I hate people who force things on me for "my own good" as much as the next guy, but I still find this a weak argument for idolizing ignorance. Barring support for anarchy, we need government, government needs to set policies, I'd rather these policies be set by intelligent people, experts, and people generally smarter than me.
Also, last I checked, the non-intellectuals also wanted to force a bunch of things down MY throat "for my own good", such as laws based on their religion (which I do not follow or care about), laws based on their preferred morality, etc... These are the same morons who scream about the so-called "elite" doing the same thing.
If I had to have something shoved down my throat, I'd rather it be by someone with some standard of education, or intellectualism, rather than some uneducated yokel who has no understanding of the world outside of his little hovel.
To rephrase; You are sick; would you rather see a doctor with multiple PhDs and years of education, or would you rather go see your NASCAR watching neighbor who might, possibly, have a high school diploma?
Quoth the Wikipedia: "An intellectual is a man or woman who uses intelligence (thought and reason) and analytical thinking, either in a professional or a personal capacity."
I don't see anything about a person's political beliefs in there. Though if you really want to read them in, it comes off rather badly (i.e. "the left is a bunch of intellectuals") for the side using it as an insult.
I know it is a right-wing (not conservative per se) code word for "them".
Is there such a thing as "too" educated? I don't see how this is possible.
But then again I find people slandering other people over being "intellectuals" to be rather silly. i'd rather be an intellectual than its opposite, ignorant. There also is a huge amount of irony in this, the people who are slandering other people for being "educated" are doing so for almost wholly political reasons. The politicians on the left are "intellectuals", but they ignore the fact that the "home grown" politicians are the right have roughly the same level of education.
G.W. Bush, for example, was a Yale grad, with roughly the same level of education as the evil intellectial Clinton (either of them). Obama actually has LESS time in the crusty halls of Ivy League academe as G.W. Bush.
I never see how being an ignorant yokel could be a point of pride. Its like America aspires to be back in highschool, where picking on nerds, just because they like books more than football, was a great passtime.
Ignorance and stupidity is not a positive character trait.
I don't see anything good about it, whether it's run by Comcast or Congress. At least with the Comcast TV monopoly I can tell them to "fuck off" and not hand them any money. With Congress that doesn't work. They just take a big vacuum cleaner to my wallet and start sucking-out the money. (Or as the case with this bill, fine ~$2500 per family for failure to buy insurance.) I see absolutely nothing good about a monopoly, not even a government one.
But it wouldn't be a case of (A or B), it would be more (A and B), if one fails you have recourse to another. This, to me, is not a monopoly. Remember, as well, that we are dealing with healthcare, where in some cases telling them to "fuck off" will result in your own death.
And we agree, this bill is stupid, and shouldn't be passed. It is neither good government (it is a fascist bill), nor good for the people. I do have something against being forced to give money to corporations at gun point.
Strawman argument
I never meant it as such, and I apologize if it comes off as if I did. I just meant to illustrate that 8 million people is a lot of people, regardless of the mathematical abstractions we decide to attach to them. I apologize for illustrating this with such vigor.
I doubt very much that you are an uncaring sociopath, for the record. You probably are nothing more than another anonymous member of the unwashed masses (just like me, and most the posters at this site), just like those other 8 million people. That is what I wanted to illustrate.
I would have simply taken the existing Medicare program, and allowed those 8 million people to have coverage, if they could not pay the bill themselves. A simple adjustment, rather than a major change. It is silly to force 310 million Americans to change their coverage, just to suit that small 8 million. It is wiser to make minor adjustments
Agree 100%. Though I would prefer that we apply the congressional healthcare system to the rest of us, Medicare would work as well (though it lacks poetic justice).
No it isn't. It's only 3% of the U.S.
No, it is 8 million individual people with goals, loves, families, etc... 8 million people who are just like you or me. Individuals are not statistics. Saying that they are "only 3%" doesn't really argue for anything, since they are people just like me before they are a mere percentage point. Sure, perhaps we shouldn't all suffer for their well being, but we should still care about them. Thats all I was trying to express.
I don't think the Constitution in-itself is a reason to oppose something either. Before you jump on me for that, let me say I highly value the constitution, and we should attempt, as a country, to follow it. It is probably the most important founding document in history, and often time the only reason I maintain any hope for this country. With that said, let the downmodding begin; while the Constitution is a great document, it is still a historical document, meaning that a lot of the reading of it is interpretation (don't believe me, read 5 books on constitutional law, picked at random, and tell me how much agreeance you find). A lot of the Constitutional arguements I've heard has been nothing more than two parties trying to channel the actual thoughts and sentiments of the Founders, I have a hard time putting voracity in this.
Using the Constitution as a guide book is a good idea, especially where things are unambiguously stated. But often times things boil down to textual analysis, precident, or trying to summon the ghost of Ben Franklin. Often times this analysis is nothing more than trying to turn the words towards an interested parties existent dogma.
Constitutional law is also much more than the document itself, it also is the history of actions based on it (ala SCOTUS), as the founders intented.
If we accept basic health as a right (which I do, and see no reason not to), then according to the constitution, I could see the federal government stepping in and helping it along. I would value health as a right before "wealth", which I don't see a right at all (i.e. something guaranteed, and protected).
Generally I have no clue what a "right" actually is, so please take that with a grain of salt. Often, I doubt that there actually is such a thing (as anything more than a mere social construct, of course).
Then apply that to government as well. I have never ever heard of businesses exterminating and massacring millions of people but governments have a history of doing exactly that. Yes, even the government of the US.
Please see my sig. I suspect the Government more than I suspect any other thing, outside of effects of ideolizing pure greed over the actual welfare of the citizens (something, at least according to the Preamble) was important to the founders.
the only ends that ever truly matter is the well-being of others, I find it tragic when we let any ideal become an ends, while people are nothing more than a means towards them. The government is guilty of this (increasingly so), as are the hallowed insurance industry.
You're looking at it the wrong way. It's not the responsibility if citizens to prove someone is not needed, it's the responsibility of government to prove that something is needed and that it has the power. Governments exist for the people, not the people existing for the government.
On this we agree. I think this whole health-care thing has been presented wrong. The debate is long on buzz words, and short on actual substantive argument. No one really is making any cases either way. This seems to be endemic of American politics these days, long on words short on founding principles (philosophy, if you will).
Though, us as individuals seem to be doing our part at least, disagreement and spirited arguments are what make our Government good, sadly we've lost that beyond the (increasingly insignificant) individual level of discourse.
One, as I recall, when people did get out in the streets about the bailout of the banks, the Left spent a lot of time making "teabaggers" jokes about them.
