Datasets:

bmuscato

/

xai_hd_multip

like 0

Is Refusing to Stand for the National Anthem an Appropriate Form of Protest?

Refusing to Stand for the National Anthem: Top 3 Pros and Cons

Is Refusing to Stand for the National Anthem an Appropriate Form of Protest? Refusing to Stand for the National Anthem: Top 3 Pros and Cons. Refusing to Stand for the National Anthem: Top 3 Pros and ConsIs Refusing to Stand for the National Anthem an Appropriate Form of Protest?The current debate over kneeling or sitting in protest during the national anthem was ignited by Colin Kaepernick in 2016 and has escalated to become a nationally divisive issue. San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick first refused to stand during "The Star-Spangled Banner" on Aug. 26, 2016 to protest racial injustice and police brutality in the United States. Since that time, many other professional football players, [7] high school athletes, and [8] professional athletes in other sports [9] have refused to stand for the national anthem. These protests have generated controversy and sparked a public conversation about the protesters' messages and how they've chosen to deliver them. People who support refusing to stand for the national anthem argue that athletes are justified in using their celebrity status to bring attention to important issues, and that refusing to stand for the national anthem is an appropriate and effective method of peaceful protest. People who disagree argue that football games are an inappropriate place to engage in political protest, and that not standing for the national anthem shows disrespect for the country and those who proudly support it, some with their lives.

[0.22099707,0.20012918,0.38661802,0.19225571]

Neutral

Should Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Be Legal?

NJ legislators, residents should oppose assisted suicide bill: Flatow

Should Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Be Legal? NJ legislators, residents should oppose assisted suicide bill: Flatow. Have an existing account?Already have a subscription?Don't have an account?Get the newsLet friends in your social network know what you are reading aboutThere are many non-theistic reasons for opposing New Jersey's physician assisted suicide bill.A link has been sent to your friend's email address.A link has been posted to your Facebook feed. To find out more about Facebook commenting please read the Conversation Guideline Testimony from an opponent and supporter at a Statehouse hearing on Feb. 7, 2019 about an NJ bill to let terminally ill patients end their own lives. Nicholas Pugliese, State House Bureau, @nickpugzI empathize with every advocate of physician assisted suicide (PAS), because I, too, have lost loved ones to the ravages of cancer. But we all have to take a step back from our personal stories that may be driving the push to legally approve PAS and look at the immediate and long-term effects of it on all of society.I am not a priest, minister or rabbi who might oppose PAS on religious grounds, or a physician who opposes it based on taking the Hippocratic Oath. But supporters of PAS have to admit there are non-theistic reasons for opposing it.Civilized societies throughout history have not and do not approve of suicide. Disapproval of suicide has been one of civilized society’s pillars throughout the millennia.NJ Senate committee advances medically assisted death billWhat you should know as medically assisted death bill advances in NJOn death with dignity and final things: LowryAdvocates of PAS put forward the prospect of uncontrollable pain as a straw man. Do they believe that death is the ultimate pain reliever? In truth, in medical practice today, pain relief is almost always possible given the drugs available and the medical specialty of pain management. Since pain can be alleviated, there is no basis to assert a need for PAS because of intractable pain. It’s the fear of intolerable pain that is driving requests for PAS, not pain itself.Death with Dignity Act (Photo: Getty Images)Perhaps the most articulate opposition to PAS is found in the report of the New York State Task Force on Life and the Law. The report notes the following concerns: The pressures patients would feel, from their doctors and their families, to opt for suicide; the inherent inequalities of our health care delivery systems which tend to discriminate against the poor, the handicapped and the elderly; the psychological vulnerability of the severely ill; the risk of misdiagnoses of the patient’s condition; the likelihood in many cases that adequate treatment of pain and depression would dissuade the patient from seeking death.”And then there’s the slippery slope argument: If PAS is made legal, then other things will follow, ending in the legalization of euthanasia for anyone for any reason or no reason. The Netherlands is one example of how the slippery slope works.In the 1980s the Dutch government stopped prosecuting physicians who practiced PAS, who committed voluntary euthanasia on their patients. But by the 1990s a government-requested study found that more than 50 percent of acts of euthanasia were no longer voluntary. In 2001 euthanasia was made legal. And in 2004 it was decided that children also could be euthanized. It’s been written that it took just over 30 years for “their medical practices to fall to the point that Dutch doctors are able to engage in the kind of euthanasia activities that got some German doctors hanged after Nuremberg.”In 2012, Victoria Kennedy, the widow of Sen. Ted Kennedy, opposed a Massachusetts ballot measure to legalize assisted suicide, saying it would turn her husband's "vision for health care for all on its head by asking us to endorse patient suicide — not patient care— as our public policy for dealing with pain and the financial burdens of care at the end of life. We're better than that."I hope New Jersey’s legislators and residents are better than that, too.Stephen M. Flatow lives in Long Branch.

