You're ignoring the fact that same-sex marriage bans violate the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th amendment of the US constitution. To do it properly, you need to first amend the US constitution to carve an exception to equal protection and due process, making gay people legally undeserving of the "civil rights" they "scream" about so much.
So if you really want to see bans on same-sex marriage, it seems to me like you have three options:
1. Ignore the US constitution and ban gay marriage anyway 2. Amend the US constitution to make gay marriage bans legal 3. Accept reality
We don't ban Jews from being gun owners, just like we don't ban Asians from being bus drivers, the left-handed from being social security recipients, or (in several jurisdictions so far) the gays from being married.
"Gun owners" don't constitute a protected class of citizens, like Jews, Asians, the left-handed, or the gays. They're just people...of any class...exercising their rights under the law...akin to bus drivers, social security recipients, or married people. All of the former are to be treated equally under the law. All of the latter can, should and do have laws specifically drafted to define their unique rights and responsibilities. "Protected class"...look it up.
The 2nd Amendment applies equally to everyone. If you want to argue that Democrats illegally trample on _everyone's_ 2nd Amendment rights, go ahead. But those who choose to exercise their 2nd amendment rights don't constitute a new protected class called "gun owners".
I'm pretty sure the hateful mob were the ones that drafted, supported, and then successfully voted to deny civil rights to a historically despised minority.
I agree that homophobia is more often than not a misnomer. But if the norm were something along the lines of 'heterosexism', how would that make things fundamentally different? Sounds like you're pining for a word that ignores the bigotry and abuse inherent in homophobia, heterosexism, or whatever you want to call it. In other words, you're looking to replace one misnomer with another.
If you consider all of life on Earth to be a single organism, billions of years old...it doesn't age. A healthy newborn girl today is just as young and fresh as a newborn girl ancestor from 100,000 years ago, whose cells were as young and fresh as some newborn fish ancestor from 100,000,000 years ago. So while chronological aging is a given, physiological aging isn't.
In your body as time goes by, your telomeres shorten, your stem cells diminish, etc. A whole bunch of stuff happens, all of which promote 'aging'. It's not hard to imagine therapies to overcome and reverse this. From a golf-ball size chunk of your own belly fat, you can extract millions of stem cells. Weed out the good ones, replicate them in the presence of a telomerase activator, and repeat to give you an inexhaustible supply. Then integrate them back into your body as needed. Maybe that would work, maybe it wouldn't...but it's not far fetched to say that something in the near future *will* work.
So we're not talking about living to be 150 with old, broken-down bodies and minds. We're talking about living for indefinite periods of time as young adults. I believe the knee jerk reaction of some people will be that this is unnatural and hence immoral. Overpopulation, making room on Earth for the kids, etc, etc. But like the article states, at the turn of the century the life expectancy of Americans was about 40. Now it's about 80. The same moral argument could be made against doubling the life span over the past 100 years, but that argument would fall flat on its face.
The average age today is probably around 35 or 40, but imagine at some point in the future it rises to 400...a young, able-bodied 400. A great deal of accumulated wisdom currently fades away as people age and die. We would not only retain that wisdom and experience a great deal longer, but build on it. i.e....maybe it takes hundreds of years to the average person to finally grow up and 'get it'. A population that is chronologically much older...but physiologically young...could lead to a more mature, harmonious and happy world. That's the kind of world I would want my kids to live in.
"3. On the whole, California takes in far more in federal benefits than it pays in federal tax. Unlike your analysis, which excludes broad categories of welfare spending, I look at gross flows of funds."
Could you please provide some sort of link or other evidence to back up your claims? Every bit of evidence presented on this thread has been that California and other blue states routinely carry the deadweight of the red states. Here is evidence of that, the first from a conservative outfit, the second from a liberal one:
That's all federal spending, so yes, it's included. There's a net outflow from the state of California of $60 billion, or $2000 per capita. California, along with most productive (blue) states, subsidize the more needy (red) states. It's been this way for a long time. From the link in my previous post:
States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid: 1. D.C. ($6.17) 2. North Dakota ($2.03) 3. New Mexico ($1.89) 4. Mississippi ($1.84) 5. Alaska ($1.82) 6. West Virginia ($1.74) 7. Montana ($1.64) 8. Alabama ($1.61) 9. South Dakota ($1.59) 10. Arkansas ($1.53)
States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid: 1. New Jersey ($0.62) 2. Connecticut ($0.64) 3. New Hampshire ($0.68) 4. Nevada ($0.73) 5. Illinois ($0.77) 6. Minnesota ($0.77) 7. Colorado ($0.79) 8. Massachusetts ($0.79) 9. California ($0.81) 10. New York ($0.81)
California currently pays 60 billion dollars a year more to the federal government than they get back in federal spending. That's three times their current budget deficit, or a net outflow of $2000 per year from every man, woman and child in the state. If there's a parasite here, it's the federal government and other states.
California is birthplace and home to giants like HP, Intel, AMD, Apple, Google, Cisco, EA, NVIDIA, Genentech, Lucasfilm, etc in the north, and Disney, Universal, MGM, Paramount, Warner Bros, United Artists, etc in the south. They're the capital of the tech world, the capital of the entertainment world, and the largest producer and exporter of food in the United States. The US needs them more than they need the US.
