Jump to content
Gay marriage isn't possible? Huh? Is the only thing that makes a marriage a marriage if the male part goes into the female part? What about heterosexual spouses who no longer have sex? They are not "married"? What about heterosexual couples who can't conceive children? Not married?
(You don't know many gay people, do you...)
As for the wording of R-74, here is how it appeared (see below). How is this misleading? It summarizes the main points of the bill that is being challenged:
"This bill would allow same-sex couples to marry, preserve domestic partnerships only for seniors, and preserve the right of clergy or religious organizations to refuse to perform, recognize, or accommodate any marriage ceremony.
Should this bill be:
Approved [ ]
Rejected [ ]"
Not too long ago, if you were an African-American family from Texas who wanted to take a family vacation to Florida, you had to think hard about the logistics of your trip. Where would you stay along the way? Where would you eat? Where could you use a restroom? Most motels and restaurants along that route were owned by whites and wouldn't serve them. Those of us who are white can hardly fathom what that must have been like to even have to think about such considerations.
It became clear at that time in our history that when someone opens a business to "the public" - and takes advantage of the public roads and signs and police protection and other publicly paid for services - that those business owners have an obligation to open their businesses to the whole public. We can't say "No Jews" or "No Negroes." Today, a majority of WA citizens believe we can no longer say "No Gays" either.
Yes, absolutely, it IS your business and you get to make 99% of the important decisions about your business because you earned that right when you created it. But you still have to obey the law, which includes not discriminating against whole groups of people who have been protected by law.
Do I equate Arlene in Richland with the segregated cafes of the old south? Not exactly. I understand that for the older generation of Americans, they grew up when the American Psychiatric Association still listed homosexuality as an illness, and for many, this new acceptance of homosexuality seems to be coming way too fast. But Southerners also grew up thinking God ordained a separation between the races, so what are you going to do? It has to stop somewhere. I do sympathize with Arlene, but people need to be treated fairly under the law.
So, silversage, you are saying that since virtually all universities and virtually all scientific organizations receive some government funding, that their conclusions - and their work reviewing the work of their peers - is all skewed in the direction of a government conspiracy to raise fears of climate change? And that this government agenda has apparently been communicated covertly to these scientists through Republican and Democratic administrations?
Or are you simply saying there is no government agenda except to provide funding for research, and that the real agenda belongs to virtually all the scientists in the worlds who are fabricating their results in order to tap into more research grants? They decided one day, "You know what? If we make up data about the climate changing, they'll have to fund our research for years!" Is that your theory?
You guys have to work really hard to avoid coming to the simpler and far more obvious conclusion: the vast majority of scientists are doing their best to do their jobs with integrity and are making discoveries about our climate that are uncomfortable for us to know how to handle.
I'd join you for a glass of wine.
Well, namvet, the earth isn't precisely round, as is noted by researchers back in the ...... hey, wait a minute, this is a trap. I'm not falling for it!
The "NASA scientists' point of view" to which you refer is a group of retired NASA folks, the leader of which appears to be an aerospace engineer, not a climate scientist. Why should I trust him over actual climate scientists whose work has been published in peer-reviewed journals?
In your second point above, you list a lot of data. Are you a published climate scientist? I'm certainly not. When I start hearing those kind of scientists say that man-made climate change is most likely a fiction, then that will persuade me. Until then, I am casting my lot with the most credible scientists. To do otherwise would be absurd.
Some people really don't want this to be true. Some people REALLY dislike Al Gore. Fine. I get it. I would also prefer this weren't true. Maybe it isn't. But it appears highly likely that it is. At least that's what the credible scientists are saying.
PearlY, each of my three qualifiers were intentional. The nature of science is to work in probabilities. The vast majority of credible scientists think it is highly probably that (a) climate change is occurring, and (b) that it is caused by man's activities.
I would be inaccurate to characterize it as 100% consensus that everything is known. I have been careful not to do so.
However, when the vast majority of credible scientists believe something to be true, and that it may have moderate to significant impacts on the earth over the next 100 years and beyond, I think a response is warranted.
It would be irresponsible to look at a comet coming at the earth and say, "You know, the scientists think there is a 10% chance that comet will miss the earth. Let's ignore it." Even with no guarantees of success, and even at great cost, an effort should be made to divert the comet before it hits.
We don't know how bad climate change will be, but most credible scientists are concerned about it. That makes me concerned too.
Yes, MyFamNews. I apologize that tone is sometimes hard to convey in writing....but yes.
Igor, the sub-headline in the article you cite from The Economist reads: "The climate may be heating up less in response to greenhouse-gas emissions than was once thought. But that does not mean the problem is going away." This article does not support your theory that this is a phony crisis.
I'm reading that the science from peer-reviewed climate scientists is quite strong that climate change is real and that it is likely caused primarily by man's activities. When credible scientific institutions and peer-reviewed scientists start saying otherwise, that will get my attention. To my knowledge, that is not happening in the credible, peer-reviewed scientific community.
Last login: today
2013 Best Of The Best Winners
The latest wine and dine news.
The Valley's people, wine & food.
Find your way around the Valley.
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2013 Union-Bulletin. All rights reserved.