One perk of being gay: both you AND the people you're attracted to know how unattainable the popular body ideal is. So you can enjoy it for what it is (fakery and all) without feeling too compelled to seek it, either in yourself or in each other. You can just focus on being healthy and active for its own sake.
I'm sure this is a mentality everyone can learn...
Definitely a cool stunt! Kinda makes me wanna buy some NeuroSport - "a delicious drink designed to replenish the body during and after exercise with the unparalleled combination of 12 minerals and 5 electrolytes" ;)
Except that you're doing the same thing. The definition you describe - "a man and a woman whose benefits to society are recognized by the state" - is in itself a radical revision.
Four centuries ago, benefits were rendered by churches, not nation states. Those benefits were lopsided - husbands effectively owned their wives (financially, physically, sexually), and women owned nothing that their husbands did not give them. And, of course, they were not extended to mixed-race couples. At the time, these were all time-honored traditions that had rarely been questioned.
Every generation remodels its institutions, trying to make them stronger, more equitable, more beneficial to society. In the case of marriage, this push has gradually redefined husbands and wives as equal partners with equal rights, irrespective of gender, race, or faith.
So yes - people ARE trying to change the definition of marriage... as usual. Because we want to make it better... again. And, I suspect, future generations will accept this change as if it never happened... just like you do now, with all the previous changes.
That can be said of every evolving social issue, though. All of them start out as minority opinions within the population (because they're new) and remain that way for years as they gather support. During that time, OF COURSE their initiatives fails a the ballot box. But that margin of failure shrinks and shrinks until opinion reaches a tipping point. Then, suddenly, they start to pass.
Yes, Prop 8 passed by a 5-point margin. But in 2000, Prop 22 (defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman) passed by a 23.5-point margin. And in 1990, the concept of putting same-sex marriage to a popular voice would have been laughable. So in twenty years, support for same-sex marriage amongst California voters went from a tiny minority... to a significant minority... to almost 50/50. What do you think will happen in twenty more years, Kaine?
As I said to J.M. - you don't sounds like you're a hateful person and I have no desire to bash you. I'm happy you support civil unions, too! (Another opinion that failed popular votes for years, BTW.) I just think that in this one case, your logic is based on prejudice rather than the other way around.
"Just for the record I never said that having straight parents automatically puts a child in a better position than if he/she had gay parents. I said that straight parents in a 'healthy' married relationship (i.e. not headed for divorce) are in a better position to provide for children than gay parents are."
Ah. Convenient. You acknowledge that some straight couples can be worse parents than same-sex couples... but you don't think this disqualifies them from getting legally married. They get a pass (as far as marital law is concerned) because their relationships, problematic though they may be, are traditional.
People who hate each other are not disqualified. Hard drug addicts are not disqualified. Radical white supremacists are not disqualified. Convicted rapists are not even disqualified from marrying their own victims. Do I think you approve of these unions? No, of course not. I'm sure you're not HAPPY that people in these situations sometimes get married. Yet you stop short of saying that they should be legally BARRED from getting married based on their lack of parental merit.
That critique you reserve for me - a happy, healthy, gainfully employed adult in a committed same-sex relationship with no criminal record, no debt, and no desire to have kids.
Hmm.
To be very clear, I don't think you hate me. And I don't hate you - you strike me as a decent, level-headed person. However, given the double-standard you're advocating, I do think your reasoning on this issue is reflects prejudice more than it does logic.
While not all of these mysteries have been conclusively solved, most have at least a couple plausible explanations. Because, y'know... most things ultimately do. At least four of these have episodes on the Skeptoid podcast dedicated to them. (Voynich Manuscript, Antikythera Mechanism, Baigong Pipes, The Bloop.) Probably worth a listen whether you agree with the show or not.
Anyway, I don't think these phenomena need to be inexplicable to be incredibly cool. They're still intriguing, beautiful, and bizarre.
If the issue is that the kid was being disruptive (passing gas loudly or dramatically) then fine - punish the kid for being disruptive! That's totally reasonable. Don't take the one part of his behavior that was NOT his fault and punish him for THAT. Because that makes you look like an idiot and pretty much assures that you won't be taken seriously.
All they had to do was focus on what the kid was actually doing wrong and this would be a non-issue. The parents wouldn't be on his side, there wouldn't be any headlines, and the kid wouldn't feel vindicated. Bravo.
Forget the hygiene debate, forget the sexism debate - the core ridiculousness here is that people are trying to make an a common behavior illegal for trivial, spiteful reasons. That, in my opinion, is a horrible precedent to set; one that could just as easily (and just as likely) be used against women! I'm sure there are plenty of misogynistic men out there who would gladly use this law as an excuse to criminalize (yet more) minutiae of women's lives.
And if you really wanna fix the floor puddle problem, I like The Oatmeal's solution - make public bathrooms keep disinfectant spray handy for patrons to use. It's a far more effective solution, and it works for both sexes!
The test is designed and supervised by the FAA. Boeing does conduct the test themselves (it's their airplane), but the have to satisfy the FAA's inspectors; otherwise the plane won't get certified.
Also, it's in Boeing's interest to do good testing. A plane isn't like a toaster - any time ONE has a problem, it makes the news immediately. Fleets get grounded, investigations get launched, customers get angry, money gets lost. It's much cheaper to do proper tests than release a plane with defects.
