No, you provided your own definition, which is neither supported by the literature nor the scientific consensus.
I posted THE Definitions of three very old terms
all of which have recognised correct definitions
science uses our words so it uses them OUR way
It is also the logical fallacy of bifurcation. And no one person, "invented the words".
we did you know
They slowly became to be used in English over time and can have many different meanings. The way a person who specializes in human sexuality research is likely to use those terms varies greatly from how someone from the slums of New Dehli or the Australian outback might.
you mean someone whose job it is to pretend there are more than there are?
oh and in Dehli they speak a different language
the Australians speak English but frankly if they speak fast I have to ask them to repeat it sometimes
Kinesey's scale was not "wrong". It was simply zoological in nature and cannot be proved or disproved.
so you admit its bogus
It is the basis of how modern researchers define the spectrum of sexuality. The demographic information Kinsey included in his report is irrelevant to anything I have written given that I have only used modern sources of high quality, containing the responses of over 100,000 Americans.
chosen from among the wrong group and not globally applicable
The University of California at Los Angeles is one of the premiere universities in the world.
Sorry ????
WHAT??
I see that when you lack scientific evidence, you simply assert you are correct (without valid sources) and then attempt ad hominem attacks against my country's greatest State.
science and language
your arguing based on BAD social science
Im correcting based on actual language
example "universe" there is exactly ONE universe "uni" means ONE
BI means "two of" so Bisexual "two sexual interests" BIcycle "two wheeled cycle"
Look its clear you do not like the idea that TRIBBLE people are naturally occurring in a tiny fraction
but we need to tolerate them as we do any other minority
they are people just like everyone else (and less of a problem than some)
Not so much
" a person practicing the Jewish faith OR having a Jewish mother"
(Quoting my friend Ruth who IS one(a Jewish mother))
That definition only applies to Orthodox practitioners of Judaism and only refers to who is considered a Jew in the eyes of the Orthodox sects (and you forgot to include converts). The general use of the phrase Jew or Jewish is the one I provided.
Hebrew a language of the semitic grouping and the genetic decendants of Abrahams line
by his younger son
No, it is not. Even if we accept that Abraham was truly a person, his "decendants" (id est the Hebrews) have spoken many Semitic languages (such as Aramaic, Assyrian, and Arabic) which are most certainly not Hebrew. Hebrew is the language and the primary alphabet of the Hebrew family of languages, primarily modern and ancient Hebrew.
I admit, I forgot to check the paper. The rulings turned out exactly as I expected they would. Congratulations to those who worked hard for equal rights. My fellow Californians will soon be able to have their marriages legally recognized in this State and my fellow service-members will soon have the same marriage benefits regardless of their orientation.
Which ironically funny that the voters of CA clearly voted 52.24% in favor of Prop 8. No sense in having democratic elections when courts just go against the voters wishes.
I posted THE Definitions of three very old terms
all of which have recognised correct definitions
science uses our words so it uses them OUR way
we did you know
you mean someone whose job it is to pretend there are more than there are?
oh and in Dehli they speak a different language
the Australians speak English but frankly if they speak fast I have to ask them to repeat it sometimes
so you admit its bogus
chosen from among the wrong group and not globally applicable
Sorry ????
WHAT??
science and language
your arguing based on BAD social science
Im correcting based on actual language
example "universe" there is exactly ONE universe "uni" means ONE
BI means "two of" so Bisexual "two sexual interests" BIcycle "two wheeled cycle"
Look its clear you do not like the idea that TRIBBLE people are naturally occurring in a tiny fraction
but we need to tolerate them as we do any other minority
they are people just like everyone else (and less of a problem than some)
Scientists do not use words as the common lay people use them. To argue otherwise, you would have to argue that, for instance the common definition of a theory (someone's unproven idea) means the same as the scientific usage of a theory (a testable, falsifiable, natural explanation for observed phenomena).