Wait, so the right was protesting G.W. Bush when we bailed out the banks? Last I checked, the bailout happened under his watch, and no one really cared. Though a lot of right-wingers decided that Obama was a socialist because of G.W. Bush's bailouts (ergo, Bush is also a socialist, as was his supporters). The right didn't seem to care that big bankers were getting money, the only got mad when autoworkers and normal folk got the money, which seems about the MO of the talking heads of the mainstream right, convince poor morons that helping the rich is in their best interests, even if they see no benefit, and if that fails resort to ad hominems ("he's a pinko socialist!") or theocracy.
To be fair, you might be confusing the bailouts, with the stimulus package, which was Obama's brainchild.
I should also add that the "public option" is, according to Congressman Barney Frank, just step one. He was caught on camera saying that healthcare will be completely taken-over by government circa 2020
I love how people bandy this sort of statement around like everyone will find it some a priori bad thing, it just shows that the user really does think that everyone thinks exactly like him, and never took the time out to consider that other have views different than his own. These people also, generally, believe their views just as much as the person making the statement, and generally have as long a list of evidence/opinion/etc... as to why they believe the opposite (i.e., they feel just as justified).
Its the same story as people on the right dismissing things (or worse, people) as "socialist", expecting me to feel some innate Joe McCarthy-esque reptilian dread, where my actually response is more along the lines of "so what, why is that bad?". Appearently I'm not a good American, I'd like a reason to oppose things, and not just some sound bite opposed to a 1 dimensional party slogan that some portion of the public hold to be gospel. Give the people REASONS why having a government option is bad. I personally don't think that the government handling something is in-itself a bad thing, that bit of doubleplus good conservative group-think never infected me. I personally like our parks, roads, fire/police/military, medicare, public educational finding/grants, so I find it hard to buy that having the government in charge of something is a bad thing just because the government is involved. I'd rather be a reasonable citizen and take it on a case by case basis, even if it involves violating tenets that some portion of the population hold as sacred dogma.
To be honest, I'm more suspicious of all things that smell like dogma, or unflinching conviction of the truth of some proper-noun ideology, or mere idealism. Anyone who believes in the purity of their ideals is suspect.
To me I'm completely against the current health-care bills, since they don't go far enough. I don't really care about capitalism or socialism (both are nothing more than means towards and end, and not the ends itself), I don't think that insurance companies have the "right" to make money (or anyone, actually, profit is not a right, and should not be protected), I don't think I have the obligation to give them money either (hence my opposition of the current bill). If it served the greater good of individuals, I'd see all insurance companies die, gladly. If it increased the health of myself, and my country men, I'd support a government run option, if the private path went further towards these goals I'd vouch for it instead. Right now the private path seems to be a complete failure, individual greed and the general well being seem to be diametrically opposed. I'd gladly trade the health of the people for the bottom line of some multi-billion dollar corporation.
Though we must get rid of some FUD here. You realize that all of these evil socialist countries with public healthcare still have private doctors and insurance, right? The idea of a public plan, and private coverage are not mutually exclusive. You realize that having a private practice, or having independent insurance isn't illegal in the UK right? Hell, even if it was, who cares, as long as it works?
I'm not sure, though, that a decent, logical, comprehensive, and rational case has been made either way, though. As the bill stands, right now, I don't think it should pass, and yes, the liberal group-think annoys me as much, or more, than the libertarian/conservative flavor.
Also, so we should let that mere 8 million people suffer? Who cares, they are a minority. Seriously, its hard to make a case stating "but it only helps 8 million people", 8 million is a VERY large value of "only". Also, you should provide some evidence on how this is going to waste money on our umpteen million illegal immigrants, even while the bill (both versions) state explicitly that it only applies to citizens. Your statement is against the text of the bill, so the burden of proof is upon you.
When I take a patient into my office for a consultation, about 50% react in the stereotypical xenophobic way when I shake their hands and introduce myself as their doctor and tell them my name. About 30% are embarrassed and try to say it. 10% are just happy I'm there and enthusiastic about getting seen. 10% get it right and become interested in me as a person and ask me where I'm from. I'm of course not here to be asked where I'm from, but it's nice once in a while when someone takes an interest in you.
You realize your describing much of the world. Here in the US (or at least my neck of it), these numbers would be even worse. How many Americans care to pronounce the "strange" names of foreigners correctly? How many people in the US actually care about anyone outside of immediate friends and family? People are people.
How many people in America, when finding out that their GP is Indian (or such), roll their eye, and aren't happy?
Hell, I live in Arizona, a state with a large Mexican population, and pretty deep Mexican cultural roots, and how many people care to pronounce such every-day words like "saguaro" or "coyote" correctly?
Also, I'm sorry the women aren't lithe and submissive enough for your tastes. This hardly says anything about the country that matters, except you don't like the women. You do realize that this makes you sound a bit... vapid and shallow... right? It really doesn't help people take anything your saying seriously. Some people don't like their women submissive, and some people find harping at a whole nation because some of their women have "big butts" rather silly.
Aren't college students stereotypically poor already? Don't they have bad credit histories already? I don't see the point.
This might hold true for "poor" college students, but not college students in general. I went to college in my mid-to-late twenties, and had pretty good credit, a lot of my friends back then were also older than normal, and had decent pre-established credit (a lot of them being ex-military/GI Bill students). A lot of the younger college kids didn't qualify as poor either, the ones who were poor, were poor by bad spending and budgeting ("I need $x in loans because I can't eat, but I just went to see Radiohead on tour in London (from Arizona)")
Now, if they can't just erase the fines with a bankruptcy, that gives them less incentive than ever to stop file sharing. If they already have a life sentence, what more do they have to lose?
This isn't about the file sharers who get caught, this is about deterring the file sharers who didn't get caught. I doubt that the **AA really cares about the damages they receive from the people who are caught, they just want ALL file sharers to know "we will destroy you".
Think about it, if your a normal middle class American, and get stuck with a million dollar fine, how long would it take for you to realistically even pay off a fraction of it? I know people in their 40s (solidly middle class) who are still paying off student loans from the 70s, and these loans were vastly less than what the **AA is demanding.
eah I see that with Obama a lot. When his Communication Director Anita Dunn said, "Chairman Mao is my favorite philosopher," and then goes on to describe how she admired his ability to overthrow the Chinese government, all kinds of posters across the net defended her words. Personally I think the words are INdefensible. To admire Mao makes about as much sense as admiring Hitler/
I know, from previous experience, that our political views are pretty much diametrically opposed, but here I agree with you. As a person with progressive politics (I'm for universal health-care, etc...) the Democrats have been pissing me off for the same reasons, complete agreement with the president no matter how far he veers from their previous beliefs (or at least rhetoric). Obama's health care plan is complete crap, no matter where you stand on it, but people are pretty much jumping on it along party lines, and the talking heads on both sides are generally lying through their teeth when it comes to their talking points. The only thing that matters is backing your party.
