Wait....so she's Dan Quayle? Really? Damn....and I'd have thought she at least ought to make a speech or three before something like that ought to rear its head. Thanks for making that clear, Deck.
Didn't Atlantic Monthly publish a "retraction" entitled something like "Dan Quayle Was Right After-all" or are you just referring to the potatoe (oops) fiasco?
Well, you were talking about how the candidates resemble the founders, not how they embody their ideals. The founders had a diverse range of political views, but they were completely homogeneous in terms of race and gender.
That was my distinct impression from hearing her speak after McCain introduced her. Feel free to disagree, obviously, but that's who she reminded me of. See my post above, giddy. And I sure as heck don't base my opinions on the Atlantic Monthly! (not that I care if anyone does, of course!) Also, my first impression could be unfair to Quayle.
I'm considering voting for the Libertarians this time and it has nothing to do with the race or gender of any of the candidates.
Saying that that was your 'first impression' and plainly referring to her as a 'female Dan Quayle,' who was (rightly or wrongly) pretty much thought to be a moron, are two pretty different things. In my humble opinion. Maybe she'll turn out to be completely ineffective and/or stupid or whatever. I'll at least give her time to prove it either way.
since you mention the classrom, it might be helpful if you educated your self a bit on her stance, and then came back and edited your comment accordingly. here's a good place to start. i've bolded some bits below to help you in your research. [rquoter] In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms: “I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.” She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state’s required curriculum. Members of the state school board, which sets minimum requirements, are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature. “I won’t have religion as a litmus test, or anybody’s personal opinion on evolution or creationism,” Palin said.[/rquoter]
I still don't get it how "sexual preference" is considered a minority group demanding equal rights off of the civil rights platform. That is ridiculous, it is a preference, their choice, or if they choose to claim so "how they are born"; even though many seem to change the idea how they are born many times throughout their lives. I am a firm believer that one should not be attacked because of sexual preference as adults dealing with adults. But, for those who think they can make their sexual preference known and then claim civil rights as a minority group, that is ridiculous. I don't want to know your sexual preference. Keep it to yourself and there will be no issue. Sexual preference or sexual orientation is a really gray area. It is also the preference or they could claim "orientation" of those who prefer it with children, "child molestation". The same with those who like farm animals. Or if that disgusts you, those who like to swing with multiple married partners. Or those that just like multiple married partners. Or those that like bondage, etc. The list goes on. My point being, whether legal or illegal, why bring a persons sexual orientation into question unless that person is making it known what their preference is which is no one else's business. If you like sex with five partners every night, that's your business. But don't try to say I have to like it or agree with it. As long as I am not oppressing you for it, that should be enough.
rocketsanalgesic, the point is discrimination. And yes, it's biological. 500 species show gay members. So, if you're gay, and you're out of the closet, should your boss be able to fire you when he finds out? You're doing a great job, excellent performance reviews, but you get fired because your boss doesn't like gay people. That's a civil issue, and a bunch of people in the US think that's bogus. likewise, if you beat someone up for the color of her skin, that's a hate crime. A bunch of people in the US, myself included, also think it should be a hate crime if you beat the crap out of someone because she was born liking other girls instead of boys. They don't get special treatment. Liberals tend to just want everyone to get the same fair shake. Radical notion, I realize.
You clearly have a far different view of gay rights and sexual preference than you do about women's rights, whether in the in the area of abortion or job discrimination, or the right of every American not to face discrimination based on the color of their skin. Discrimination based on sexual preference is no different, in my opinion. Your long list of (pardon me) lame examples of a gray area (farm animals? bondage? swingers? ...reaching much?) simply ignores the fact that millions are born with a biological preference for the same sex. Someday, this period of discrimination based on sexual preference will be seen as being akin to the long history of discrimination against those "of color" and discrimination against women because of their sex, and just as backward (I think ignorance, or worse, more to the mark, speaking of those who believe sexual preference is a "choice," but I'm trying to be civil to those who hold that belief). I find it fascinating that folks believing themselves to be "progressive" or "liberal" can have a blind spot when it comes to sexual orientation of either gender and that it is, in my opinion (I'm not alone, as numerous studies say the same thing) driven by a biological imperative no different than the biological imperative that drives men and women together to bond and have sexual relations. Oh, and what B-Bob said.
Couldn't the exact same thing be said about religious minorities? Actually your argument applies more to that. While there may be a gray area about how much a sexual orientation is determine by who someone is rather than what they choose, religion is by definition a belief that you have to choose to accept. Should we therefore turn a blind eye towards discrimination of people with a certain belief system?
So do you believe that creationism is an alternative to evolution? That's the problem. It is one thing to debate holes in evolution theory. That should be encouraged. It is another to put forward an alternative idea such "creationism" which isn't scientific at all, and has no evidence to support it unlike evolution.