[0.21039186,0.3864961,0.20720817,0.19590387]

Against

Are Social Networking Sites Good for Our Society?

Fifteen Devastating Quotes That Show How Dangerous Social Media Has Become to Society | Trending

Are Social Networking Sites Good for Our Society? Fifteen Devastating Quotes That Show How Dangerous Social Media Has Become to Society | Trending. The article discusses the profound impact of social media on modern society, raising concerns about its influence on democracy, individual psychology, and social interactions. Highlighted through fifteen quotes from industry insiders and experts, the narrative builds a case that social media platforms, especially monopolies like Google and Facebook, pose significant threats to the foundational pillars of society. 1. Tristan Harris, a former Google employee, points out that technology companies significantly influence a billion people's thoughts, posing an urgent problem to democracy and interpersonal relations. 2. Researcher Robert Epstein claims that Google's search monopoly likely determines up to 25% of election outcomes worldwide, emphasizing the ongoing increase as internet penetration grows. 3. Guillaume Chaslot, another former Google staffer, discusses how algorithms like YouTube's promote misinformation, such as the flat earth theory, due to their focus on maximizing viewer engagement and ad revenue. 4. James Williams, a former Google strategist, reflects on how the attention economy threatens the very assumptions democracy rests upon by undermining human will. 5. Susan Greenfield from Oxford suggests that social networking might cause a regression to childlike mental states with shortened attention spans and reduced empathy due to its addictive, non-narrative nature. 6. Dr. Nassir Ghaemi observes a correlation between rising depression in teenagers and increased social media usage, highlighting a vicious cycle without clear causality. 7. Bob Goodlatte points to an incident where Facebook blocked the Declaration of Independence, labeling it as hate speech, illustrating potential overreach in content control. 8. James Damore criticizes the underlying assumption in tech that personalized ads, which exploit insecurities, are beneficial for users. 9. Milo Yiannopoulos provocatively aligns the behavioral patterns encouraged by social media with traits of sociopathy. 10. Increasing cosmetic surgeries, influenced by ‘Snapchat dysmorphia,' are discussed by Dr. Lara Devgan, pointing out a trend where young people seek surgeries to resemble their digitally altered images. 11. Tim Wu, author of 'The Attention Merchants,' laments the diminishing capacity for deep concentration due to the distracting nature of technology platforms designed to monopolize user attention. 12. Early tech investor Roger McNamee argues that despite the best intentions of individuals at companies like Facebook and Google, their business models inherently produce harmful societal impacts. 13. Sean Parker, Facebook’s first president, reflects on the social-validation feedback loops built into social media, which exploit human psychology and potentially disrupt productivity and interpersonal relations. 14. A controversial remark from Mark Zuckerberg calls users' trust into question, showcasing a disregard for user privacy and consent. 15. Chamath Palihapitiya, former Facebook VP of user growth, expresses guilt over the social consequences of the platforms, emphasizing the problematic nature of short-term, dopamine-driven feedback loops. Overall, these insights paint a picture of a society grappling with the unintended yet profound effects of social media, questioning the sustainability of current social media business models and their compatibility with societal well-being and democratic values.