If you don't, there is consequences. In the end, as usual, the people get screwed.
Yes there is. If you agree with everything someone says, there is something wrong. If you agree with what someone says only because they are saying it, there is something wrong as well. I like Rachel Maddow, but I often don't agree with her. I dislike Limbaugh, and sometimes I agree with him.
Both of them are just people, as asinine and fallible as the rest of us. Worse, they exist to publish purely ideological rhetoric as news. And if you agree with any proper-noun ideology your suffering from laziness of thought. A lot of the problems in the world come from people agreeing with their party just because it is their party.
I'm a life long Democrat, and the democrats are often complete morons, and sometimes the Republicans have better ideas. I self-identify as a socialist or progressive, but I would rather have the libertarians in charge of social issues (get the government out of my life), but the socialists in charge of economic issues (keep the corporations out of my life).
Life is much more nuanced than any stupid political ideology. If you find yourself constantly agreeing with anyone, perhaps you should go make your own opinions?
Your probably correct, but on the bright side the amount of people who actually live "interesting" lives is probably rather slim. Ignoring the fact that most people think that their life is very interesting. 90% of paranoia is narcissism, the other 10% is probably spot on.
Not saying that this makes everything all right. It still is a grevious abuse of power, and arrogance in its purest form. I always find it tragic that the government forgot that it only exists because of us people, and not the other way around. Actually, they still think this, but "we the people" are defenseless morons who need protection in their eyes (it seems). Yet another case why anyone who thinks "they know better" (or ever states "for their own good") should be rounded up and deported.
The core problem though is apathy on the behalf of the American people. We let them do these things, and worse, many of us WANT them to do these things ("for our own good"). Some of it is apathy, a lot of it is ignorance. I only hope it gets bad enough to wake up the Americsan people, so we can put the government back in its place. Though my hope is waning, I was also hoping this of our untenable economic problems.
We really need a bipartisan, rational, bunch of people protesting, and raising awareness of this. I state bipartison because I'm guessing that most of the democrats and republicans here agree on this issue, regardless of how they feel about immediate political issues. This shift in the self-perceived role of government has nothing to do with whichever political party is in charge, it has become endemic.
You see, the left winger in you is the one actually keeping the Filipino poor, not the Libertarian in me. Because if the choice is to hire the Filipino for $500 or NOT hire the Filipino at $5000/mo guess what, the Filipino won't have a job in your world.
As a liberal, I think your straw-man is broken. Yes, I find it sad that the poor Filipino guy won't get a good paying job, but in the end the health of the Filipino economy is wholly in the hands of the Filipinos. I'd, also, rather the money went into my country/community/neighborhood because while I'm sensitive to the plight of others, I still value my local neighborhood over more distant ones (not speaking of purely physical location, of course). You paying a local laborer improves the community around me, and thus benefits both I (a 3rd) party, you ( the capitalist pig:) ) , and the worker who you hire.
Yes, this might be a bit callous, but it also is justifiable human nature. To paraphrase someone much smarter than I, in the age of globalization, the only way to compete with the Filipino worker is to adopt the same working conditions as the him. This reasoning basically ensures that your philosophy will attempt to drag everyone (at least the workers, not the rich, oh heavens not the rich!) to the lowest, and most miserable level. This was pretty much one of Marx' arguments for the death of capitalism; eventually it will run out of resources to exploit, and will end up self-cannibalizing itself.
The funny thing is that while corporate America has been screwing us normal people for years, it finally got to the level where we can't afford to actually buy their products, because of the rampant outsourcing. Thank god, though, for China. When you pay people less, you can pass the saving down (rarely in reality), but you gained very little since your potential customers have less means to purchase, and after a certain point the basic necessities of life become more important than any service you may offer.
Personally, I think you should have the ability to hire the Filipino for $500/mo, but we should tax you the difference, and put it to good use, or at least use a portion of it to assist the person who you refused to hire.
And I won't even get started on "unions" ruining whole industries (auto, steel), by creating inefficiencies in the marketplace. The government should have let GM go bankrupt, and let the unions explain to their workers why they don't have any jobs.
This is why I hate libertarianism. A large portion of them always think that the so-called "right" to make money is more important than any other individual right. Your "right" to profit ends when you try to exploit me, then I have the right to assemble, and fight for my own rights.
And, you know, this would happen because people are fundamentally good and nice, except for the evil capitalists and aristocrats who must be overthrown at any cost, including with violence, theft, oppression, and murder.
Isn't this the same philosophy that the U.S. had towards Communism and Socialism during the cold war?
A little exaggeration there, but Ubuntu (and most other flavors of Linux these days) is much better installation wise. Though installing the 9.10 beta did take a couple minutes (using update), and with some customization, the a fresh install can still be a bit painstaking (in my case, hunting around for 3rd party repositories, and forgetting how to get the most recent Firefox updates without being at the whim of Canonical, also ignoring various visual tweaks and customizations). Still better than the 4-5 hours I've put into Windows 7 today, I wish I could just apt-get or use synaptic with Windows.
And the drivers... oh lord the drivers. I don't know how I used to reformat every year just because.
The window decorations and menubars are way too big (on my relatively small screen - 1440x900) and take up way too much vertical space - handling multiple windows at once is almost impossible and the taskbar thingummy doesn't really help much - and the system doesn't want me to use a font any smaller than I'm currently using. The taskbar is too wide and you can't change it, but autohiding helps some. The icons on my desktop are too big and there seems to be no way to change that either.
I'm sure you can change all of those. Dig around in the personalize or appearance dialogues. The taskbar can go back to Vista mode, or into a Win7-style one but the same size as Vista/XPs, I also forgot how, but there are sources out there. Google is your friend. Something about clicking "use small icons" in properties. Have you tried resizing your desktop icons in the same way you do on Vista?
My main beef with the task bar, is mounting on the side of the screen, you can't modify where the "start" menu goes. It would be much more handy on the bottom, than on the top.
I had to go to websites and get drivers to install (most of which required reboots) and in several cases was told that there are no drivers for that device for win7.
This is always a problem with brand new OSs, and drivers are always a pain in the ass. Installing a Creative X-Fi driver required around 5 reboots, and sever jaunts to the internet to get the full features. Driver devs haven't quite jumped on the bandwagon of x64, much less Windows 7.
"I try to sign all petitions, whether or whether not I agree with them, just because I think the public as a whole should have their say, with the caveat that the issue at hand should be an issue for government, and not just some moral or religious mumbo-jumbo, or whatnot".
