About those anti-aviatoin newsgroups

[C J Campbell]

We should be cautious about posting anything on these news groups. There is
no way of convincing the mentally ill that airplanes are not a threat to
them, so arguing with them is futile. At worst, somebody in these groups
could find out about the rec.aviation news groups. This is a serious matter.
rec.scouting.usa, for example, has been completely hijacked by heterophobes
and is virtually useless for discussing Scouting. We would not want that to
happen here.

--
Christopher J. Campbell
World Famous Flight Instructor
Port Orchard, WA


For the Homeland!

[Ted Huffmire]

Sounds like a term invented by someone
who listens to too much hate-filled
talk shows on the AM dial.

There is a great article in the latest
New Yorker on the subject.

Ted

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
>
> Heterophobes? Somehow, I doubt that. Sounds like a term made up by
> homophobes.

[Gary L. Drescher]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:4lx%a.160428$uu5.23591@sccrnsc04...
>"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> > Heterophobes? Somehow, I doubt that. Sounds like a term made up by
> > homophobes.
>
> You obviously haven't had any serious discussions about scouting with
> members of the homosexual community.
>
> "Heterophobe" describes them pretty well, IMHO.

Really Jay? We seriously discussed the orientation-segregation of scouting
in an earlier thread here. I challenge you to cite anything I said that was
"heterophobic".

Outside of this newsgroup, the vast majority of people I know (straight or
gay) advocate desegregation for the Scouts, as do many Scout groups
themselves. Whether you agree with that position or not, characterizing it
as heterophobic is like saying that the people who worked to desegregate
lunch counters in the '60s were thereby being white-phobic.

> But that's beside the point -- CJ's point is a valid one.

You and CJ needn't worry about this newsgroup being "hijacked". It already
has been, by right-wingers who frequently inject gratuitous disparagements
of ethnic, economic, or sexual minority groups. I wouldn't mind having to
debate anti-aviation folks here any more than I mind having to debate
you--and at least the anti-aviation debate would be vaguely on-topic.

--Gary

> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[Robert Perkins]

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 09:59:56 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>> rec.scouting.usa, for example, has been completely hijacked by
>heterophobes
>
>Heterophobes? Somehow, I doubt that. Sounds like a term made up by
>homophobes.

Ooo! Namecalling! There's a fine way to keep up a conversation.

Rob

[Jay Honeck]

> Really Jay? We seriously discussed the orientation-segregation of
scouting
> in an earlier thread here. I challenge you to cite anything I said that
was
> "heterophobic".

I actually wasn't referring to the conversations we've had here, Gary. You
have always been well-reasoned and fair.

I was referring to conversations I've had here in Iowa City, and at the
school board meetings I've attended during the discussions that led to the
banning of the Boy Scouts from the schools.

Which is STILL beside the point. CJ is trying to say "let's not bait the
crazy anti-noise crowd" for fear of them hijacking the group. This is a
valid point, IMHO.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Montblack]

("Ted Huffmire" wrote)
> Sounds like a term invented by someone
> who listens to too much hate-filled
> talk shows on the AM dial.

That person should listen to a different AM - talk radio station. There are
some very good talk shows out there. A person just need to find them - a
little like selective TV viewing.

The radio I no longer tolerate is Howard Sternish "morning drive" FM crews.
If I hear a poop/crude story, off they go. I was a rebeleous 15 year old
many decades ago - don't need to relive it.

Good Luck ..."GL"

--
Montblack

[StellaStar]

> There is
>no way of convincing the mentally ill that airplanes are not a threat to
>them

A) They're already busy merrily posting arguments on other newsgroups.

B) The pilots themselves do a sufficient job of dragging discussions off-topic
to bicker about politics and social issues. Just watch.

C) Yeah, just like the news media, newsgroups devoted to a topic shouldn't post
anything bad about that topic. If we hushed up all the bad news we'd be just
like that nice Soviet Union and the Afghan news. Then we could all be happy and
censored. That's the ticket.

D) Learn to separate facts from opinions. Leave the latter out. How
refreshing that would be.

[Montblack]

("Gary L. Drescher" wrote)
<snip>
> You and CJ needn't worry about this newsgroup being "hijacked". It
already
> has been, by right-wingers who frequently inject gratuitous disparagements
> of ethnic, economic, or sexual minority groups.

Being an Independent, I'm safe from this broadside <g>.

I have observed that left (wingers) want an experience where judgements,
observations, and opinions must only have "happy" conclusions, anything else
MUST constitute "hate speech."