Work, according to the dictionary, does not usually include the scientific definition of the position derivative of time(dx/dt * dt) multiplied by force and integrated over time (t1-t2). Just like physicists have a whole set of definition of work you would not find in Webster's, sexuality researchers have a whole set of definitions of sexuality that would not exist in a standard dictionary. Additionally, how such terms are defined is an ongoing debate and research that is still occurring today.
Also, the dictionary is hardly the clear arbiter you think it to be. For instance, Webster's defines homosexual as, 'Of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex".
Nowhere in that definition do they provide a clear delineation between what desires are homosexual and what are not. For instance, if you are sexually attracted to someone whom you believe is a woman but they are indeed a man, then are you are homosexual? According to Webster's, you fit the definition.
Scientists do not use words as the common lay people use them.
scientists ARE common lay people
Social sciences are not the clergy
To argue otherwise, you would have to argue that, for instance the common definition of a theory (someone's unproven idea) means the same as the scientific usage of a theory (a testable, falsifiable, natural explanation for observed phenomena).
A theory "unproven idea"
Work, according to the dictionary, does not usually include the scientific definition of the position derivative of time(dx/dt * dt) multiplied by force and integrated over time (t1-t2). Just like physicists have a whole set of definition of work you would not find in Webster's, sexuality researchers have a whole set of definitions of sexuality that would not exist in a standard dictionary. Additionally, how such terms are defined is an ongoing debate and research that is still occurring today.
so physicists like to make stuff up as well
yes we are all familiar with "dark matter" "super string" and of course "Fractal geometry"
however the correct definitions are usually the oldest
and trying to create groups just to persecute them is a bad idea
Also, the dictionary is hardly the clear arbiter you think it to be. For instance, Webster's defines homosexual as, 'Of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex".
but websters is a relatively new dictionary
Nowhere in that definition do they provide a clear delineation between what desires are homosexual and what are not. For instance, if you are sexually attracted to someone whom you believe is a woman but they are indeed a man, then are you are homosexual?
no you are one of three things
"Drunk"
"partially sighted"
"in Thailand"
Which ironically funny that the voters of CA clearly voted 52.24% in favor of Prop 8. No sense in having democratic elections when courts just go against the voters wishes.
And if the Civil Rights Act had been subjected to Popular Vote, it would have never passed in the south, in the 60s... that's why CIVIL RIGHTS should NEVER be up for POPULAR VOTE.
And still no one has given a clear and precise reason that 2% of the population is placed upon a pedestal.
If we were "placed on a pedestal" then LGBT teens wouldn't be more than 50% more likely to commit suicide. There wouldn't be TRIBBLE bashings in the streets and TRIBBLE people could marry, live together and have the same rights as everybody else all across the world.
These events (pride, marches etc) are held in a regard to shine light on the plight of people being oppressed, not to make out we're better or more deserving. It's easy for a majority to forget that minorities are not always treated the same as they are.
Which ironically funny that the voters of CA clearly voted 52.24% in favor of Prop 8. No sense in having democratic elections when courts just go against the voters wishes.
Luckily 'majority rule' does not apply to rights. If it did then women and black people would never have gotten equal rights.
Join date is wrong, I've actually been around since STO Beta.
True alters don't have a "main". Account wide unlocks for all unique event rewards!!
scientists ARE common lay people
Social sciences are not the clergy
A theory "unproven idea"
so physicists like to make stuff up as well
yes we are all familiar with "dark matter" "super string" and of course "Fractal geometry"
however the correct definitions are usually the oldest
and trying to create groups just to persecute them is a bad idea
but websters is a relatively new dictionary
no you are one of three things
"Drunk"
"partially sighted"
"in Thailand"
but not the actual definition
Since you are so fond of the dictionary, you might want to use it. Once, centuries ago, the laity may have referred exclusively to non-clergy, but the enlightenment was long ago. Today, a lay person is someone who is not a member of certain highly skilled professions, especially non-scientists (as opposed to those who work or were educated in the sciences.