[0.20540772,0.38415173,0.21165194,0.1987887,]

Against

Should Performance Enhancing Drugs (Such as Steroids) Be Accepted in Sports?

Allowing PEDs in sports a bad idea | The Gazette

Should Performance Enhancing Drugs (Such as Steroids) Be Accepted in Sports? Allowing PEDs in sports a bad idea | The Gazette. Not a subscriber?Already a subscriber?Login HereManage Your AccountFrom Our WritersAdditional News LinksFrom Our WritersAdditional Sports LinksFrom Our ColumnistsAdditional Opinion LinksFrom Our WritersTIFFIN — Everyone with a knowledge of sports knows Performance-Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) and doping has been around for centuries.What started with the ancient Greeks has evolved into something used by many famous athletes such as Sammy Sosa and Lance Armstrong.According to the Drug Enforcement Administration, this illegal practice is used by around 1 million Americans every year.Since athletes around the world are using drugs, many think legalizing steroids will fix the problem. However, The consequences greatly outweigh the benefits and therefore they should not be allowed at any level.The first problem with legalizing PEDs is the health risks. All drugs, including PEDs, have extreme, long-term, negative effects on a person’s physical and mental states. Someone who chooses to take these drugs is asking for health problems in the present and in the future.Not only are they risking their athletic career, but also their overall well-being for the need to get a leg up on the competition. Why should the choice of harming themselves be given to athletes? Plus, if most athletes are deciding to use steroids, then many of the players who do not wish to suffer from the long-term effects will feel coerced into using illegal substances themselves. This could result in them slowly killing themselves in order to stay at the new competitive level set by the steroid users.Another problem is legalizing steroids will not keep players from getting a leg up. It will only increase the problem. If athletes are legally allowed to take a specific amount of drugs, for example, who’s to stop them from illegally taking even more? At this point, it becomes an endless cycle of athletes taking more and more to try to stay ahead of the competition.ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENTLet’s not forget about the kids, the ones who grow up watching their favorite athletes. They spend their whole allowances saving up to buy their role-model’s jersey. They put in hours of work on the field or the court, in order to be just like that one person. Until that idol gets busted for doping.The kids may have one of two reactions. They may go the rest of their lives with crushed hearts, or they may take a cue from that athlete and start using steroids themselves.Legalizing steroids will further increase the desire of these kids to start doing them, too. Kids are impressionable, more than athletes care to realize. If everyone else is doing drugs, why wouldn’t they?Finally, allowing drugs in the sports world ultimately takes away from the true purpose of playing and watching sports because we love them. Most people know the old saying, “It’s not about if you win or lose, but about how you played the game.” PEDs devalue the underlying meaning of that statement because it centers everything around just the opposite: winning and losing. It diminishes the core values that should drive an athlete, including character, integrity, sportsmanship, skill and talent. In fact, it makes the athletes seem fake and only powered by an unnatural substance that should not be found in one’s body.The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency has many efforts in order to make sure sports remain clean. They help athletes of all levels know their responsibility when it comes to anti-doping, and they keep them honest by performing drug tests, specifically on college and professional players.As for us, we have to make sure we are not encouraging these bad behaviors. It is important to realize the many risks of legalizing PEDs and take whatever actions possible in order to protect athletes and the nature of the sport itself.

[0.22239463,0.37700865,0.20734361,0.19325314]

Against

Should Prostitution Be Legal?