That term *economic minority group* is hilarious. Some people are poor -
yes. However, many people, with the same number of assets / amount of money,
are just temporarily broke.

We should celebrate merit with the same fervor that we now reserve for the
worship of diversity (a.k.a. assumed value, and worth, based on a person's
eye color). Wish we, as a society, would zero in on "lack of accomplishment"
with some of that nifty left-wing zeal that's out there.

Has this NG been hijacked? I don't think so. There have, from time to time,
been a few chartered flights off to La-La Land ...I usually root for a
granite cumulous cloud to finish off those threads.

Enjoy your posts Gary.

--
Montblack

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:z0C%a.162155$YN5.104262@sccrnsc01...
> I was referring to conversations I've had here in Iowa City, and at the
> school board meetings I've attended during the discussions that led to the
> banning of the Boy Scouts from the schools.

Well, if "heterophobic" means "scared silly that some right-wing
fundamentalist is going to lynch him", yeah...I suppose some homosexuals
could be called "heterophobic". But in reality, those homosexuals are not
scared of heterosexuals in general, but only specific ones. Quite a
difference from those heterosexuals who have a problem with ALL homosexuals.

> Which is STILL beside the point. CJ is trying to say "let's not bait the
> crazy anti-noise crowd" for fear of them hijacking the group.

He easily could have made that point without the word "heterophobe". No, I
think his point was very clear, and it was to include his own brand of
politics in his comments.

Pete

[Roger Halstead]

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 23:00:11 GMT, "Gary L. Drescher"
> wrote:

>"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>news:4lx%a.160428$uu5.23591@sccrnsc04...
>>"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>> > Heterophobes? Somehow, I doubt that. Sounds like a term made up by
>> > homophobes.
>>
<snip>
>You and CJ needn't worry about this newsgroup being "hijacked". It already
>has been, by right-wingers who frequently inject gratuitous disparagements

Right wing, left wing, what ever stance you take you will be able to
find that kind of disagreement almost any where you go...so the group
hasn't really changed much over the years, nor has it been hijacked
and I've been in several groups where serious attempts have been made
to do just that.

>of ethnic, economic, or sexual minority groups. I wouldn't mind having to
>debate anti-aviation folks here any more than I mind having to debate
>you--and at least the anti-aviation debate would be vaguely on-topic.

What ever the topic, whether on or off, you will be able to find both
pro and con and particularly in RAH and RAP.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

>
>--Gary
>
>> --
>> Jay Honeck
>> Iowa City, IA
>> Pathfinder N56993
>> www.AlexisParkInn.com
>> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[C J Campbell]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
| "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
| ...
| > rec.scouting.usa, for example, has been completely hijacked by
| heterophobes
|
| Heterophobes? Somehow, I doubt that. Sounds like a term made up by
| homophobes.
|
|

Heterophobe is intended to be a response to the defamatory and over-used
term homophobe. I doubt that there are any homophobes, but too many
activists use the term to describe anyone who is not a homosexual.

[Gary L. Drescher]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> I doubt that there are any homophobes, but too many
> activists use the term to describe anyone who is not a homosexual.

What a ludicrous accusation. Please cite a single documented instance
anywhere of an activist using the term "homophobe" to describe "anyone who
is not a homosexual" (as opposed to describing those with an explicitly
anti-gay agenda--that is, an agenda that denies gay people a variety of
rights that are taken for granted by straight people).

[John Gaquin]

"Gary L. Drescher" > wrote in message news:FjM%

> ...Please cite a single documented instance
> anywhere of an activist using the term "homophobe" to describe "anyone who
> is not a homosexual"

I don't think you'll find any. The term "homophobe" has been usurped by
homosexual activists to refer to anyone who does not specifically support
the homosexual activist agenda; fear of homosexuals (which is what the word
means) has nothing to do with it. In similar fashion, the words "gay" and
"holocaust" have been pre-empted to apply to groups or events that have no
connection whatsoever with the meaning of the word in use.


>...an explicitly
> anti-gay agenda--that is, an agenda that denies gay people a variety of
> rights that are taken for granted by straight people

No, an anti-homosexual agenda would be one that actively and aggressively
persecutes that group, which is not happening in any sort of general way.
Rights are not granted, they simply exist, and are enumerated by our
founding documents and subsequent laws. Homosexuals that are US citizens
have the same guaranteed rights as all citizens of the US. Privileges,
benefits, and other desirable sorts of positionings not guaranteed to anyone
may be earned, or granted, or withdrawn by governments, agencies, employers,
schools, clubs, or organizations, etc., based on that group's perception of
the greater good for the society as a whole. That is the debate currently
ongoing, a part of which I support. But, for God's sake, you serve no cause
well by *******izing the language and redefining terms to suit your purpose.