This is perfectly congruous with me saying I wouldn't sign the petition in question, being that is has no bearing on the domain of government, and is largely based in religious mumbo-jumbo. I don't see the contradiction there, I sign all petitions that are valid government issues, this one isn't (or at least as far as I can perceive)
s the same reason that Unions have secret ballots when deciding whether or not to unionize (to protect against reprisal from both the Company that doesn't want unionization, and from fellow workers that do want it), and why we have anonymous balloting in elections (to protect the voter from reprisals by those they didn't vote for).
Your confusing petitions with ballots here. A petitions is a public display of support, where a ballot is an actual (generally anonymous) vote. One infers support, the other enacts policy. To run with the union example, while the actual union ballots are secret (justifiably so), the people organizing the vote, and supporting unionization or against it, previous to the ballot are NOT anonymous.
Congratulations, you are either among the bravest people I've come across or too naive for your own good. Since I'm a skeptic so my default assessment is the later. But I'm also willing to leave open the opportunity that you are the former, however unlikely I find it.
I might not be perfect, and would probably be scared shitless if someone made public they wanted to take my life for disagreeing with them for mere politics, I still would at least ATTEMPT to hold my view. And if I was was in genuine fear of the backlash from my positions I wouldn't put them out publicly, and instead wait for the actual official (secret) vote. Obviously there is a level where my support for an issue is balanced by the potential threat to my life, but this is always going to exist in a public arena.
I believe gay marriage is negative to the society as a whole and proud to say it.
Good for you, and I believe in the tooth fairy, and am proud to say it. Which gets me to the exact same place you are. more accurately: I believe straight marriage is negative to the society as a whole and proud to say it*.
You cannot make an external claim that has a truth value provable by empirical observation, and claim it as a fact, without that observation. In other words: "[citation needed]" And no, saying you believe it, have faith in it, your church, book, parents, favorite radio host, or the tooth fairy said so, doesn't matter. You made a measurable external claim, and thus need to supply some basis for the statement.
The bible never stated that marriage was limited in any way other than between a man and a woman.
Whose bible? I don't believe one bit in the Bible, therefore its rules don't apply to me. If I wrote book promoting gay marriage, and questioning heterosexual marriage, and then formed a legally recognized religion, would you have a problem with me fighting to ban straight marriage?
The bible has NOTHING to do with politics, there even is a bit in the US Constitution saying so, and where I come from the US Constitution is far more important than the Bible.
By sense, he obviously meant "people who share my beliefs, doctrines, and religious ideology". The reasoning goes: I am smart. Smart people would never willingly believe in something that isn't true. Therefore all my beliefs are true. I believe x. Therefore x is true.
If x is true, and you don't believe x, there is something wrong with you. Therefore you lack in common sense, while I am currently swimming in it.
Studies are divided whether gay marriage has an ill effect on society. Specifically, some studies have shown that the child-rearing environment provided by gay couples is less healthy for children than that provided by heterosexual couples. Similarly, some studies have shown that children raised by gay couples have a far higher tendency to be gay themselves; if homosexuality were merely a genetic disposition, this would not be the case, showing that there is in fact a significant environmental factor.
You have a point there; I was being a bit flippant. I'm (with no valid scientific backing) assuming that there is little, to no negative effect caused by gay couples or marriage. As for child rearing, I don't see children having an elevated chance of being gay as a bad thing, no more than children raised in Catholic households are more likely to be Catholic, or children raised in Liberal/Conservative households are more likely to follow their parents footsteps.
I'm guessing (again, science be damned!:) ) that this is mostly due to the change in social pressures. I know in the household I grew up in, my becoming gay would be a VERY bad thing, if you removed this anti-gay pressure, you probably increase the likelihood of children becoming gay. This would have nothing to do with environmental or genetic causes of homosexuality, though. Assuming it is genetic, there still are gay people who lived as heterosexuals for a long time, before realizing it isn't their thing, and visa versa (I knew a lot of gay/bi-sexual kids in high school, most of whom are fully straight and happily married by now).
For the record, and insanely off-topic, I have severe doubts about a purely genetic/innate cause for homosexuality, and I find the attempts to quash anyone saying that sexual preference is a preference rather repugnant. Both sides likes to beat on empirical science to further an agenda. When ideals come to play, truth always suffers.
I personally agree that the gay rights crowd should be pushing for a universal ideal of a civil union, which would have the exact same privileges and protections as a "straight marriage", instead of going the "marriage or nothing route". A partial victory, in this case, is a VERY big step forward, and probably easier to sell (though still hard, since a large portion of people aren't mad at the marriage thing, but the "gay" thing).
Though I do think marriage should be allowed too, since there ARE churches and religions that have nothing against gay marriage. As for the "man and a woman" bit, I don't see why that is very important, it, too, is nothing but semantics. If we allow them all the rights, and privileges granted to straight "marriages", why not allow them to use the word too? My gay neighbors claiming to be married doesn't affect my own marriage.
This, though, is a semantic argument for another day. I don't mind people disagreeing wholly on the "marriage" issue, I only take issue with people who don't want to allow gay couples the full civil union (marriage in everything but name).
It is to protect you and your religious beliefs (or lack thereof) from the government. It is not to protect the government from you and your beliefs.
Not quite true. If the government has a religious agenda, it should also protect the citizens from this as well. Basically its to keep the government completely secular.
This is my beef against the anti-gay marriage folks, they are using the government as a vehicle to force their religious beliefs down others throats (same with the lifers, anti-stem cell folks, anti-evolutionists, and all other people trying to force their so-called truths down the throats of others who don't hold care or believe). Its hard to find a non-religious arguement against it, since having two gays married and living next door to you does absolutely negative to you, or society as a whole, barring religious doctrines that a lot of people don't buy.
Like most things in life: if you don't like it, don't do it. Don't like gay marriage, don't go gay and get married. Don't like abortions? Don't get one. That way you do what you think is best, and everyone else can live their lives as they see fit (as long as they don't harm the individual rights of others). Hell, if your strictly straight marriage works out, perhaps others will learn from you.
I believe, though, that "marriage" is indeed a religious institution, and I would argue that separation of church and state says that the State shouldn't dictate what "marriage" is and is not. I think we ultimately need two terms to distinguish between the civil union aspects of marriage and the religious aspects of marriage.
So, by denying gay marriage, we're restricting the freedom for some churches and religions to marry gays?
Not EVERY religion is irrationally biased against people because of who they want to have sex with, so by saying that no religion is allowed to marry them, your inflicting your bias on others. Is it also a grievous breach of the constitution to allow interracial marriages, or black/black marriages, even if some churches were (and are) opposed to these ideas?
Government should completely ignore the wishes of churches, and only focus on individual rights.
Slashdot Mirror
Straw-man much?