As a lay person not educated in the sciences, you are not likely to understand how scientists use the term theory. If you had, for instance, read the work of Karl Popper, you might indeed understand what the scientific usage of the word "theory" is, and how it differs dramatically from how lay people commonly use it.
Physicists do not "make stuff up". They create models of nature and this empirically test those models. Like any profession, physics has its own vocabulary. Words are not static things with a correct definition. They are ever-evolving things which may have many different meanings at different points in time and location and in different cultures or social groups.
There is no "correct" or "official" definition of a word. All dictionaries do is attempt to document how a particular word is currently used and how it may have been used in the past. They generally only look at how words are used in the culture at large in a particular area (such as Websters focusing on the US and Oxford on the UK) and may not include how they are used by specific subcultures or professional groups.
If we were "placed on a pedestal" then LGBT teens wouldn't be more than 50% more likely to commit suicide. There wouldn't be TRIBBLE bashings in the streets and TRIBBLE people could marry, live together and have the same rights as everybody else all across the world.
These events (pride, marches etc) are held in a regard to shine light on the plight of people being oppressed, not to make out we're better or more deserving. It's easy for a majority to forget that minorities are not always treated the same as they are.
Luckily 'majority rule' does not apply to rights. If it did then women and black people would never have gotten equal rights.
I think the pedestal he refers to is the one Iran forces homosexuals to stand on as they tie the noose around their necks. In the United States we have come a long way in treating homosexuals are equal members of society, as evidenced by today's Supreme Court rulings. However, we still have a ways to go before our society, much less the world, treats people with the tolerance shown on Star Trek.
It is important to remember that not too many decades ago, the California Supreme Court was the first to overturn anti-miscegenation laws. It took three quarters of a century, but soon same-sex weddings will once again be taking place at courthouses around the State. With the demise of DOMA, the other 49 States and the federal government will likely have to recognize these marriages as legal.
but the civil rights thing would have passed
it was only a matter of time
people are basically good
they are indeed basically human
given time (and no riots) rights always come
And that was why I stated... "in the 60s" .. because at the time, if the CRA had been up to popular vote, it would NOT have passed.. reading comprehension?
"given time (and no riots) rights always come" - Uh, I won't argue the 'riots' but rights have not been given freely. They have been fought for.. Women's right to vote wasn't freely given, it was fought for. The the civil rights were not freely given, they were fought for (and if you believe that lynching people for their skin color isn't a reason for riots, I don't know what to tell you...).
Do you really believe that "human rights" occur in a vacuum? Do you honestly think that without fighting for the "minorities" that the majorities would actually change?
Yes, and I personally know *several* families in Texas that still want to Confederacy to rise again, so they can own slaves.. <sigh>
Granted, the South is much more tolerant than it once was. In 2000, Alabama finally removed its law against interracial marriage from the books, proving at least that 6 out of every 10 Alabama voters had some amount of tolerance when it came to voting out an unenforceable, racist law. As for the other 40%? Well, hopefully some of them have died in the last decade.
Luckily 'majority rule' does not apply to rights. If it did then women and black people would never have gotten equal rights.
Don't like the way the people vote, you go running and crying to the courts. In states that people vote the way you want them to your hail that as a victory. Nice way to pick and choose how you want "civil rights" to be granted.
Don't like the way the people vote, you go running and crying to the courts. In states that people vote the way you want them to your hail that as a victory. Nice way to pick and choose how you want "civil rights" to be granted.
Are you implying that suffrage and Civil Rights Act *shouldn't have been fought for?
Don't like the way the people vote, you go running and crying to the courts. In states that people vote the way you want them to your hail that as a victory. Nice way to pick and choose how you want "civil rights" to be granted.
For one, I'm not American.
Secondly, is that your way of saying that women shouldn't have equal rights? Since majority vote didn't want that either.