JG

[Gary L. Drescher]

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gary L. Drescher" > wrote in message news:FjM%
> >
> >"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> > > I doubt that there are any homophobes, but too many
> > > activists use the term to describe anyone who is not a homosexual.
>
> > ...Please cite a single documented instance
> > anywhere of an activist using the term "homophobe" to describe "anyone
who
> > is not a homosexual"
>
> I don't think you'll find any.

That was my point; thank you.

> The term "homophobe" has been usurped by
> homosexual activists to refer to anyone who does not specifically support
> the homosexual activist agenda;

"Usurped"? The word was coined by gay activists; it had no prior usage to
usurp. (Yes, the term is used in reference to those who oppose an
equal-rights agenda, even if those opponents are not literally fearful.)

> >...an explicitly
> > anti-gay agenda--that is, an agenda that denies gay people a variety of
> > rights that are taken for granted by straight people
>
> No, an anti-homosexual agenda would be one that actively and aggressively
> persecutes that group, which is not happening in any sort of general way.

I see. So if blacks or Jews were excluded by law from marrying or from
serving openly in the military, that would not qualify as an anti-black or
anti-Jewish agenda, because it would not constitute an "active and
aggressive persecution" of those groups "in any general sort of way"?

> Homosexuals that are US citizens
> have the same guaranteed rights as all citizens of the US.
> Privileges,
> benefits, and other desirable sorts of positionings not guaranteed to
anyone...
> That is the debate currently
> ongoing, a part of which I support. But, for God's sake, you serve no
cause
> well by *******izing the language and redefining terms to suit your
purpose.

I'm using the terms "rights" and "anti-" with regard to gays exactly as
those terms are used in reference to all other groups. I submit that you
are the one who is redefining the terms in unusual ways.

--Gary

[Robert Perkins]

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 15:56:09 GMT, "Gary L. Drescher"
> wrote:

>> The term "homophobe" has been usurped by
>> homosexual activists to refer to anyone who does not specifically support
>> the homosexual activist agenda;
>
>"Usurped"? The word was coined by gay activists; it had no prior usage to
>usurp.

Its original usage was to describe those people and groups who feared
a homosexual because of what he or she "is". The bitter hateful
criminals who murdered Matthew Shepard, for example, were "homophobes"
under that usage.

Today, however, (and I think this really began almost as soon as the
word was coined) one sees the label thrown out in order to stop
someone from taking a chance to reason about an issue involving
homosexuals, gay marriage, military service, or whatever happens to be
the issue of the day. No tolerance of that opposing viewpoint seems
acceptable among many gay activists, and among those people who agree
with them, all of whom would rather call you a "homophobe" than
respect the right you might have, for example, to assemble with
like-thinking people in a public place, to respect the right you might
have to *say* why you think a multimillenial and multicultural
institution should not be changed, or, most importantly, to actually
listen to your side of the issue.

It's happened to me once or twice, but thankfully not around here on
RAP. With a single unnamed exception I've only met reasonable people
here.

Rob, who thinks the "left-right" political division is a false and
damaging dichotomy

[Robert Perkins]

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 11:07:21 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>
>That's also just plain silly. I stand with Gary in his challenge to you.
>Document a *single* use of the term "homophobe" to describe "anyone who is
>not a homosexual" (i.e. all heterosexuals). It's never been used in such a
>broad way.

I think he overstated the case. However, I once took an opportunity to
explain to a (verifiably heterosexual) coworker the details about a
"marriage protection act" under consideration at the Kentucky state
assembly and senate in 1997. (No need to get into it, it resembled
California's Knight Initiative, Prop. 22, I think it was)

I read the summary text of the bill, whereupon he said, "Homophobes!"
and turned away from the conversation.

Of course, no further conversation was possible, because he tossed out
the label describing all the people who might support that bill for
any reason. They were all simply sub-human to him.

That's not as broad a use of the term as C J said, but it is a
remarkably unfair and fallacious brush to use when discussing the
issue.

"Homophobe" and "Heterophobe" are both too easily used as labels of
hatred, as far as I am concerned.

