So. Where I'm from, in Washington, there's an election being held right now. Points are being charted as we speak. Sooner or later, the scores will be drawn.
What I'm hoping for is some real change. I'm tired of the same shenanigans that we've blindly accepted in the last ... well, how many terms HAS Murray served? And by "we" I mean, Washingtonians as a whole. Who clearly are blind.
You'd have to be to base your vote for someone solely on their contribution to the GLBT agenda. Since this is what the news media has jumped on, I will too. What else has she done? Give me some proof-positives of her other contribution(s) that have improved the situation in Washington in the last two years.
How supporting the GLBT agenda benefits the entire state of Washington is a mystery. If you can shed some light on the subject, feel free to comment (scroll to the end of this entry). You may do so anonymously, if you wish to.
Side Note:: To me, the GLBT agenda falls under a type of religion. Argue what you will, they have a belief/beliefs they are pushing on others and require tolerance be given them -- if not outright acceptance.
It's time for Murray to GO.
There should be a cap on how many consecutive terms a person may serve. It's ridiculous.
I think it worked back in the day because the life expectancy rate was so much lower. But I guess, that would be the down side of a prospering health care industry ...
Pensare, "to think."
As our world continues to plummet into darkness, I encourage you to not only think hard but also think well.
subscribe
Posts
Comments
recommended reading
http://twitter.com/#!/dominiquejoelle
Pensare, "to think."
As our world continues to plummet into darkness, I encourage you to not only think hard but also think well.
I do not support one-issue voting.
ReplyDeleteI do, however, think that supporting the GLBT community (avoided the term agenda as you have left it undefined) does benefit the state, and indeed the entire nation.
The philosophical justification I provide for this is that tolerance of other people-groups improves the entire socio-political conversation, not just the happiness of the GLBT community.
This argument is supported by examples from recent history, including the Civil Rights movement. Supporting the African American community per the exhortations of Martin Luther King Jr made quantitative improvements to that particular zeitgeist.
Finally, I find your implicit desire to return to the days of lower life expectancy to be of poor taste.
Here's a related point of confusion for me:
ReplyDeleteWhy do you insist on correlating certain social movements (the LGBT movement in this case) with religion? By definition, it would seem that the LGBT movement is in no way religious. In fact, your description of religion ("having...beliefs they are pushing on others and requiring tolerance be given them...") appears to be more closely related to the definition of dogmatism.
Why are you conflating these two firmly established definitions of religion and dogmatism?
I'm not even going to touch on your comparison between GLBT and the Civil Rights movement. I have more to say on this than you can possibly know. But it will have to be at a later time. Thanks for opening a can of worms.
ReplyDeleteWhy I am conflating two firmly established definitions of religion and dogmatism.
As the author of my own blog, I have the explicit privilege of using some license. If this leads to connecting two usually unrelated thoughts to fit my own definition, so be it. The ultimate goal is to stretch your thinking.
Allow me to explain.
The term "religion" was to imply that the GLBT community has derived morals, ethics, laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about human nature.
That is all.
Really. I implied a desire to revert back to the days of lower life expectancy? Huh, interesting. I guess you missed the punch.
I look forward to hearing you further expound your views on my analogy.
ReplyDeleteYou are welcome to clarify your life-expectancy comment if you wish to resolve the confusion of some of your readers.
My primary motivation for posting was not to "open a can of worms" but to answer your query of how supporting the GLBT movement could be seen as beneficial to Washington State. My philosophical paragraph(see above) was an attempt to get at the arguments of those opposed to your view, which you find "a mystery". I can support my comment with more arguments if I have done a poor job illustrating this position.
In general, I try to speak out against obfuscations of generally agreed-upon definitions and concepts. I see precise arguments(example: "GLBT and religion share several traits"), disrespective of their truth content, to be of more value. Needless to say, I respect your right to disregard this response, but I hope you will consider it.
To respond to your explanation: It seems to me that your statement "the GLBT community has derived... " is of as little utility as any phrase beginning with "the heterosexual community has derived...". That is to say, without being more precise about what you mean by "community", your brush strokes lack explanatory power.
I will leave the life-expectancy comment up to you to reason through on your own. I can tell you are more than capable of doing so.
ReplyDeleteWell, if I said the can of worms will wait until later ... I might as well lay some of my thoughts out now, rather than risk instances of avoidance.
I am a sarcastic person. My use of "mystery to me" was an attempt at said sarcastic humor. Perhaps a failed attempt, but an attempt nonetheless.
I'll lay it out: I don't believe we need to further make allowances for certain people groups who feel they are under represented as based on their sexual orientation. Doesn't matter what their orientation is -- "orientation" implies a significant choice was made. As it is a choice, can it really be called a civil rights movement? I don't believe you can choose your skin color or ethnic background, so I take offense to pairing the today's GLBT movement to that of the Civil Rights movement in the 1960's.
The idea of "civil rights" began as equality in social, economic, and political rights for all people in the United States. Last I heard, GLBTs are still people. Do they lack rights? Do they need more representation? And if so, for what? Perhaps I am missing something.
Well, if wordplay is obfuscation, I am the guilty offender. But I would hope my readers think as you have and do not merely accept.
I have found precise and clear arguments do not lend themselves to provoking powerful reactions.
With regard to the use of "community," I am surprised by your confusion, as you were the one who suggested its use in the first place. This point in your argument likewise falls flat.
-- Non-substantive comments --
ReplyDeleteNote: Have been having trouble posting. Please delete any repeated comment posts, if they should appear.
Life Expectancy: No worries.
Avoidance Concerns: I would not have thought you to be avoiding the topic; for this and subsequent posts please know that I do not expect a comprehensive response.
Sarcasm: I apologize for my failure to recognize the more humorous elements of your post. :) It seemed apparent that you were also looking for reasoned debate on the subject; I hope to help provide that.
Sexual choice: I contend that your supporting argument based on the definition of orientation is weak (happy to discuss; I just don’t want to consume unnecessary space if you have stronger arguments). What other evidence do you have to support your assertion? Also, by “choice” do you mean conscious decision(s) and/or environmental influence?
ReplyDeleteGay Rights: Let’s try and pin down our definitions (see below) before approaching this.
Definition of Community: I contend this contention is due to misunderstanding of terms more than anything else. You have stated that “the GLBT community has derived morals, ethics, laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about human nature.” Would you please further refine your subject and predicate? (All interpretations that I can imagine fall within the realms of the tautological or useless.)
ReplyDeletePublic Relations Philosophy: I agree with your observation; however this does not seem to excuse the promulgation of passionate ignorance (which is an increasing problem in our political sphere). I hold instead that intellectually powerful thoughts ought to be promoted in a more relevant way.