Join date is wrong, I've actually been around since STO Beta.
True alters don't have a "main". Account wide unlocks for all unique event rewards!!
Since you are so fond of the dictionary, you might want to use it. Once, centuries ago, the laity may have referred exclusively to non-clergy, but the enlightenment was long ago.
hardly
Today, a lay person is someone who is not a member of certain highly skilled professions, especially non-scientists (as opposed to those who work or were educated in the sciences.
scientists are not "highly skilled"
Surgeons are
Engineers are
portrait artists are
Scientists are not skilled they are educated
As a lay person not educated in the sciences, you are not likely to understand how scientists use the term theory.
Boy did you get THAT wrong
my education is at a standard normal for my society (that means I went to university and have degrees)
Theory means "unproven idea"
nothing more nothing less
the big bang is a theory
so is big foot
one of these is a likely theory the other isn't
If you had, for instance, read the work of Karl Popper, you might indeed understand what the scientific usage of the word "theory" is, and how it differs dramatically from how lay people commonly use it.
And if you had read Stevenson (as in the man who invented the steam engine known as the rocket) you would know that "scientists and inventors are only as good as their information"
Physicists do not "make stuff up".
yes they do
They create models of nature and this empirically test those models.
nope
Like any profession, physics has its own vocabulary.
yes as once their forebears used the language "gibberish"
Words are not static things with a correct definition.
umm
Yes actually they are
They are ever-evolving things which may have many different meanings at different points in time and location and in different cultures or social groups.
you may have them confused with flat worms
There is no "correct" or "official" definition of a word.
yes there is
and if you want a modern English one its the Oxford English dictionary
BUT if its a latin or Greek term its meaning is static for all time
All dictionaries do is attempt to document how a particular word is currently used and how it may have been used in the past. They generally only look at how words are used in the culture at large in a particular area (such as Websters focusing on the US and Oxford on the UK) and may not include how they are used by specific subcultures or professional groups.
you could also try "the concise dictionary of scientific terms"
published by Fuller
it defines words as they are used by science
If we were "placed on a pedestal" then LGBT teens wouldn't be more than 50% more likely to commit suicide. There wouldn't be TRIBBLE bashings in the streets and TRIBBLE people could marry, live together and have the same rights as everybody else all across the world.
should really not lump Transgender in with TRIBBLE or Bi
three very different groups
but yes you should be safe to walk the streets
Marriage is a contentious issue in most countries and especially now the USA has declared it nul
It is important to remember that not too many decades ago, the California Supreme Court was the first to overturn anti-miscegenation laws. It took three quarters of a century, but soon same-sex weddings will once again be taking place at courthouses around the State. With the demise of DOMA, the other 49 States and the federal government will likely have to recognize these marriages as legal.
Or maybe you will get riots
And that was why I stated... "in the 60s" .. because at the time, if the CRA had been up to popular vote, it would NOT have passed.. reading comprehension?
maybe if there had been no riots
"given time (and no riots) rights always come" - Uh, I won't argue the 'riots' but rights have not been given freely.
actually they are
They have been fought for.. Women's right to vote wasn't freely given, it was fought for.
it was earned in the factories of ww1
The the civil rights were not freely given, they were fought for (and if you believe that lynching people for their skin color isn't a reason for riots, I don't know what to tell you...).
Riots make it worse
always have
Do you really believe that "human rights" occur in a vacuum? Do you honestly think that without fighting for the "minorities" that the majorities would actually change?
human rights occur when men of good conscience sit down and talk
million man marches and petrol bombs just slow things down
For one, I'm not American.
Secondly, is that your way of saying that women shouldn't have equal rights? Since majority vote didn't want that either.
If you are not American then none of this really concerns you. This is between the voting citizens of the United States. Secondly, your statement is just as absurd as the "since the 2nd Amendment says we have the right to bare arms, does that mean you also want nukes?!?"