I hate people who force things on me for "my own good" as much as the next guy, but I still find this a weak argument for idolizing ignorance. Barring support for anarchy, we need government, government needs to set policies, I'd rather these policies be set by intelligent people, experts, and people generally smarter than me.
Also, last I checked, the non-intellectuals also wanted to force a bunch of things down MY throat "for my own good", such as laws based on their religion (which I do not follow or care about), laws based on their preferred morality, etc... These are the same morons who scream about the so-called "elite" doing the same thing.
If I had to have something shoved down my throat, I'd rather it be by someone with some standard of education, or intellectualism, rather than some uneducated yokel who has no understanding of the world outside of his little hovel.
To rephrase; You are sick; would you rather see a doctor with multiple PhDs and years of education, or would you rather go see your NASCAR watching neighbor who might, possibly, have a high school diploma?
Quoth the Wikipedia: "An intellectual is a man or woman who uses intelligence (thought and reason) and analytical thinking, either in a professional or a personal capacity."
I don't see anything about a person's political beliefs in there. Though if you really want to read them in, it comes off rather badly (i.e. "the left is a bunch of intellectuals") for the side using it as an insult.
I know it is a right-wing (not conservative per se) code word for "them".
Is there such a thing as "too" educated? I don't see how this is possible.
But then again I find people slandering other people over being "intellectuals" to be rather silly. i'd rather be an intellectual than its opposite, ignorant. There also is a huge amount of irony in this, the people who are slandering other people for being "educated" are doing so for almost wholly political reasons. The politicians on the left are "intellectuals", but they ignore the fact that the "home grown" politicians are the right have roughly the same level of education.
G.W. Bush, for example, was a Yale grad, with roughly the same level of education as the evil intellectial Clinton (either of them). Obama actually has LESS time in the crusty halls of Ivy League academe as G.W. Bush.
I never see how being an ignorant yokel could be a point of pride. Its like America aspires to be back in highschool, where picking on nerds, just because they like books more than football, was a great passtime.
Ignorance and stupidity is not a positive character trait.
I don't see anything good about it, whether it's run by Comcast or Congress. At least with the Comcast TV monopoly I can tell them to "fuck off" and not hand them any money. With Congress that doesn't work. They just take a big vacuum cleaner to my wallet and start sucking-out the money. (Or as the case with this bill, fine ~$2500 per family for failure to buy insurance.) I see absolutely nothing good about a monopoly, not even a government one.
But it wouldn't be a case of (A or B), it would be more (A and B), if one fails you have recourse to another. This, to me, is not a monopoly. Remember, as well, that we are dealing with healthcare, where in some cases telling them to "fuck off" will result in your own death.
And we agree, this bill is stupid, and shouldn't be passed. It is neither good government (it is a fascist bill), nor good for the people. I do have something against being forced to give money to corporations at gun point.
Strawman argument
I never meant it as such, and I apologize if it comes off as if I did. I just meant to illustrate that 8 million people is a lot of people, regardless of the mathematical abstractions we decide to attach to them. I apologize for illustrating this with such vigor.
I doubt very much that you are an uncaring sociopath, for the record. You probably are nothing more than another anonymous member of the unwashed masses (just like me, and most the posters at this site), just like those other 8 million people. That is what I wanted to illustrate.
I would have simply taken the existing Medicare program, and allowed those 8 million people to have coverage, if they could not pay the bill themselves. A simple adjustment, rather than a major change. It is silly to force 310 million Americans to change their coverage, just to suit that small 8 million. It is wiser to make minor adjustments
Agree 100%. Though I would prefer that we apply the congressional healthcare system to the rest of us, Medicare would work as well (though it lacks poetic justice).
No it isn't. It's only 3% of the U.S.
No, it is 8 million individual people with goals, loves, families, etc... 8 million people who are just like you or me. Individuals are not statistics. Saying that they are "only 3%" doesn't really argue for anything, since they are people just like me before they are a mere percentage point. Sure, perhaps we shouldn't all suffer for their well being, but we should still care about them. Thats all I was trying to express.
I don't think the Constitution in-itself is a reason to oppose something either. Before you jump on me for that, let me say I highly value the constitution, and we should attempt, as a country, to follow it. It is probably the most important founding document in history, and often time the only reason I maintain any hope for this country. With that said, let the downmodding begin; while the Constitution is a great document, it is still a historical document, meaning that a lot of the reading of it is interpretation (don't believe me, read 5 books on constitutional law, picked at random, and tell me how much agreeance you find). A lot of the Constitutional arguements I've heard has been nothing more than two parties trying to channel the actual thoughts and sentiments of the Founders, I have a hard time putting voracity in this.
Using the Constitution as a guide book is a good idea, especially where things are unambiguously stated. But often times things boil down to textual analysis, precident, or trying to summon the ghost of Ben Franklin. Often times this analysis is nothing more than trying to turn the words towards an interested parties existent dogma.
Constitutional law is also much more than the document itself, it also is the history of actions based on it (ala SCOTUS), as the founders intented.
If we accept basic health as a right (which I do, and see no reason not to), then according to the constitution, I could see the federal government stepping in and helping it along. I would value health as a right before "wealth", which I don't see a right at all (i.e. something guaranteed, and protected).
Generally I have no clue what a "right" actually is, so please take that with a grain of salt. Often, I doubt that there actually is such a thing (as anything more than a mere social construct, of course).
Then apply that to government as well. I have never ever heard of businesses exterminating and massacring millions of people but governments have a history of doing exactly that. Yes, even the government of the US.
Please see my sig. I suspect the Government more than I suspect any other thing, outside of effects of ideolizing pure greed over the actual welfare of the citizens (something, at least according to the Preamble) was important to the founders.
the only ends that ever truly matter is the well-being of others, I find it tragic when we let any ideal become an ends, while people are nothing more than a means towards them. The government is guilty of this (increasingly so), as are the hallowed insurance industry.
You're looking at it the wrong way. It's not the responsibility if citizens to prove someone is not needed, it's the responsibility of government to prove that something is needed and that it has the power. Governments exist for the people, not the people existing for the government.
On this we agree. I think this whole health-care thing has been presented wrong. The debate is long on buzz words, and short on actual substantive argument. No one really is making any cases either way. This seems to be endemic of American politics these days, long on words short on founding principles (philosophy, if you will).
Though, us as individuals seem to be doing our part at least, disagreement and spirited arguments are what make our Government good, sadly we've lost that beyond the (increasingly insignificant) individual level of discourse.
One, as I recall, when people did get out in the streets about the bailout of the banks, the Left spent a lot of time making "teabaggers" jokes about them.