All prostitution in the UK should not be illegal say nurses - Daily Star

Should Prostitution Be Legal? All prostitution in the UK should not be illegal say nurses - Daily Star. Don't have an account? RegisterRegister with emailAlready have an account? Sign inBy registering I understand and agree to the Terms of use & Privacy policyBy registering I understand and agree to the Terms of use & Privacy policyPlease provide your site password to link to your existing account or click here to create a new accountPlease enter your email address to reset your passwordSign in with a different accountThe email should arrive straight away, it may be in your spam.The link will expire after 24 hours.PROSTITUTION should be decriminalised in the UK to improve sex workers’ health and safety, nurses argue. Nurses are calling on sex work to be decriminalised to give them more access to health care.They also claim they will be able to report violent clients to police and improve their safety.Bristol nurse Lou Cahill has issued the motion to be debated at the Royal College of Nursing’s annual conference in May.Her motion is to decriminalise the trade but not legalise it.She tweeted: “There’s a lot of quality evidence into the health and other benefits of decriminalisation.”If the motion is passed then the union will demand a change in the law.The International Union of Sex Workers welcomed the debate.Advocates of decriminalisation claim prostitutes are forced underground because of the stigma associated with it, which means they don’t seek help. “There’s a lot of quality evidence into the health and other benefits of decriminalisation”But critics warn the move would encourage more streetwalkers and brothels.Tory MP Andrew Rosindell said: "This is a terrible idea. The RCN should focus on medical issues, rather than legal and moral ones.”Prostitution is decriminalised in New Zealand and legal in certain circumstances in Germany and the Netherlands.The UK has a de facto legalised red light district in Leeds’ Holbeck area.It was initially set up to alleviate violence against women by regulating the sex trade.But locals have slammed the project for doing more harm than good and claim drug use is on the increase and people as well as people having sex in open spaces.Gemma Sciré of Basis Yorkshire, which is a charity that provides safety advice and support for sex workers in Leeds, claims women feel “safer”.She said: "Women are safer, we get to see them and they gain access to all sorts of support and that's a lot better."A small minority of the women have very complex needs and we have struggled to get access to them, they are often the ones in conflict with residents.”But local resident Norma West said the red light district is a “disgrace”.MARK Wright and Michelle Keegan's work commitments got in the way of their anniversary.POLICE have given an update on the conditions of four children who were rushed to hospital after a deadly "major incident" at a house in Sheffield.SECURITY chiefs fear Beijing could be using drones to spy on key infrastructure sites across the UK.Copyright ©2019 Express Newspapers. "Daily Star" is a registered trademark. All rights reserved.

[0.37399578,0.1975605,0.21895319,0.20949048]

Pro

Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?

3Rs of Animal Testing for Regenerative Medicine Products | Science Translational Medicine

Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing? 3Rs of Animal Testing for Regenerative Medicine Products | Science Translational Medicine. The use of animals in scientific and commercial testing, particularly for Regenerative Medicine (RM) products, is subject to stringent regulations by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure animal welfare and scientific integrity. The FDA adheres to the 3Rs—reduce, refine, replace—a set of principles aimed at minimizing the use of animals in preclinical studies. These principles are critical for evaluating the safety and effectiveness of RM products, which are used to treat a variety of diseases and injuries. The 3Rs are defined as follows: 1. Reduction - employing methods that decrease the number of animals used in experiments without affecting the quality of the data, 2. Refinement - improving conditions and procedures to minimize distress and enhance well-being of the animals used, 3. Replacement - adopting alternative techniques that replace or reduce animal use. The FDA's commitment to the 3Rs is integrated into its regulatory research, product reviews, and policy decisions. The agency employs several strategies to implement these principles effectively. For example, FDA’s CBER and CDRH agencies utilize the U.S. Public Health Service’s Principles and the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals to frame their research involving animal testing. They actively promote early communication with clinical trial sponsors to enhance preclinical study designs that conform to the 3Rs. Furthermore, the selection of appropriate animal models that closely resemble human disease processes is crucial for reducing the number of animals used. In the pursuit of alternatives to animal testing, FDA is involved in initiatives like the Tox21 collaboration, which aims to develop new chemical testing methods that decrease reliance on animal studies. This includes innovative projects such as using computational models and biomarker development to predict the in vivo response, which reduces the necessity for animal testing. Moreover, FDA supports and participates in multiple outreach and collaborative programs, such as the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM), that advocate for the acceptance and implementation of alternative testing methods in regulatory settings. Significant efforts are also invested in novel technologies such as the development of organ-on-chip microdevices within the Advancing Regulatory Science initiative. These technologies are designed to simulate human organ systems and could potentially replace animal testing for specific types of safety assessments. In conclusion, while the use of animals remains a component of RM product development, there is a strong drive within the FDA and globally to increasingly apply the 3Rs principles to refine current practices, reduce the number of animals used, and replace animal models with innovative alternatives wherever feasible. This approach not only aligns with ethical considerations but aims to enhance the scientific accuracy and relevance of preclinical studies, ultimately benefiting patient treatment outcomes.