Are you implying that suffrage and Civil Rights Act *shouldn't have been fought for?
It has nothing to do with fighting. It has to do with how gays want to pick and choose what election results they want to accept and which ones they want to run and scream to the courts over. You either accept all the results or you accept none. Cant be 50/50 on what you will take.
If you are not American then none of this really concerns you. This is between the voting citizens of the United States. Secondly, your statement is just as absurd as the "since the 2nd Amendment says we have the right to bare arms, does that mean you also want nukes?!?"
Wow, that statement reeks of "nothing outside the USA exists"... Of course it concerns me, I'm a person on planet Earth and equality should matter to all of us no matter our race, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or religion.
That's hardly a comparative analysis of my second comment. You said that if we don't get the vote we want, we run to the courts... By that logic women wouldn't have rights if they didn't go above the call of public votes, neither would ethnic minorities for that matter. Going above the call of the citizens is common practice, especially when it comes to rights as only courts have the power to make or amend rights, not the general public.
That said, yes we do celebrate when a majority vote returns in favour of equality, why wouldn't we? Celebrating that a majority of people in a specific area are now no longer wanting to deny equality is worthy of cheer. But just because a majority may wish to withhold those rights, does not make it acceptable.
Join date is wrong, I've actually been around since STO Beta.
True alters don't have a "main". Account wide unlocks for all unique event rewards!!
Wow, that statement reeks of "nothing outside the USA exists"... Of course it concerns me, I'm a person on planet Earth and equality should matter to all of us no matter our race, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or religion.
That's hardly a comparative analysis of my second comment. You said that if we don't get the vote we want, we run to the courts... By that logic women wouldn't have rights if they didn't go above the call of public votes, neither would ethnic minorities for that matter. Going above the call of the citizens is common practice, especially when it comes to rights as only courts have the power to make or amend rights, not the general public.
That said, yes we do celebrate when a majority vote returns in favour of equality, why wouldn't we? Celebrating that a majority of people in a specific area are now no longer wanting to deny equality is worthy of cheer. But just because a majority may wish to withhold those rights, does not make it acceptable.
Not American, not your issue.
It is not a comparative analysis, I thought that might previous statement made that clear enough. I was clearly showing you the absurdity of the comparing this to the whole woman's rights issue.
And running around in circles for a THIRD TIME; you cannot pick and choose what election results you are willing to accept and what not to accept. But since as you stated that you are not an American, this clearly doesn't pertain to you.
WW1 (immediately before 1920)
factories in the UK (you know the people who were leading the movement)
and hate to break it to you Rosie is a fictional character
Hmm.. Stonewall Riots... USA. The guest blog written is concerning the US television show, Star Trek, and it's socially advanced portrayal of how our Utopian future *could be* ... I followed the topic.. and posted the US perspective, and date concerning suffrage. What are YOU talking about??
And, I am fully aware "Rosie" is fictional, that's what the link to a wiki article on her was for.
It is not a comparative analysis, I thought that might previous statement made that clear enough. I was clearly showing you the absurdity of the comparing this to the whole woman's rights issue.
And running around in circles for a THIRD TIME; you cannot pick and choose what election results you are willing to accept and what not to accept. But since as you stated that you are not an American, this clearly doesn't pertain to you.
Be off now.
I am an American... so let me ask you... had suffrage NOT passed, are you saying that women, and those that supported their rights, should not have kept fighting? Or are you saying that they should have packed away their picket signs and said, "the powers that be have made their decree... we can all go home now, and give up the idea of ever having the right to vote.."?
It is not a comparative analysis, I thought that might previous statement made that clear enough. I was clearly showing you the absurdity of the comparing this to the whole woman's rights issue.
And running around in circles for a THIRD TIME; you cannot pick and choose what election results you are willing to accept and what not to accept. But since as you stated that you are not an American, this clearly doesn't pertain to you.
Be off now.
You're an arrogant idiot and I've no interest in continuing this.
