The hypocrisy of our "democracy"
"I'm not an ultraconservative when it comes to homosexuals. I have some wonderful friends who are homosexual, but I think marriage is between a man and a woman," said Ann Potocnak, 37, of Prince William County.
Alexis says: "I'm not ultraconservative when it comes to [blacks, latinos, native americans, jews, hispanics]. I have some WONDERFUL friends who are [blacks, latinos, native americans, jews, hispanics], but I think marriage is between two white people..."
I'm sorry, I didn't notice any difference in the logic here... Why should YOU have a right that someone else doesn't? I respect YOUR religious beliefs until you decide that they trump MY civil rights...
Next....
"I feel [same-sex couples] should have rights as far as benefits are concerned, but I feel marriage should be between a man and a woman," said Chris Murray, 36, a mortgage broker from Fairfax County. He said he realized that there was a chance the amendment would lead to the loss of legal rights for same-sex couples, but "you can't vote 'maybe' or 'kind of,' " he said.
So, basically, if you are gay, F your civil rights. I am an educated mortgage broker, but it never dawned on me that amendments and bills could be written so as to preserve specific rights, while excluding others. You don't say!?! Well gee, if I had known that... I wouldn't have just come off like an a-hole. (Yes, Lexi's a little annoyed)
The problem with our obsession with democracy is this: We are ruled by the will of the people, which, in some cases is probably good. However, when we are talking about minority groups, and protecting the rights of individuals within those groups, you are asking small portions of the population (<10% gay, for example) to persuade a majority of the public to see things their way. Same goes for immigrants (CAFTA and deportation), disabled persons (think stem cell research), and any other bona fide minority group with a social concern. We spend so much energy trying to "spread democracy", while patting ourselves on the back about how "fair" things are here, but they are only fair when you stand a chance at getting your point heard and considered. When you are willing to sacrifice someone else's rights to prove yours, how committed to "freedom" are you really?
Thank God we have civil rights guarantees! Oh wait... I wasn't using my civil rights anyway...
excerpts from Washington Post article.
Alexis says: "I'm not ultraconservative when it comes to [blacks, latinos, native americans, jews, hispanics]. I have some WONDERFUL friends who are [blacks, latinos, native americans, jews, hispanics], but I think marriage is between two white people..."
I'm sorry, I didn't notice any difference in the logic here... Why should YOU have a right that someone else doesn't? I respect YOUR religious beliefs until you decide that they trump MY civil rights...
Next....
"I feel [same-sex couples] should have rights as far as benefits are concerned, but I feel marriage should be between a man and a woman," said Chris Murray, 36, a mortgage broker from Fairfax County. He said he realized that there was a chance the amendment would lead to the loss of legal rights for same-sex couples, but "you can't vote 'maybe' or 'kind of,' " he said.
So, basically, if you are gay, F your civil rights. I am an educated mortgage broker, but it never dawned on me that amendments and bills could be written so as to preserve specific rights, while excluding others. You don't say!?! Well gee, if I had known that... I wouldn't have just come off like an a-hole. (Yes, Lexi's a little annoyed)
The problem with our obsession with democracy is this: We are ruled by the will of the people, which, in some cases is probably good. However, when we are talking about minority groups, and protecting the rights of individuals within those groups, you are asking small portions of the population (<10% gay, for example) to persuade a majority of the public to see things their way. Same goes for immigrants (CAFTA and deportation), disabled persons (think stem cell research), and any other bona fide minority group with a social concern. We spend so much energy trying to "spread democracy", while patting ourselves on the back about how "fair" things are here, but they are only fair when you stand a chance at getting your point heard and considered. When you are willing to sacrifice someone else's rights to prove yours, how committed to "freedom" are you really?
Thank God we have civil rights guarantees! Oh wait... I wasn't using my civil rights anyway...
excerpts from Washington Post article.
posted by ARP | 3:09 AM
1 Comments:
Did you realize that you had a research article about you and your blog?
I really didn't know you were down with WASPs. Man, and you thihnk you know somebody...
The world according to Arp: regulation of actin nucleation by the Arp2/3 complex
The coordination of cell shape change and locomotion requires that actin polymerization at the cell cortex be tightly controlled in response to both intracellular and extracellular cues. The Arp2/3 complex - an actin filament nucleating and organizing factor - appears to be a central player in the cellular control of actin assembly. Recently, a molecular pathway leading from key signalling molecules to actin filament nucleation by the Arp2/3 complex has been discovered. In this pathway, the GTPase Cdc42 acts in concert with WASP family proteins to activate the Arp2/3 complex. These findings have led to a more complete picture of the mechanism of actin filament generation and organization during cell motility.
Yeah, you know only one person would send you something so esoteric...holla.
Post a Comment
<< Home