[0.25638145,0.24539991,0.25497967,0.2432389,]

Pro

Is a Two-State Solution (Israel and Palestine) an Acceptable Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict?

Trump State Dep't describes Palestine as part of Israel

Is a Two-State Solution (Israel and Palestine) an Acceptable Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict? Trump State Dep't describes Palestine as part of Israel. The article discusses issues surrounding the integration of U.S. diplomatic facilities in Israel and the possible implications for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, particularly concerning the two-state solution. It mentioned Trump’s State Department's actions, which seem to point towards a tacit acknowledgment of Israeli sovereignty over Palestinian territories. This includes statements made by State Department spokesperson Robert Palladino suggesting U.S. services to Palestinians will be managed "from our embassy in Jerusalem," following the merger of the U.S. consulate (historically serving Palestinians) with the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem. This move was interpreted by critics like former ambassador Daniel Shapiro as aligning with a shift toward a one-state solution, diminishing prospects for a two-state solution by assuming Israeli control over contested areas. Further complicating the situation are the ongoing Israeli policies in East Jerusalem, where evictions of Palestinian families continue, as well as broader U.S. policies that critics argue enable Israeli dominance over Palestinians. The U.S.’ financial arrangements with Israel—providing aid in a lump sum which allows Israel to accrue interest—were also scrutinized, suggesting an imbalanced relationship overly favorable to Israel. The discourse extends to international reactions, including new French legislation adopting an international definition of anti-Semitism, which controversially connects criticisms of Zionism with anti-Semitism, potentially stifling pro-Palestinian advocacy. The article concludes by reflecting on the broader implications of these developments for Palestinian rights, the concept of a bi-national state, and the role of international and Jewish American responses in advocating for a just resolution to the conflict. It touches on broader historical and global contexts, comparing the situation to past injustices like apartheid in South Africa and suggesting lessons that might be drawn from those experiences.

[0.24663047,0.24641721,0.24847193,0.25848043]

Pro

Should the United States Continue Its Use of Drone Strikes Abroad?

US Withdrawal from, and Russia’s Suspension of, the INF Treaty: The Implications for Nigeria