Rob

[Cub Driver]

>There is a great article in the latest
>New Yorker on the subject.

Yes, regretting that liberals don't have an equivalent of Rush
Limbaugh--rather forgetting that they've got Heinrich Hertzburg, whose
hate-filled diatribes about Bush occupy the leading article in Talk of
the Town most every week.

The funniest thing about lefties is that they truly believe they're
moderates. How many times have you read in the New Yorker or New York
Times about right-wing Republicans (answer: most every issue), and how
many times about left-wing Democrats (answer: never)?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

Actually, the suffix "phobe" has long been used to mean "hate" rather
than "fear".

Vide Anglophile for a lover of things British, and Anglophobe for one
who disdains them.

Or in the current political climate, Francophile and Francophobe.
(Oops! I almost typed Francophone, which is a chevaux of another
color.)

For pretty obvious reasons, the pejorative Homophobe isn't matched by
its logical opposite, Homophile.

But you're right: the word has been hijacked to suit a political or
social agenda. I immediately tune out anyone who uses "homophobe",
since it's a nonsense term anyhow. Homo of course means same, as in
homogenized or homonym; it has nothing to do with "man" as many seem
to assume--a matter of Greek derivation, not Latin. So Homophobe would
have to mean a fear or hatred of people just like oneself, just as
Homosexual means a sexual attraction to people of the same sex as
oneself.

End of English lesson. Regard it as thanks for all the flight lessons
I have received here.



all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Gene Seibel]

According to my dictionary, homophobe came into existence (ie: was
made up) in 1975. It literally means fear of homosexuality. Perhaps
it's an appropriate term for those showing hatred for gays, but I
never did understand the way it is usually applied to anyone who has
an opinion that's not 100% supportive of gays. It has always seemed to
me that the gay community would have less opposition if they
didn’t use that term so broadly. It’s quite interesting to
see the response to the combination heterophobe.
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.


> We should be cautious about posting anything on these news groups. There is
> no way of convincing the mentally ill that airplanes are not a threat to
> them, so arguing with them is futile. At worst, somebody in these groups
> could find out about the rec.aviation news groups. This is a serious matter.
> rec.scouting.usa, for example, has been completely hijacked by heterophobes
> and is virtually useless for discussing Scouting. We would not want that to
> happen here.

[John Gaquin]

"Gary L. Drescher" > wrote in message news:tAN%
>
>...if blacks or Jews were excluded by law from marrying or from
> serving openly in the military,

Two entirely separate issues. If we awoke tomorrow morning and the entire
world population were Black, or the entire world population were Jewish,
lots of people would be "____________" (fill in your own response). But
ultimately, the world would carry on. If, on the other hand, we awoke
tomorrow morning and the entire world population were homosexual, in the
routine course of events the human race would cease to exist within one to
two centuries. Therein lies the crux of the issue that makes it such a
thorny one to debate. And the more difficult and crucial the issue of
debate, the more important it is that language be used accurately and
impartially, insofar as possible.

>
> I'm using the terms "rights" and "anti-" with regard to gays exactly as
> those terms are used in reference to all other groups. I submit that you
> are the one who is redefining the terms in unusual ways.

I disagree. Rights are one thing, benefits another. Over the last thirty
years or so many groups have succeeded in turning certain government
benefits into perceived "rights", but the fact is that most people realize
what a base canard that really is. The "anti-" prefix is used by many
groups for a variety of purposes. It seems to be generally used by
homosexual activists to denote not only persons who are specifically opposed
to their agenda, but also persons who do not specifically support their
agenda. These are two very different positions, and it is a basic
innacuracy to characterize them this way. It is done, I believe,
intentionally. The language is the language, and twisting it to your
purposes does not change anything, or serve you well in the long run.

JG

[Gary L. Drescher]

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gary L. Drescher" > wrote in message news:tAN%
> >
> >...if blacks or Jews were excluded by law from marrying or from
> > serving openly in the military,
>
> Two entirely separate issues. If we awoke tomorrow morning and the entire
> world population were Black, or the entire world population were Jewish,
> lots of people would be "____________" (fill in your own response). But
> ultimately, the world would carry on. If, on the other hand, we awoke
> tomorrow morning and the entire world population were homosexual, in the
> routine course of events the human race would cease to exist within one to
> two centuries.

