i have been thinking about this for a while, and a couple recent events here on the board have solidified my thinking.
first, seattleniceguy's triumph with the un posting a letter regarding the wts affiliation with the un.
it just shows that with a little combined effort we can accomplish alot.
Hello Brandon,
I'm interested in the idea of advertisements, but it's tricky to get the tone right. My biggest concern is that we would come across as mean-spirited. I think there are a lot of advertising avenues that could help people, though. I'd like to think more about it on this thread. Unfortunately, I don't have time to write down anything right now. But I'd be interested in hearing more discussion on this!
SNG
did our letter-writing campaign work?
http://www.un.org/dpi/ngosection/watchtower.pdf.
here are some lovely instructions drafted by syn, and hosted by valis, on how to navigate to the site yourself.. http://www.sassquatch.com/syn/un_ngo_letter/.
Woo hoo! That's awesome! It looks like our campaign worked - at least, tipped the scales. Thanks to Bonezz for the original idea, and everyone who wrote. We have the POWER!
SNG
.
i think bush is trying to screw this country one more time before he's voted out of office....
Phantom,
Just wanted to say I appreciated your clear handling of these different cases as they actually are, very different cases.
SNG
.
i think bush is trying to screw this country one more time before he's voted out of office....
Point taken, Phantom. I meant Yeru no disrespect. I know that my own views changed by having friends that were gay. One was a Witness, which prompted me to think a great deal about the terrible and never-ending struggle gay people would subject themselves to by trying to follow the Witness version of morality.
I think the issue also came into sharp focus for me when I left the organization, intentionally subjecting myself to the intense hatred of everyone I knew. Gay people have to undergo something similar (less and less, hopefully, as time goes on) when coming out of the closet. Why would anyone choose this kind of treatment? Only because they're being honest with themselves, not because on a whim they decide they want to have sex with someone of the same gender.
SNG
.
i think bush is trying to screw this country one more time before he's voted out of office....
Civil Rights and Gay Marriage have nothing to do with one another, even if CS King wants to make the leap. Being Black, or White, Or Asian is what you ARE, being gay, or straight, or bi is what you DO.
This explains a lot. Yeru, you ought to spend some time talking to gay people. Even here on the board, there are a lot of resources.
SNG
.
i think bush is trying to screw this country one more time before he's voted out of office....
those who were against it will end up being pretty embarrassed
That would be nice, Rem. Sadly, I think that many of those who oppose equal rights for gay people will go to their grave never having felt ashamed. I can't understand why anyone would feel good about not treating others fairly.
SNG
.
i think bush is trying to screw this country one more time before he's voted out of office....
Rem, that's a great idea. Really. That's awesome. I support your bid for the presidency in 2008.
SNG
.
i think bush is trying to screw this country one more time before he's voted out of office....
Yeru said:
No, a driver's license isn't denied on the basis of race, gender, etc, it CAN be denied for reasons of testing...inability, etc. What's your point?
Yeru, the point, which you make very well, is that the license is granted without regard to immaterial things like race, gender, etc. If you show me where gay people are somehow less qualified or less able to be married, I'll support your position.
SNG
.
i think bush is trying to screw this country one more time before he's voted out of office....
Phantom said:
in a document that was intended to set forth basic rights
To me, this is the really ironic thing. The constitution is about establishing rights, protecting them, not about hedging people off from them. It just seems like such a gigantic step backward for Bush to be proposing this. How about an amendment giving the vote only to men? After all, "society has known for millenia" that only men should be involved in politics, right? Isn't allowing women to vote "an assualt on traditional values"?
The point is, sometimes definitions change because society moves forward into enlightenment. Bush keeps crying about how "activist judges" are redefining marriage. How can this redefinition possibly hurt heterosexuals?
The biggest beef I have with religious values is that in many cases they seem to prevent people from using their brains. All Bush can fall back on is, "Well, that's the way it's always been done. It's an attack on traditional values!" not, "Is it really right? Rationally, logically, is it right?"
I'm in such shock about this. If it really did get into ratification process, I would definitely demonstrate against it. We need to lead the world in fairness and equity, not small-mindedness and bigotry.
SNG
Farkel:
Okay, about the grammar...I realize you know your stuff. I was responding to what I perceived as you trying to beat up your opponents with an air of intellectual superiority, which angers me to no small degree. I suppose I thought I'd give you a taste of your own medicine. Let's put that little episode behind us.
I have to say I was heartened to hear that you disagree with Bush's insane push for a constitutional amendment. My goodness. How can this man be leading the free world? Leading us back to the dark ages, he is.
But I still had to disagree with you one one point:
I do have a problem with foreigners who have "authority" like Simon using that "authority" as a soapbox in an attempt (possibly) to attempt to change the opinion of genuine American voters.
Come on, man. That is absurd. In your world, no one in any perceived position of authority should make a political statement. After all, would it not represent that person using his position of authority as a soapbox? Are you saying that the mere act of making an opinion on this board represents a misuse of his authority? Simon did not say, "As Supreme Adminstrator of this board, I declare that Bush shall not be President in 2004."
And what's this about changing the opinion of "genuine American voters"? What, voters aren't intelligent to listen to a variety of political opinions and make an informed choice? Voters are going to be bowled over by the glorious soapboxes of authoritative foreigners? I will refer you to a quote from Thomas Jefferson:
I know of no safe repository of the ultimate power of society but the people. And if we think them not enlightened enough, the remedy is not to take power from them, but to inform them by education.Forgive me if I'm understanding you incorrectly, but it sounds to me like you think the common voter "not enlightened enough" - that without carefully guarding them from thoughts and opinions which may be persuasive or even come from "foreigners who have 'authority,' " they might quickly have their senses overwhelmed and their genuine American opinions changed! I say, the more political dialogue we have, the better. I'd like to see everyone comment, from least to greatest on any scale of authority, real or imagined. I honestly can think of no legitimate reason to supress anyone's ideas, least of all by calling them "obviously prejudiced" and accusing that person of abusing authority. SNG