Wait, so the right was protesting G.W. Bush when we bailed out the banks? Last I checked, the bailout happened under his watch, and no one really cared. Though a lot of right-wingers decided that Obama was a socialist because of G.W. Bush's bailouts (ergo, Bush is also a socialist, as was his supporters). The right didn't seem to care that big bankers were getting money, the only got mad when autoworkers and normal folk got the money, which seems about the MO of the talking heads of the mainstream right, convince poor morons that helping the rich is in their best interests, even if they see no benefit, and if that fails resort to ad hominems ("he's a pinko socialist!") or theocracy.
To be fair, you might be confusing the bailouts, with the stimulus package, which was Obama's brainchild.
How much of the difference went to lobbyists and buying congress critters?
I should also add that the "public option" is, according to Congressman Barney Frank, just step one. He was caught on camera saying that healthcare will be completely taken-over by government circa 2020
I love how people bandy this sort of statement around like everyone will find it some a priori bad thing, it just shows that the user really does think that everyone thinks exactly like him, and never took the time out to consider that other have views different than his own. These people also, generally, believe their views just as much as the person making the statement, and generally have as long a list of evidence/opinion/etc... as to why they believe the opposite (i.e., they feel just as justified).
Its the same story as people on the right dismissing things (or worse, people) as "socialist", expecting me to feel some innate Joe McCarthy-esque reptilian dread, where my actually response is more along the lines of "so what, why is that bad?". Appearently I'm not a good American, I'd like a reason to oppose things, and not just some sound bite opposed to a 1 dimensional party slogan that some portion of the public hold to be gospel. Give the people REASONS why having a government option is bad. I personally don't think that the government handling something is in-itself a bad thing, that bit of doubleplus good conservative group-think never infected me. I personally like our parks, roads, fire/police/military, medicare, public educational finding/grants, so I find it hard to buy that having the government in charge of something is a bad thing just because the government is involved. I'd rather be a reasonable citizen and take it on a case by case basis, even if it involves violating tenets that some portion of the population hold as sacred dogma.
To be honest, I'm more suspicious of all things that smell like dogma, or unflinching conviction of the truth of some proper-noun ideology, or mere idealism. Anyone who believes in the purity of their ideals is suspect.
To me I'm completely against the current health-care bills, since they don't go far enough. I don't really care about capitalism or socialism (both are nothing more than means towards and end, and not the ends itself), I don't think that insurance companies have the "right" to make money (or anyone, actually, profit is not a right, and should not be protected), I don't think I have the obligation to give them money either (hence my opposition of the current bill). If it served the greater good of individuals, I'd see all insurance companies die, gladly. If it increased the health of myself, and my country men, I'd support a government run option, if the private path went further towards these goals I'd vouch for it instead. Right now the private path seems to be a complete failure, individual greed and the general well being seem to be diametrically opposed. I'd gladly trade the health of the people for the bottom line of some multi-billion dollar corporation.
Though we must get rid of some FUD here. You realize that all of these evil socialist countries with public healthcare still have private doctors and insurance, right? The idea of a public plan, and private coverage are not mutually exclusive. You realize that having a private practice, or having independent insurance isn't illegal in the UK right? Hell, even if it was, who cares, as long as it works?
I'm not sure, though, that a decent, logical, comprehensive, and rational case has been made either way, though. As the bill stands, right now, I don't think it should pass, and yes, the liberal group-think annoys me as much, or more, than the libertarian/conservative flavor.
Also, so we should let that mere 8 million people suffer? Who cares, they are a minority. Seriously, its hard to make a case stating "but it only helps 8 million people", 8 million is a VERY large value of "only". Also, you should provide some evidence on how this is going to waste money on our umpteen million illegal immigrants, even while the bill (both versions) state explicitly that it only applies to citizens. Your statement is against the text of the bill, so the burden of proof is upon you.
When I take a patient into my office for a consultation, about 50% react in the stereotypical xenophobic way when I shake their hands and introduce myself as their doctor and tell them my name. About 30% are embarrassed and try to say it. 10% are just happy I'm there and enthusiastic about getting seen. 10% get it right and become interested in me as a person and ask me where I'm from. I'm of course not here to be asked where I'm from, but it's nice once in a while when someone takes an interest in you.
You realize your describing much of the world. Here in the US (or at least my neck of it), these numbers would be even worse. How many Americans care to pronounce the "strange" names of foreigners correctly? How many people in the US actually care about anyone outside of immediate friends and family? People are people.
How many people in America, when finding out that their GP is Indian (or such), roll their eye, and aren't happy?
Hell, I live in Arizona, a state with a large Mexican population, and pretty deep Mexican cultural roots, and how many people care to pronounce such every-day words like "saguaro" or "coyote" correctly?
Also, I'm sorry the women aren't lithe and submissive enough for your tastes. This hardly says anything about the country that matters, except you don't like the women. You do realize that this makes you sound a bit... vapid and shallow... right? It really doesn't help people take anything your saying seriously. Some people don't like their women submissive, and some people find harping at a whole nation because some of their women have "big butts" rather silly.
They have decent pastry, at least.
Aren't college students stereotypically poor already? Don't they have bad credit histories already? I don't see the point.
This might hold true for "poor" college students, but not college students in general. I went to college in my mid-to-late twenties, and had pretty good credit, a lot of my friends back then were also older than normal, and had decent pre-established credit (a lot of them being ex-military/GI Bill students). A lot of the younger college kids didn't qualify as poor either, the ones who were poor, were poor by bad spending and budgeting ("I need $x in loans because I can't eat, but I just went to see Radiohead on tour in London (from Arizona)")
Now, if they can't just erase the fines with a bankruptcy, that gives them less incentive than ever to stop file sharing. If they already have a life sentence, what more do they have to lose?
This isn't about the file sharers who get caught, this is about deterring the file sharers who didn't get caught. I doubt that the **AA really cares about the damages they receive from the people who are caught, they just want ALL file sharers to know "we will destroy you".
Think about it, if your a normal middle class American, and get stuck with a million dollar fine, how long would it take for you to realistically even pay off a fraction of it? I know people in their 40s (solidly middle class) who are still paying off student loans from the 70s, and these loans were vastly less than what the **AA is demanding.
eah I see that with Obama a lot. When his Communication Director Anita Dunn said, "Chairman Mao is my favorite philosopher," and then goes on to describe how she admired his ability to overthrow the Chinese government, all kinds of posters across the net defended her words. Personally I think the words are INdefensible. To admire Mao makes about as much sense as admiring Hitler/
I know, from previous experience, that our political views are pretty much diametrically opposed, but here I agree with you. As a person with progressive politics (I'm for universal health-care, etc...) the Democrats have been pissing me off for the same reasons, complete agreement with the president no matter how far he veers from their previous beliefs (or at least rhetoric). Obama's health care plan is complete crap, no matter where you stand on it, but people are pretty much jumping on it along party lines, and the talking heads on both sides are generally lying through their teeth when it comes to their talking points. The only thing that matters is backing your party.