First of all, that's not at all true. Gay people frequently reproduce
(either the old-fashioned way, or by less intimate techniques), and would
presumably do so a lot more if everyone woke up gay tomorrow. People would
not stop reproducing, although *unintended* reproduction would certainly
plummit. Reproduction as an accidental side-effect of sexual desire is a
survival-necessity only for a species that can't figure out where babies
come from. If all *chipmunks* were gay, their species would indeed be in
trouble; but humans could do fine.

Secondly, even if (contrary to fact) it were true that universal
homosexuality would lead to human extinction, how would that bear even
remotely on the question of equal rights before the law back here in
reality? By analogy, if everyone were sterile, then humanity would soon be
extinct; but people who are sterile (whether voluntarily or involuntarily)
are not (and should not be) denied equal access to marriage or to the
military.

> Therein lies the crux of the issue that makes it such a
> thorny one to debate.

You'll have to state the problem more explicitly; it's eluding me
completely. It almost sounds like you're afraid that there's such a strong
natural preference for being gay that unless it's held in check by legal
barriers to equality, everyone will become gay and stop reproducing. Look,
when some men have vascetomies, you don't worry about what would happen to
the human race if *every* male had a vasectomy. Why, similarly, is there
any reason to be concerned about what would happen if everyone became gay?
There's not the remotest chance of everyone doing either thing, so what on
earth does either imaginary scenario have to do with legal rights in the
real world?

> And the more difficult and crucial the issue of
> debate, the more important it is that language be used accurately and
> impartially, insofar as possible.

I concur. But we differ as to what usage is in fact acurrate.

> > I'm using the terms "rights" and "anti-" with regard to gays exactly as
> > those terms are used in reference to all other groups. I submit that
you
> > are the one who is redefining the terms in unusual ways.
>
> I disagree. Rights are one thing, benefits another. Over the last thirty
> years or so many groups have succeeded in turning certain government
> benefits into perceived "rights", but the fact is that most people realize
> what a base canard that really is.

You have not yet explained why excluding blacks and Jews from marriage or
the military would be anti-black and anti-Jewish, and a denial of their
rights, yet excluding gays from those institutions is supposedly not
anti-gay, nor a violation of their rights. You cited a purported difference
having to do with a bizarre imaginary scenario, but so far you've offered no
explanation as to how that difference bears in any way on rights, or on the
"anti-" prefix, or on any other aspect of the real world.

--Gary

>
> JG
>
>

[jim rosinski]

(StellaStar) wrote;

> D) Learn to separate facts from opinions. Leave the latter out. How
> refreshing that would be.

Hmmph. And what do you call what you just wrote? How about "learn to
separate well-reasoned opinions from shallow rantings by people who
don't have a clue" instead?

Jim Rosinski
N3825Q

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Homophobe" may well be overused, but I'm not clear on how else one would
> describe anyone who is so afraid of someone else's sexual preference that
> they see a need to explicitly deny that person the same rights they
> themselves enjoy.
>

What right is denied to homosexuals?

[Peter Duniho]

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
...
> [...] If, on the other hand, we awoke
> tomorrow morning and the entire world population were homosexual, in the
> routine course of events the human race would cease to exist within one to
> two centuries. Therein lies the crux of the issue that makes it such a
> thorny one to debate.

So I suppose you believe that no one that is unable to reproduce should be
allowed to marry? Marriage is a benefit that should be granted only to
those people who are creating new humans themselves?

You may well hold that belief, but IMHO sexual reproduction is a red herring
and irrelevant to the question of marriage rights.

Pete

[John Gaquin]

Gary & Peter....
You both make my point for me, and quite well, thank you very much. I took
no position as to whether homosexuals ought or ought not be granted the
benefits of legally sanctioned marriage, or military membership, or any
other position. I offered an opinion and explanation as to why I see this
issue as one so difficult and convolute as to warrant a most careful and
accurate use of language. You both impute to me opinions and positions I
did not state, thus demonstrating and supporting my premise in far better
fashion than could any continued debate. Q.E.D.

JG

[Gary L. Drescher]

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
...
>
> Gary & Peter....
> You both make my point for me, and quite well, thank you very much. I
took
> no position as to whether homosexuals ought or ought not be granted the
> benefits of legally sanctioned marriage, or military membership, or any
> other position. I offered an opinion and explanation as to why I see this
> issue as one so difficult and convolute as to warrant a most careful and
> accurate use of language. You both impute to me opinions and positions I
> did not state, thus demonstrating and supporting my premise in far better
> fashion than could any continued debate. Q.E.D.