Should the United States Continue Its Use of Drone Strikes Abroad? US Withdrawal from, and Russia’s Suspension of, the INF Treaty: The Implications for Nigeria. The text revolves around the controversies and the diverging paths the United States and Russia have taken regarding the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, its implications for global security, and specifically how it could impact Nigeria and broader African geopolitical strategies. The INF Treaty, signed in 1987 between the U.S. and the USSR, played a pivotal role in eliminating intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles and ensuring a nuclear missile-free Europe. Both countries engaged significantly in dismantling their arsenals in adherence to the treaty's terms, which represented an important move towards reducing the nuclear threat at the time. However, recent developments have created tensions and uncertainty about the future of nuclear disarmament. In February 2019, the U.S. announced its withdrawal from the INF Treaty, accusing Russia of non-compliance, a claim that Russia contested. Following the U.S. withdrawal, Russia also suspended its participation. Consequently, both nations ceased to limit their development and deployment of nuclear missiles as dictated by the INF Treaty, raising fears of a renewed arms race not limited to the two countries but involving global powers at large, with potentially destabilizing nuclear deployments in Europe and other regions. In the African context, particularly regarding Nigeria, the situation unfolds against a backdrop where nuclear weapons states often dominate nuclear disarmance dialogues, leaving little room for non-nuclear states to influence these discussions meaningfully. Nigeria, advocating for complete nuclear disarmament as expressed in international platforms, finds itself in a precarious position as major powers appear to rearm themselves. The text argues that such international treaties are sometimes perceived in developing nations like Nigeria as strategic manipulations by powerful nations to maintain their dominance while preventing others from advancing technologically or militarily. The discussion extends to the notion that if global powers continue to arm themselves, developing nations might feel compelled to do the same to maintain sovereignty and respect in the international arena. Furthermore, South Africa’s historical context with nuclear capability—having developed and voluntarily dismantled its nuclear weapons—serves as a regional example of a pacifist approach to nuclear technology, aligning more with global disarmament treaties rather than armament. As the global landscape evolves with potential new cold wars and technological advancements, African nations, spearheaded by Nigeria, are advised to reconsider their strategies. The text calls for a balance between adhering to international non-proliferation treaties and asserting the right to technological and militaristic advancement if deemed necessary for national and regional security. In conclusion, the pulling away from the INF Treaty by the U.S. and Russia not only affects European security but also poses significant implications for global strategic stability, including in Africa. It challenges the existing non-proliferation frameworks and compels non-nuclear states to reconsider their positions in global military hierarchies.

[0.26052496,0.22910196,0.25833714,0.25203595]

Not-about

Should the United States Continue Its Use of Drone Strikes Abroad?

OK Google? Marine Corps Officer Asks Company to Resume Cooperation With Pentagon - Sputnik International

Should the United States Continue Its Use of Drone Strikes Abroad? OK Google? Marine Corps Officer Asks Company to Resume Cooperation With Pentagon - Sputnik International. Our website uses cookies to improve its performance and enhance your user experience. Through cookies, certain personal data is collected and may be stored temporarily. You can change your cookie settings through your browser. More info: Privacy PolicyUS Marine Corps infantry officer First Lt. Walker D. Mills has written an open letter in Defense News, asking Google to renew cooperation with the Department of Defence months after the tech giant decided to end its involvement in the US military artificial intelligence programme, dubbed Project Maven."Recent comments by Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, about Google’s cooperation with the Chinese government on a censor-compliant version of the company’s search engine highlighted a sense of rejection in the defense community exacerbated by perceived hypocrisy. The company that Americans, and people all over the world associate with innovation and information technology had spurned the U.S. military, yet continues to work with one of our chief competitors", he said in his letter.According to Mills, he appreciated the call of Google employees to the company's CEO, Sundar Pichai, requiring an end to Project Maven, but stated that it was "impossible" for tech companies to stay above the fray in a complicated, interconnected world."I know we are not a perfect partner, but please work with us. I don't ever want to have to explain to my Marines why our technological edge has eroded. Or that their lives are at greater risk defending our shared values because we have been abandoned by our tech sector", he stated.READ MORE: Google Has ‘No Plans' to Launch Censored Search Engine in China — CEOIn June, Gizmodo reported that the high-tech company did not plan to renew its contract on Project Maven after its expiration in 2019. The reported decision followed a move by over 3,000 Google employees, who launched a petition asking Pichai to pull out of the project, as they believe that Google should not be involved in the business of war. The withdrawal also prompted criticism from US congressmen. The same month, Pichai set new strict ethical guidelines for the company that ban the use of AI technology in weapons.Sputnik push notificationsWe are committed to protecting your personal information and we have updated our Privacy Policy to comply with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), a new EU regulation that went into effect on May 25, 2018.Please review our Privacy Policy. It contains details about the types of data we collect, how we use it, and your data protection rights.Since you already shared your personal data with us when you created your personal account, to continue using it, please check the box below:If you do not want us to continue processing your data, please click here to delete your account.If you have any questions or concerns about our Privacy Policy, please contact us at: privacy@sputniknews.com.The fact of registration and authorization of users on Sputnik websites via users’ account or accounts on social networks indicates acceptance of these rules.Users are obliged abide by national and international laws. Users are obliged to speak respectfully to the other participants in the discussion, readers and individuals referenced in the posts.The websites’ administration has the right to delete comments made in languages other than the language of the majority of the websites’ content.In all language versions of the sputniknews.com websites any comments posted can be edited.A user comment will be deleted if it:The administration has the right to block a user’s access to the page or delete a user’s account without notice if the user is in violation of these rules or if behavior indicating said violation is detected.Users can initiate the recovery of their account / unlock access by contacting the moderators at moderator@sputniknews.comThe letter must contain:If the moderators deem it possible to restore the account / unlock access, it will be done.In the case of repeated violations of the rules above resulting in a second block of a user’s account, access cannot be restored.To contact the team of moderators, write to moderator@sputniknews.comGet push notifications from Sputnik International