If you don't, there is consequences. In the end, as usual, the people get screwed.
Nothing wrong with that.
Yes there is. If you agree with everything someone says, there is something wrong. If you agree with what someone says only because they are saying it, there is something wrong as well. I like Rachel Maddow, but I often don't agree with her. I dislike Limbaugh, and sometimes I agree with him.
Both of them are just people, as asinine and fallible as the rest of us. Worse, they exist to publish purely ideological rhetoric as news. And if you agree with any proper-noun ideology your suffering from laziness of thought. A lot of the problems in the world come from people agreeing with their party just because it is their party.
I'm a life long Democrat, and the democrats are often complete morons, and sometimes the Republicans have better ideas. I self-identify as a socialist or progressive, but I would rather have the libertarians in charge of social issues (get the government out of my life), but the socialists in charge of economic issues (keep the corporations out of my life).
Life is much more nuanced than any stupid political ideology. If you find yourself constantly agreeing with anyone, perhaps you should go make your own opinions?
Your probably correct, but on the bright side the amount of people who actually live "interesting" lives is probably rather slim. Ignoring the fact that most people think that their life is very interesting. 90% of paranoia is narcissism, the other 10% is probably spot on.
Not saying that this makes everything all right. It still is a grevious abuse of power, and arrogance in its purest form. I always find it tragic that the government forgot that it only exists because of us people, and not the other way around. Actually, they still think this, but "we the people" are defenseless morons who need protection in their eyes (it seems). Yet another case why anyone who thinks "they know better" (or ever states "for their own good") should be rounded up and deported.
The core problem though is apathy on the behalf of the American people. We let them do these things, and worse, many of us WANT them to do these things ("for our own good"). Some of it is apathy, a lot of it is ignorance. I only hope it gets bad enough to wake up the Americsan people, so we can put the government back in its place. Though my hope is waning, I was also hoping this of our untenable economic problems.
We really need a bipartisan, rational, bunch of people protesting, and raising awareness of this. I state bipartison because I'm guessing that most of the democrats and republicans here agree on this issue, regardless of how they feel about immediate political issues. This shift in the self-perceived role of government has nothing to do with whichever political party is in charge, it has become endemic.
You see, the left winger in you is the one actually keeping the Filipino poor, not the Libertarian in me. Because if the choice is to hire the Filipino for $500 or NOT hire the Filipino at $5000/mo guess what, the Filipino won't have a job in your world.
As a liberal, I think your straw-man is broken. Yes, I find it sad that the poor Filipino guy won't get a good paying job, but in the end the health of the Filipino economy is wholly in the hands of the Filipinos. I'd, also, rather the money went into my country/community/neighborhood because while I'm sensitive to the plight of others, I still value my local neighborhood over more distant ones (not speaking of purely physical location, of course). You paying a local laborer improves the community around me, and thus benefits both I (a 3rd) party, you ( the capitalist pig :) ) , and the worker who you hire.
Yes, this might be a bit callous, but it also is justifiable human nature. To paraphrase someone much smarter than I, in the age of globalization, the only way to compete with the Filipino worker is to adopt the same working conditions as the him. This reasoning basically ensures that your philosophy will attempt to drag everyone (at least the workers, not the rich, oh heavens not the rich!) to the lowest, and most miserable level. This was pretty much one of Marx' arguments for the death of capitalism; eventually it will run out of resources to exploit, and will end up self-cannibalizing itself.
The funny thing is that while corporate America has been screwing us normal people for years, it finally got to the level where we can't afford to actually buy their products, because of the rampant outsourcing. Thank god, though, for China. When you pay people less, you can pass the saving down (rarely in reality), but you gained very little since your potential customers have less means to purchase, and after a certain point the basic necessities of life become more important than any service you may offer.
Personally, I think you should have the ability to hire the Filipino for $500/mo, but we should tax you the difference, and put it to good use, or at least use a portion of it to assist the person who you refused to hire.
And I won't even get started on "unions" ruining whole industries (auto, steel), by creating inefficiencies in the marketplace. The government should have let GM go bankrupt, and let the unions explain to their workers why they don't have any jobs.
This is why I hate libertarianism. A large portion of them always think that the so-called "right" to make money is more important than any other individual right. Your "right" to profit ends when you try to exploit me, then I have the right to assemble, and fight for my own rights.
And, you know, this would happen because people are fundamentally good and nice, except for the evil capitalists and aristocrats who must be overthrown at any cost, including with violence, theft, oppression, and murder.
Isn't this the same philosophy that the U.S. had towards Communism and Socialism during the cold war?
A little exaggeration there, but Ubuntu (and most other flavors of Linux these days) is much better installation wise. Though installing the 9.10 beta did take a couple minutes (using update), and with some customization, the a fresh install can still be a bit painstaking (in my case, hunting around for 3rd party repositories, and forgetting how to get the most recent Firefox updates without being at the whim of Canonical, also ignoring various visual tweaks and customizations). Still better than the 4-5 hours I've put into Windows 7 today, I wish I could just apt-get or use synaptic with Windows.
And the drivers... oh lord the drivers. I don't know how I used to reformat every year just because.
The window decorations and menubars are way too big (on my relatively small screen - 1440x900) and take up way too much vertical space - handling multiple windows at once is almost impossible and the taskbar thingummy doesn't really help much - and the system doesn't want me to use a font any smaller than I'm currently using. The taskbar is too wide and you can't change it, but autohiding helps some. The icons on my desktop are too big and there seems to be no way to change that either.
I'm sure you can change all of those. Dig around in the personalize or appearance dialogues. The taskbar can go back to Vista mode, or into a Win7-style one but the same size as Vista/XPs, I also forgot how, but there are sources out there. Google is your friend. Something about clicking "use small icons" in properties. Have you tried resizing your desktop icons in the same way you do on Vista?
My main beef with the task bar, is mounting on the side of the screen, you can't modify where the "start" menu goes. It would be much more handy on the bottom, than on the top.
I had to go to websites and get drivers to install (most of which required reboots) and in several cases was told that there are no drivers for that device for win7.
This is always a problem with brand new OSs, and drivers are always a pain in the ass. Installing a Creative X-Fi driver required around 5 reboots, and sever jaunts to the internet to get the full features. Driver devs haven't quite jumped on the bandwagon of x64, much less Windows 7.
Also, as a Linux user, I'm used to driver hell.
Nice selective reading there... what I said was:
"I try to sign all petitions, whether or whether not I agree with them, just because I think the public as a whole should have their say, with the caveat that the issue at hand should be an issue for government, and not just some moral or religious mumbo-jumbo, or whatnot".