Unlike Quebec, nobody in California talks about secession. That's nothing other than sensationalist trash to sell papers. But if any state could secede from the US and remain a 1st rate powerhouse in this world, it would be California.
most movies you watch center around the united states because most movies you watch are made there. the article, written in california for a predominately american audience, states that california is at risk. if i might suggest, don't take such things personally
Slashdot Mirror
You're ignoring the fact that same-sex marriage bans violate the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th amendment of the US constitution. To do it properly, you need to first amend the US constitution to carve an exception to equal protection and due process, making gay people legally undeserving of the "civil rights" they "scream" about so much.
So if you really want to see bans on same-sex marriage, it seems to me like you have three options:
1. Ignore the US constitution and ban gay marriage anyway
2. Amend the US constitution to make gay marriage bans legal
3. Accept reality
I sense anger
We don't ban Jews from being gun owners, just like we don't ban Asians from being bus drivers, the left-handed from being social security recipients, or (in several jurisdictions so far) the gays from being married.
"Gun owners" don't constitute a protected class of citizens, like Jews, Asians, the left-handed, or the gays. They're just people...of any class...exercising their rights under the law...akin to bus drivers, social security recipients, or married people. All of the former are to be treated equally under the law. All of the latter can, should and do have laws specifically drafted to define their unique rights and responsibilities. "Protected class"...look it up.
The 2nd Amendment applies equally to everyone. If you want to argue that Democrats illegally trample on _everyone's_ 2nd Amendment rights, go ahead. But those who choose to exercise their 2nd amendment rights don't constitute a new protected class called "gun owners".
I'm pretty sure the hateful mob were the ones that drafted, supported, and then successfully voted to deny civil rights to a historically despised minority.
I agree that homophobia is more often than not a misnomer. But if the norm were something along the lines of 'heterosexism', how would that make things fundamentally different? Sounds like you're pining for a word that ignores the bigotry and abuse inherent in homophobia, heterosexism, or whatever you want to call it. In other words, you're looking to replace one misnomer with another.
LOL
If you consider all of life on Earth to be a single organism, billions of years old...it doesn't age. A healthy newborn girl today is just as young and fresh as a newborn girl ancestor from 100,000 years ago, whose cells were as young and fresh as some newborn fish ancestor from 100,000,000 years ago. So while chronological aging is a given, physiological aging isn't.
In your body as time goes by, your telomeres shorten, your stem cells diminish, etc. A whole bunch of stuff happens, all of which promote 'aging'. It's not hard to imagine therapies to overcome and reverse this. From a golf-ball size chunk of your own belly fat, you can extract millions of stem cells. Weed out the good ones, replicate them in the presence of a telomerase activator, and repeat to give you an inexhaustible supply. Then integrate them back into your body as needed. Maybe that would work, maybe it wouldn't...but it's not far fetched to say that something in the near future *will* work.
So we're not talking about living to be 150 with old, broken-down bodies and minds. We're talking about living for indefinite periods of time as young adults. I believe the knee jerk reaction of some people will be that this is unnatural and hence immoral. Overpopulation, making room on Earth for the kids, etc, etc. But like the article states, at the turn of the century the life expectancy of Americans was about 40. Now it's about 80. The same moral argument could be made against doubling the life span over the past 100 years, but that argument would fall flat on its face.
The average age today is probably around 35 or 40, but imagine at some point in the future it rises to 400...a young, able-bodied 400. A great deal of accumulated wisdom currently fades away as people age and die. We would not only retain that wisdom and experience a great deal longer, but build on it. i.e....maybe it takes hundreds of years to the average person to finally grow up and 'get it'. A population that is chronologically much older...but physiologically young...could lead to a more mature, harmonious and happy world. That's the kind of world I would want my kids to live in.
"3. On the whole, California takes in far more in federal benefits than it pays in federal tax. Unlike your analysis, which excludes broad categories of welfare spending, I look at gross flows of funds."
Could you please provide some sort of link or other evidence to back up your claims? Every bit of evidence presented on this thread has been that California and other blue states routinely carry the deadweight of the red states. Here is evidence of that, the first from a conservative outfit, the second from a liberal one:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html
Do you have anything to back up your assertions, or are you just comfortable knowing that you're right, no matter what the facts say?
That's all federal spending, so yes, it's included. There's a net outflow from the state of California of $60 billion, or $2000 per capita. California, along with most productive (blue) states, subsidize the more needy (red) states. It's been this way for a long time. From the link in my previous post:
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html
States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:
1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)
States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:
1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)
California currently pays 60 billion dollars a year more to the federal government than they get back in federal spending. That's three times their current budget deficit, or a net outflow of $2000 per year from every man, woman and child in the state. If there's a parasite here, it's the federal government and other states.
You might do well to brush up on some facts:
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html
California is birthplace and home to giants like HP, Intel, AMD, Apple, Google, Cisco, EA, NVIDIA, Genentech, Lucasfilm, etc in the north, and Disney, Universal, MGM, Paramount, Warner Bros, United Artists, etc in the south. They're the capital of the tech world, the capital of the entertainment world, and the largest producer and exporter of food in the United States. The US needs them more than they need the US.
Unlike Quebec, nobody in California talks about secession. That's nothing other than sensationalist trash to sell papers. But if any state could secede from the US and remain a 1st rate powerhouse in this world, it would be California.
try top and bottom. hot...
most movies you watch center around the united states because most movies you watch are made there. the article, written in california for a predominately american audience, states that california is at risk. if i might suggest, don't take such things personally