more then biased opinion, for instance. (Or on what a book like the bible says, etc.)
The point I'm making is, that even if you have a consistent religious faith, it is still based on *faith*, not reason. Whether or not you feel it is right, surely you must accept it doesn't mean everyone agrees it is right. Thus you are left with the problem of having a meaningful debate: if you don't use logic and rationale on your starting premise (which is your religious belief), then you either assume others agree with your premise, or you don't. If you don't, then clearly the starting premise differs (and it does differ, because I do not subscribe to the premise that everything comes from god and all the rest what you said about jesus and the lot, as comming from a higher Authority).
If you have no common startingpremise, then you can not really have a debate. Let me give an example: say a racist says that whites should be allowed to kill negros without any punishment, and if you ask why, he claims they are not human (and that is his basic premise). Well, clearly logic has the possibility to point out that blacks belong to the human race too. But what if he says: "for me, anyone with a black skin is subhuman." It is his personal belief, and he can be very consistent in it...only there is no meaningful debate possible, as long as he uses that as premise.
However, if he doesn't take his own belief as absolutism, and accepts logic and a common ground (such as the scientific explanation of 'race'), then you can debate the matter further.
Whether it is a deepheld racist belief, or a belief in God/Bible/Jesus/shiva/jahwe/etc does not make any difference, certainly not by those that hold and cherish that belief.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
You can spell Bonobo, can you?
Life has become the ideology of its absence - T.W. Adorno
Yah, it all started going down hill when they let the inferior races mix with pure christian blood.
You are the kind of people who want to keep my wife from having any rights.
Fuck off and die.
Nothing wrong with the guideline at all - I wish more people would follow it! ESPECIALLY those people who claim to be extremely religious (I'm a devout agnostic, by the way!) and will quite happily pick and choose quotes from the bible when it suits them, on issues like homosexuality, yet conveniently forget the other rules it gives them when they don't accord with their own personal crusade.
You know, like thou shalt not kill, and those wacky ones in Leviticus that prescribe a death penalty for wearing clothes made of more than one fabric. Funny how THAT one never gets quoted by fundamentalists....
http://instantbadger.blogspot.com
When I used these types of quotes with my Christian peer, he replied that certain parts of the Old Testament no longer apply because Christ died for our sins. This pretty much works for any apparent incongruity between Old/New. Another is that God planted ambiguity in the Bible to encourage faith and creativity, as opposed to slavish obedience. Personally I think that someone once said that "We are all geniuses when it comes to self-rationalisation." The least creative people I know can be super-creative when coming up with elaborate hypotheses.