This is perfectly congruous with me saying I wouldn't sign the petition in question, being that is has no bearing on the domain of government, and is largely based in religious mumbo-jumbo. I don't see the contradiction there, I sign all petitions that are valid government issues, this one isn't (or at least as far as I can perceive)
s the same reason that Unions have secret ballots when deciding whether or not to unionize (to protect against reprisal from both the Company that doesn't want unionization, and from fellow workers that do want it), and why we have anonymous balloting in elections (to protect the voter from reprisals by those they didn't vote for).
Your confusing petitions with ballots here. A petitions is a public display of support, where a ballot is an actual (generally anonymous) vote. One infers support, the other enacts policy. To run with the union example, while the actual union ballots are secret (justifiably so), the people organizing the vote, and supporting unionization or against it, previous to the ballot are NOT anonymous.
Congratulations, you are either among the bravest people I've come across or too naive for your own good. Since I'm a skeptic so my default assessment is the later. But I'm also willing to leave open the opportunity that you are the former, however unlikely I find it.
I might not be perfect, and would probably be scared shitless if someone made public they wanted to take my life for disagreeing with them for mere politics, I still would at least ATTEMPT to hold my view. And if I was was in genuine fear of the backlash from my positions I wouldn't put them out publicly, and instead wait for the actual official (secret) vote. Obviously there is a level where my support for an issue is balanced by the potential threat to my life, but this is always going to exist in a public arena.
I believe gay marriage is negative to the society as a whole and proud to say it.
Good for you, and I believe in the tooth fairy, and am proud to say it. Which gets me to the exact same place you are. more accurately: I believe straight marriage is negative to the society as a whole and proud to say it*.
You cannot make an external claim that has a truth value provable by empirical observation, and claim it as a fact, without that observation. In other words: "[citation needed]" And no, saying you believe it, have faith in it, your church, book, parents, favorite radio host, or the tooth fairy said so, doesn't matter. You made a measurable external claim, and thus need to supply some basis for the statement.
The bible never stated that marriage was limited in any way other than between a man and a woman.
Whose bible? I don't believe one bit in the Bible, therefore its rules don't apply to me. If I wrote book promoting gay marriage, and questioning heterosexual marriage, and then formed a legally recognized religion, would you have a problem with me fighting to ban straight marriage?
The bible has NOTHING to do with politics, there even is a bit in the US Constitution saying so, and where I come from the US Constitution is far more important than the Bible.
By sense, he obviously meant "people who share my beliefs, doctrines, and religious ideology". The reasoning goes: I am smart. Smart people would never willingly believe in something that isn't true. Therefore all my beliefs are true. I believe x. Therefore x is true.
If x is true, and you don't believe x, there is something wrong with you. Therefore you lack in common sense, while I am currently swimming in it.
This is pretty universal, no matter what x is.
Studies are divided whether gay marriage has an ill effect on society. Specifically, some studies have shown that the child-rearing environment provided by gay couples is less healthy for children than that provided by heterosexual couples. Similarly, some studies have shown that children raised by gay couples have a far higher tendency to be gay themselves; if homosexuality were merely a genetic disposition, this would not be the case, showing that there is in fact a significant environmental factor.
You have a point there; I was being a bit flippant. I'm (with no valid scientific backing) assuming that there is little, to no negative effect caused by gay couples or marriage. As for child rearing, I don't see children having an elevated chance of being gay as a bad thing, no more than children raised in Catholic households are more likely to be Catholic, or children raised in Liberal/Conservative households are more likely to follow their parents footsteps.
I'm guessing (again, science be damned! :) ) that this is mostly due to the change in social pressures. I know in the household I grew up in, my becoming gay would be a VERY bad thing, if you removed this anti-gay pressure, you probably increase the likelihood of children becoming gay. This would have nothing to do with environmental or genetic causes of homosexuality, though. Assuming it is genetic, there still are gay people who lived as heterosexuals for a long time, before realizing it isn't their thing, and visa versa (I knew a lot of gay/bi-sexual kids in high school, most of whom are fully straight and happily married by now).
For the record, and insanely off-topic, I have severe doubts about a purely genetic/innate cause for homosexuality, and I find the attempts to quash anyone saying that sexual preference is a preference rather repugnant. Both sides likes to beat on empirical science to further an agenda. When ideals come to play, truth always suffers.
I personally agree that the gay rights crowd should be pushing for a universal ideal of a civil union, which would have the exact same privileges and protections as a "straight marriage", instead of going the "marriage or nothing route". A partial victory, in this case, is a VERY big step forward, and probably easier to sell (though still hard, since a large portion of people aren't mad at the marriage thing, but the "gay" thing).
Though I do think marriage should be allowed too, since there ARE churches and religions that have nothing against gay marriage. As for the "man and a woman" bit, I don't see why that is very important, it, too, is nothing but semantics. If we allow them all the rights, and privileges granted to straight "marriages", why not allow them to use the word too? My gay neighbors claiming to be married doesn't affect my own marriage.
This, though, is a semantic argument for another day. I don't mind people disagreeing wholly on the "marriage" issue, I only take issue with people who don't want to allow gay couples the full civil union (marriage in everything but name).
It is to protect you and your religious beliefs (or lack thereof) from the government. It is not to protect the government from you and your beliefs.
Not quite true. If the government has a religious agenda, it should also protect the citizens from this as well. Basically its to keep the government completely secular.
This is my beef against the anti-gay marriage folks, they are using the government as a vehicle to force their religious beliefs down others throats (same with the lifers, anti-stem cell folks, anti-evolutionists, and all other people trying to force their so-called truths down the throats of others who don't hold care or believe). Its hard to find a non-religious arguement against it, since having two gays married and living next door to you does absolutely negative to you, or society as a whole, barring religious doctrines that a lot of people don't buy.
Like most things in life: if you don't like it, don't do it. Don't like gay marriage, don't go gay and get married. Don't like abortions? Don't get one. That way you do what you think is best, and everyone else can live their lives as they see fit (as long as they don't harm the individual rights of others). Hell, if your strictly straight marriage works out, perhaps others will learn from you.
I believe, though, that "marriage" is indeed a religious institution, and I would argue that separation of church and state says that the State shouldn't dictate what "marriage" is and is not. I think we ultimately need two terms to distinguish between the civil union aspects of marriage and the religious aspects of marriage.
So, by denying gay marriage, we're restricting the freedom for some churches and religions to marry gays?
Not EVERY religion is irrationally biased against people because of who they want to have sex with, so by saying that no religion is allowed to marry them, your inflicting your bias on others. Is it also a grievous breach of the constitution to allow interracial marriages, or black/black marriages, even if some churches were (and are) opposed to these ideas?
Government should completely ignore the wishes of churches, and only focus on individual rights.