[0.25814065,0.23599617,0.24435912,0.26150405]

Not-about

Should Gay Marriage Be Legal?

Editorial: Anti-gay legislation not what level-headed Kansas is about - Opinion - The Garden City Telegram - Garden City, KS

Should Gay Marriage Be Legal? Editorial: Anti-gay legislation not what level-headed Kansas is about - Opinion - The Garden City Telegram - Garden City, KS. AdvertisementSubscribe to The Garden City TelegramWe’d like to take up this space today to send a message to friends and family members who live out of state. And to some of the people who drop in on Kansas news occasionally for whatever reason.Here’s the basic point: The extremists who introduced the anti-gay measures in the Kansas Legislature this week don’t represent what Kansas is all about. Their efforts are sure to fail, because the rest of the Legislature and the governor are more level-headed. That’s the real Kansas.The bill we’re talking about is an attempt to end the government’s recognition of same-sex marriage. The text of the bill includes this: “The government’s endorsement of LGBTQ ideology has amounted to the greatest sham since the inception of American jurisprudence.” It goes on to say that “so-called marriages that do not involve a man and a woman ... amount to doctrines that are inseparably linked to the religion of secular humanism.”In fact, the bill is an interesting intellectual contortion, attempting to say that the government is promoting a particular religion by endorsing same-sex marriages. That’s how the bill attempts to invalidate them. It’s clearly wrongheaded, which is part of why it won’t go anywhere, but it’s going to get plenty of attention.The legislation also goes on to say that the “term ‘parody marriage’ refers to so-called marriages between more than two people, persons of the same sex, a person and an animal, or a person and an object.” In addition, the legislation denounces gay or transgender individuals who link their struggle to work of the late Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. The bill says, “there are no ex-blacks, but there are thousands of ex-gays.”It’s pure mean-spiritidness. We’re disappointed — no, we’re embarrassed — to note that Rep. Ron Highland, of Wamego, is among the five sponsors of the bill. He and the other supporters of the bill should simply try out the notion of empathy. It’d be quite a revelation.The vast majority of Kansans are reasonable, moderate, forward-thinking people. They know that who you love should not determine your legal status. They know that marriage between two loving, unrelated adults is a reasonable standard. Attempting to equate it with marriage to a goat or a Toyota? Attempting to diminish the struggle for equal rights? Attempting to say that government recognition of gay marriage amounts to a sham?That’s the approach of fundamentally misguided, unkind people.We’re better than that here in Kansas. Just you watch.The Manhattan MercuryWelcome to your feed! This is the home for all your notifications such as breaking news, or when someone replies to your posts.

[0.26174361,0.24454387,0.26186234,0.23185021]

Pro