Join date is wrong, I've actually been around since STO Beta.
True alters don't have a "main". Account wide unlocks for all unique event rewards!!
yes we know
put back their cause by a decade or more probably
The guest blog written is concerning the US television show, Star Trek
,
Bingo the INTERNATONAL show Star trek
and it's socially advanced portrayal of how our Utopian future *could be* ... I followed the topic.. and posted the US perspective, and date concerning suffrage. What are YOU talking about??
the rest of the worlds perspective
And, I am fully aware "Rosie" is fictional, that's what the link to a wiki article on her was for.
Cheer up so were the women drawn on most of the posters of the period overseas
Comments
I posted THE Definitions of three very old terms
all of which have recognised correct definitions
science uses our words so it uses them OUR way
we did you know
you mean someone whose job it is to pretend there are more than there are?
oh and in Dehli they speak a different language
the Australians speak English but frankly if they speak fast I have to ask them to repeat it sometimes
so you admit its bogus
chosen from among the wrong group and not globally applicable
Sorry ????
WHAT??
science and language
your arguing based on BAD social science
Im correcting based on actual language
example "universe" there is exactly ONE universe "uni" means ONE
BI means "two of" so Bisexual "two sexual interests" BIcycle "two wheeled cycle"
Look its clear you do not like the idea that TRIBBLE people are naturally occurring in a tiny fraction
but we need to tolerate them as we do any other minority
they are people just like everyone else (and less of a problem than some)
That definition only applies to Orthodox practitioners of Judaism and only refers to who is considered a Jew in the eyes of the Orthodox sects (and you forgot to include converts). The general use of the phrase Jew or Jewish is the one I provided.
No, it is not. Even if we accept that Abraham was truly a person, his "decendants" (id est the Hebrews) have spoken many Semitic languages (such as Aramaic, Assyrian, and Arabic) which are most certainly not Hebrew. Hebrew is the language and the primary alphabet of the Hebrew family of languages, primarily modern and ancient Hebrew.
People do not convert to the Jewish ethnicity; they convert to the Judaic religion.
I was not alive in the 1970's. But yes, William Shatner is a religion unto himself.:D
Which ironically funny that the voters of CA clearly voted 52.24% in favor of Prop 8. No sense in having democratic elections when courts just go against the voters wishes.
Scientists do not use words as the common lay people use them. To argue otherwise, you would have to argue that, for instance the common definition of a theory (someone's unproven idea) means the same as the scientific usage of a theory (a testable, falsifiable, natural explanation for observed phenomena).
Work, according to the dictionary, does not usually include the scientific definition of the position derivative of time(dx/dt * dt) multiplied by force and integrated over time (t1-t2). Just like physicists have a whole set of definition of work you would not find in Webster's, sexuality researchers have a whole set of definitions of sexuality that would not exist in a standard dictionary. Additionally, how such terms are defined is an ongoing debate and research that is still occurring today.
Also, the dictionary is hardly the clear arbiter you think it to be. For instance, Webster's defines homosexual as, 'Of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex".
Nowhere in that definition do they provide a clear delineation between what desires are homosexual and what are not. For instance, if you are sexually attracted to someone whom you believe is a woman but they are indeed a man, then are you are homosexual? According to Webster's, you fit the definition.
scientists ARE common lay people
Social sciences are not the clergy
A theory "unproven idea"
so physicists like to make stuff up as well
yes we are all familiar with "dark matter" "super string" and of course "Fractal geometry"
however the correct definitions are usually the oldest
and trying to create groups just to persecute them is a bad idea
but websters is a relatively new dictionary
no you are one of three things
"Drunk"
"partially sighted"
"in Thailand"
but not the actual definition
And if the Civil Rights Act had been subjected to Popular Vote, it would have never passed in the south, in the 60s... that's why CIVIL RIGHTS should NEVER be up for POPULAR VOTE.
probably easier than you think
Are you kidding me? I grew up in the south.. how old are you, and where did you grow up?
and in Cyprus
but the civil rights thing would have passed
it was only a matter of time
people are basically good
they are indeed basically human
given time (and no riots) rights always come
If we were "placed on a pedestal" then LGBT teens wouldn't be more than 50% more likely to commit suicide. There wouldn't be TRIBBLE bashings in the streets and TRIBBLE people could marry, live together and have the same rights as everybody else all across the world.