Not that Boeing doesn't do shady things - they absolutely do! But this isn't one of them :)
@Frau - To be honest, I was referring to both Ryan AND Shane. All I wanted to say was "Hey, we can discuss these ideas without attacking the character of others." And, incidentally, since yours is one of the few comments to do just that, I heart you too :)
You know what would be really, really, REALLY awesome? If people could avoid the knee-jerk leap to self-righteous moralization whenever a popular controversy is broached. Then we could have level-headed, meaningful discussions about issues that require serious consideration. Like, you know, ones where innocent lives are at stake on both sides.
I'm sure this is a mentality everyone can learn...
Except that you're doing the same thing. The definition you describe - "a man and a woman whose benefits to society are recognized by the state" - is in itself a radical revision.
Four centuries ago, benefits were rendered by churches, not nation states. Those benefits were lopsided - husbands effectively owned their wives (financially, physically, sexually), and women owned nothing that their husbands did not give them. And, of course, they were not extended to mixed-race couples. At the time, these were all time-honored traditions that had rarely been questioned.
Every generation remodels its institutions, trying to make them stronger, more equitable, more beneficial to society. In the case of marriage, this push has gradually redefined husbands and wives as equal partners with equal rights, irrespective of gender, race, or faith.
So yes - people ARE trying to change the definition of marriage... as usual. Because we want to make it better... again. And, I suspect, future generations will accept this change as if it never happened... just like you do now, with all the previous changes.
That can be said of every evolving social issue, though. All of them start out as minority opinions within the population (because they're new) and remain that way for years as they gather support. During that time, OF COURSE their initiatives fails a the ballot box. But that margin of failure shrinks and shrinks until opinion reaches a tipping point. Then, suddenly, they start to pass.
Yes, Prop 8 passed by a 5-point margin. But in 2000, Prop 22 (defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman) passed by a 23.5-point margin. And in 1990, the concept of putting same-sex marriage to a popular voice would have been laughable. So in twenty years, support for same-sex marriage amongst California voters went from a tiny minority... to a significant minority... to almost 50/50. What do you think will happen in twenty more years, Kaine?
As I said to J.M. - you don't sounds like you're a hateful person and I have no desire to bash you. I'm happy you support civil unions, too! (Another opinion that failed popular votes for years, BTW.) I just think that in this one case, your logic is based on prejudice rather than the other way around.
Ah. Convenient. You acknowledge that some straight couples can be worse parents than same-sex couples... but you don't think this disqualifies them from getting legally married. They get a pass (as far as marital law is concerned) because their relationships, problematic though they may be, are traditional.
People who hate each other are not disqualified. Hard drug addicts are not disqualified. Radical white supremacists are not disqualified. Convicted rapists are not even disqualified from marrying their own victims. Do I think you approve of these unions? No, of course not. I'm sure you're not HAPPY that people in these situations sometimes get married. Yet you stop short of saying that they should be legally BARRED from getting married based on their lack of parental merit.
That critique you reserve for me - a happy, healthy, gainfully employed adult in a committed same-sex relationship with no criminal record, no debt, and no desire to have kids.
Hmm.
To be very clear, I don't think you hate me. And I don't hate you - you strike me as a decent, level-headed person. However, given the double-standard you're advocating, I do think your reasoning on this issue is reflects prejudice more than it does logic.
You know what this means, right? Clearly, Bigfoot looks like a bear! And to think it's been staring us in the face this whole time!
Anyway, I don't think these phenomena need to be inexplicable to be incredibly cool. They're still intriguing, beautiful, and bizarre.
If the issue is that the kid was being disruptive (passing gas loudly or dramatically) then fine - punish the kid for being disruptive! That's totally reasonable. Don't take the one part of his behavior that was NOT his fault and punish him for THAT. Because that makes you look like an idiot and pretty much assures that you won't be taken seriously.
All they had to do was focus on what the kid was actually doing wrong and this would be a non-issue. The parents wouldn't be on his side, there wouldn't be any headlines, and the kid wouldn't feel vindicated. Bravo.
Forget the hygiene debate, forget the sexism debate - the core ridiculousness here is that people are trying to make an a common behavior illegal for trivial, spiteful reasons. That, in my opinion, is a horrible precedent to set; one that could just as easily (and just as likely) be used against women! I'm sure there are plenty of misogynistic men out there who would gladly use this law as an excuse to criminalize (yet more) minutiae of women's lives.
And if you really wanna fix the floor puddle problem, I like The Oatmeal's solution - make public bathrooms keep disinfectant spray handy for patrons to use. It's a far more effective solution, and it works for both sexes!
The test is designed and supervised by the FAA. Boeing does conduct the test themselves (it's their airplane), but the have to satisfy the FAA's inspectors; otherwise the plane won't get certified.
Also, it's in Boeing's interest to do good testing. A plane isn't like a toaster - any time ONE has a problem, it makes the news immediately. Fleets get grounded, investigations get launched, customers get angry, money gets lost. It's much cheaper to do proper tests than release a plane with defects.
Not that Boeing doesn't do shady things - they absolutely do! But this isn't one of them :)
@Tori - I'm with you on both counts.
Keep practicing, kids! At this rate you'll be making proteins in no time.