if you want to bomb mecca, bombing jerusalem would also solve a bunch of conflicts centuries old.
(bomb 'em both.)
From being, to nothingness.
if you want to bomb mecca, bombing jerusalem would also solve a bunch
of conflicts centuries old.
Babylon tried that. It didn't work.
Anyway, it has been argued that after the destruction of the Temple, the Jews had to ask new questions about the relevance of holy sites, and it effected a broader transformation. The destruction of Mecca, then, may actually be *good* for the terrorists. [ http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/049078.php ]
I don't personally see any point in the idea of sanctifying a physical location.
However, the fact that Israel continues to exist while surrounded by intense haters hell-bent on its destruction, seems to lend some credence to its identity as "God's Chosen People [tm]"
The sensible thing to do would be to set up an organized exodus program in which the entire nation of Israel is relocated to Utah. It would solve a number of problems at once.
Here's some food for thought: if Israel ceased to exist tomorrow, would the terrorists suddenly say "oh, ok, we won, so we can be peaceful now" ??
I think their leaders have too much invested in the way things are now.
To date, from what I've read, I am given to believe most of the terrorists who lead others find themselves unable to switch to another lifestyle very easily once their goals are met.
like it was in germany after WW I:
many unemployed soldiers, who didn't learn any proffession other then fighting.
Some of them were employed as teachers (poor kids...) but many of them remained unemployed, sowing the seeds for WW II.
What the hell is wrong with people?
As he's announcing his resignation, hecklers are saying some pretty rude things to him.
(PS Ig--we all know your libertarian viewpoint that marriage shouldn't be handled by the state at all, so no need to reinforce it here, thanks, 'lest you wish to incur the wrath of the fleebzombie and me in proving the absurdity of your idea, however much we may disagree or disagree with its principles. :) )
Ha. Kinda like his style. :-)
I'm something of an Indie. But it seems to me that the quote Moorfield noted from a buisnessman who said "Great job Senator! I catered a gay wedding once. As long as your money is green I will serve you. I care about my bottom line. It's about the economy. Plus, it's the right thing to do." captures most of what the Republican party is really supposed to be about anyway: economic independance and small gov't. <swivels around for Ragnar>
On another note, who is Gary Johnson and why is CNN supposedly blackballing him?
Amusingly, N*S, I am the first person here to have suggested we do away with marriage altogether.
And as absurd an idea as it may seem, and as impossible as it might be to do, I think it should be attempted. What would they do, create a Defense Of Marriage Act? Har.
My real goal isn't really to destroy marriage, though. Like most gay men, I would want the protections, benefits, and liabilities of what is currently called 'marriage' to be available to same-gender relationships. Although unlike most gay men, I would go farther, to allow for much more flexibility, and leave the issue of morality to religion.
I would also want to make it harder to break that contract, though, to prevent some of the frivolity we currently see.
But, I only see two ways to make that happen, both of which involve destroying the government's use of the term 'marriage'.
The hard, absurd way is also most straightforward; try to enact legislation to strike the government's recognition of marriage from the books. It'd never happen, of course, but it would promote a lot of discussion, which could lead to the sort of changes we need.
The sneaky way, a way more likely to succeed, involves denouncing the government's recognition of marriage as a violation of the phrase "make no law respecting an establishment of religion", which is bound in our highest laws. It is obvious that the government views marriage as a religious institution rather than a legal one, since the government has no credible reason to deny any pair (or group) of people from entering into a contract like that of marriage. And, yeah, I said 'group'... the fact is, in most places in the world, polygamy is permitted.
The fact that this state does not permit it is yet another indication that our government is swayed more by religious argument in this area than legal.
If marriage were attacked in 'the sneaky way', it could really be removed, and replaced by something more focused on being a legal contract than a religious dogma.
Because, at the end of the day, people want those protections.
Or you could go the super sneaky way: Allow for the stupid "separate but equal" crap to destroy marriage from the inside out. Use it to insist not only on all of the same perks of marriage, but also on some additional extras, to ensure that the protected classes receive "no less". Just make sure there are no limitations as to who is allowed to take advantage of the "civil union" status. Soon enough, the extra bennies inherant in the "civil union" status will have most folks going for a "civil union" from the state and a "marriage" from the church/rabbi/blue man group. State run marriage will eventually then become either a minority event or completely irrelevant all on it's own.
Stop trying to work your way into a screwed up system and start trying to dismantle the system instead.
One should be allowed to declare a domestic partner for tax/insurance purposes and nothing more.
Well, marriage also confers visitation rights when a partner is in ill health, and other such things. Those would need to be preserved somehow... gay folks are very touchy about that, because many of them have hostile families.
It makes more sense to rebuild the whole thing from scratch than to try to retrofit the existing, broken system. There might even be some benefits, to be enjoyed by all, to separating marriage from domestic partnership. Even a straight couple would have the option of being "married" in the eyes of whatever social structure they prefer (church, bowling league, etc) without making it official in the eyes of the government.
I don't think its a matter of gender anyways.
there are quiet a bunch of rights which one should be able to give to a related person (regardless if you have sex with them or not) like:
- hospital access in case of accident
- pull the plug in case of fatal accident after n months...
- who's the kids to be replacement parent in case of accident
- who's what kind of inheritor
- adopt (you have to be checked here regardles of all those things...)
- share inshurance policies
and that most probably in a similar way like checkboxes as you find them on your privacy profile on facebook.
and, there should be advantages for those raising kids, because of you have those dink's (dual income, no kids) who get unfair advantages over others that were intended for couples raising kids.
oh, and you should be able to give these privileges to more than one person.