These events (pride, marches etc) are held in a regard to shine light on the plight of people being oppressed, not to make out we're better or more deserving. It's easy for a majority to forget that minorities are not always treated the same as they are.
Luckily 'majority rule' does not apply to rights. If it did then women and black people would never have gotten equal rights.
Since you are so fond of the dictionary, you might want to use it. Once, centuries ago, the laity may have referred exclusively to non-clergy, but the enlightenment was long ago. Today, a lay person is someone who is not a member of certain highly skilled professions, especially non-scientists (as opposed to those who work or were educated in the sciences.
As a lay person not educated in the sciences, you are not likely to understand how scientists use the term theory. If you had, for instance, read the work of Karl Popper, you might indeed understand what the scientific usage of the word "theory" is, and how it differs dramatically from how lay people commonly use it.
Physicists do not "make stuff up". They create models of nature and this empirically test those models. Like any profession, physics has its own vocabulary. Words are not static things with a correct definition. They are ever-evolving things which may have many different meanings at different points in time and location and in different cultures or social groups.
There is no "correct" or "official" definition of a word. All dictionaries do is attempt to document how a particular word is currently used and how it may have been used in the past. They generally only look at how words are used in the culture at large in a particular area (such as Websters focusing on the US and Oxford on the UK) and may not include how they are used by specific subcultures or professional groups.
I think the pedestal he refers to is the one Iran forces homosexuals to stand on as they tie the noose around their necks. In the United States we have come a long way in treating homosexuals are equal members of society, as evidenced by today's Supreme Court rulings. However, we still have a ways to go before our society, much less the world, treats people with the tolerance shown on Star Trek.
It is important to remember that not too many decades ago, the California Supreme Court was the first to overturn anti-miscegenation laws. It took three quarters of a century, but soon same-sex weddings will once again be taking place at courthouses around the State. With the demise of DOMA, the other 49 States and the federal government will likely have to recognize these marriages as legal.
And that was why I stated... "in the 60s" .. because at the time, if the CRA had been up to popular vote, it would NOT have passed.. reading comprehension?
"given time (and no riots) rights always come" - Uh, I won't argue the 'riots' but rights have not been given freely. They have been fought for.. Women's right to vote wasn't freely given, it was fought for. The the civil rights were not freely given, they were fought for (and if you believe that lynching people for their skin color isn't a reason for riots, I don't know what to tell you...).
Do you really believe that "human rights" occur in a vacuum? Do you honestly think that without fighting for the "minorities" that the majorities would actually change?
There are still places in the South where public schools have segregated proms. :rolleyes:
Yes, and I personally know *several* families in Texas that still want to Confederacy to rise again, so they can own slaves.. <sigh>
Granted, the South is much more tolerant than it once was. In 2000, Alabama finally removed its law against interracial marriage from the books, proving at least that 6 out of every 10 Alabama voters had some amount of tolerance when it came to voting out an unenforceable, racist law. As for the other 40%? Well, hopefully some of them have died in the last decade.
Don't like the way the people vote, you go running and crying to the courts. In states that people vote the way you want them to your hail that as a victory. Nice way to pick and choose how you want "civil rights" to be granted.
Are you implying that suffrage and Civil Rights Act *shouldn't have been fought for?
For one, I'm not American.
Secondly, is that your way of saying that women shouldn't have equal rights? Since majority vote didn't want that either.
hardly
scientists are not "highly skilled"
Surgeons are
Engineers are
portrait artists are
Scientists are not skilled they are educated
Boy did you get THAT wrong
my education is at a standard normal for my society (that means I went to university and have degrees)
Theory means "unproven idea"
nothing more nothing less
the big bang is a theory
so is big foot
one of these is a likely theory the other isn't
And if you had read Stevenson (as in the man who invented the steam engine known as the rocket) you would know that "scientists and inventors are only as good as their information"
yes they do
nope
yes as once their forebears used the language "gibberish"
umm
Yes actually they are
you may have them confused with flat worms
yes there is
and if you want a modern English one its the Oxford English dictionary
BUT if its a latin or Greek term its meaning is static for all time
you could also try "the concise dictionary of scientific terms"
published by Fuller
it defines words as they are used by science
should really not lump Transgender in with TRIBBLE or Bi
three very different groups
but yes you should be safe to walk the streets
Marriage is a contentious issue in most countries and especially now the USA has declared it nul
Or maybe you will get riots
maybe if there had been no riots
actually they are
it was earned in the factories of ww1
Riots make it worse
always have
human rights occur when men of good conscience sit down and talk
million man marches and petrol bombs just slow things down
If you are not American then none of this really concerns you. This is between the voting citizens of the United States. Secondly, your statement is just as absurd as the "since the 2nd Amendment says we have the right to bare arms, does that mean you also want nukes?!?"
It has nothing to do with fighting. It has to do with how gays want to pick and choose what election results they want to accept and which ones they want to run and scream to the courts over. You either accept all the results or you accept none. Cant be 50/50 on what you will take.
Wow, that statement reeks of "nothing outside the USA exists"... Of course it concerns me, I'm a person on planet Earth and equality should matter to all of us no matter our race, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or religion.
That's hardly a comparative analysis of my second comment. You said that if we don't get the vote we want, we run to the courts... By that logic women wouldn't have rights if they didn't go above the call of public votes, neither would ethnic minorities for that matter. Going above the call of the citizens is common practice, especially when it comes to rights as only courts have the power to make or amend rights, not the general public.
That said, yes we do celebrate when a majority vote returns in favour of equality, why wouldn't we? Celebrating that a majority of people in a specific area are now no longer wanting to deny equality is worthy of cheer. But just because a majority may wish to withhold those rights, does not make it acceptable.
Um.. Think you may have the wars there confused.
Suffrage, in the US was voted in on June 4, 1920.. Women in factories was iconicized by Rosie the Riveter during WWII...
Wanna try again?
WW1 (immediately before 1920)
factories in the UK (you know the people who were leading the movement)
and hate to break it to you Rosie is a fictional character
Not American, not your issue.
It is not a comparative analysis, I thought that might previous statement made that clear enough. I was clearly showing you the absurdity of the comparing this to the whole woman's rights issue.
And running around in circles for a THIRD TIME; you cannot pick and choose what election results you are willing to accept and what not to accept. But since as you stated that you are not an American, this clearly doesn't pertain to you.
Be off now.
ask the courts in Florida
Hmm.. Stonewall Riots... USA. The guest blog written is concerning the US television show, Star Trek, and it's socially advanced portrayal of how our Utopian future *could be* ... I followed the topic.. and posted the US perspective, and date concerning suffrage. What are YOU talking about??
And, I am fully aware "Rosie" is fictional, that's what the link to a wiki article on her was for.
I am an American... so let me ask you... had suffrage NOT passed, are you saying that women, and those that supported their rights, should not have kept fighting? Or are you saying that they should have packed away their picket signs and said, "the powers that be have made their decree... we can all go home now, and give up the idea of ever having the right to vote.."?
You're an arrogant idiot and I've no interest in continuing this.
yes we know
put back their cause by a decade or more probably
,
Bingo the INTERNATONAL show Star trek
the rest of the worlds perspective
Cheer up so were the women drawn on most of the posters of the period overseas