John, I did not impute to you any position as to the merits of exculding
gays from marriage or the military. All I attributed to you was the
position that the existing exclusions are not anti-gay, and are not a
violation of the rights of gay people. And I explained why I think that
position is mistaken. If the position I attributed to you is not actually
what you meant to express, then I am honestly baffled as to what you
intended.

--Gary

> JG
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
...
> [...] You both impute to me opinions and positions I
> did not state, thus demonstrating and supporting my premise in far better
> fashion than could any continued debate. Q.E.D.

You claim that the lack of reproduction success of homosexuals (iffy at best
anyway, as Gary points out) is "the crux of the issue". I pointed out how
it has nothing to do with the issue.

As far as imputing an opinion to you goes, the closest I came was to say
"you may well hold that belief". It is up to you to verify or refute that,
but I in no way implied that I actually knew what your position is.

Pete

[Robert Perkins]

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 16:11:01 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>What, pray tell, would a non-phobic reason be for supporting such a bill?
>Spite? General orneryness?

Heartfelt religious conviction. Seperately, a desire not to change a
multicultural, multimillenial institution based on only a few years of
call for change. Also seperately, but in part, a desire not to have
the Federal government involved or complicit in State affairs. A few
other reasons.

Spite doesn't enter into any of it for huge segments of the
population. But your own apparant (apparant!) failure to come up with
any motivation other than malice for it really does suggest you
haven't listened at all to the reasons offered with any kind of open
mind.

>However, they obviously must feel
>threatened in some way, to feel that they need to regulate another person's
>behavior even when that behavior has no effect on them.

....which is just the kind of demagoguery in evidence wherever the
epithet "homophobe" is tossed out. Can you prove that all the people
who oppose redefining "marriage" have fear of other real people at the
core of why they oppose it? Or do you merely buy a 35-year-old party
line that traditional moralities must a priori be discarded?

Rob, who supports a limited domestic partnership law

[Peter Duniho]

"Robert Perkins" > wrote in message
...
> Heartfelt religious conviction.

Last I checked, separation of church and state was still the theoretical
policy in the US. I don't find religious conviction to be a valid
motivation for lawmaking and in any case, the religiously convicted fall
smack in the "homophobe" camp. It's exactly this kind of imposition of one
person's morality on someone else, this intolerance of someone who's
different, that is so objectionable.

Where religious conviction parallels a genuine need to protect the rights of
someone, I have no problem with a law that mirrors religious conviction.
But laws against gay marriages protect no one, and only serve to oppress a
minority.

> Seperately, a desire not to change a
> multicultural, multimillenial institution based on only a few years of
> call for change.

Ahh...the old "change is bad" philosophy. I've yet to hear of anyone
supporting these "no gay marriage" bills for whom that's their reason.
Please, show me someone whose reasoning is based on that. More
interestingly, show me a single person involved in pushing for these bills
(i.e. not just someone saying "yeah, it's a good idea...I'd vote for it")
whose reasoning is based on that.

> Also seperately, but in part, a desire not to have
> the Federal government involved or complicit in State affairs.

How does a state bill accomplish that? The federal government can override
the state rules before or after such a state bill is passed.

> A few other reasons.

Such as? None of the reasons you've given so far in any way undermine your
coworkers initial assessment of "homophobe" for the folks supporting the
bill. It is a demonstrably fair generalization, even if a handful of
exceptions exist.

> [...] But your own apparant (apparant!) failure to come up with
> any motivation other than malice for it really does suggest you
> haven't listened at all to the reasons offered with any kind of open
> mind.

I have listened to every reason offered to me, and they all boil down to
basic intolerance of people who are different. I haven't attributed any
motivation to malice...I was just trying to figure out what reasons other
than intolerance you might have been referring to when I suggested malicious
intent.

> ...which is just the kind of demagoguery in evidence wherever the
> epithet "homophobe" is tossed out. Can you prove that all the people
> who oppose redefining "marriage" have fear of other real people at the
> core of why they oppose it?

As I said before, the "-phobe" suffix isn't being used literally. But as
far as the actual usage of "homophobe" goes, yes...you need look no further
than the groups involved in writing and supporting these bills. They are
all actively anti-gay.

> Or do you merely buy a 35-year-old party
> line that traditional moralities must a priori be discarded?

I have no idea what that means. I don't find intolerance to be a
traditional morality. It's simply a natural human flaw, and one we ought to
be trying to rise above. I certainly do not feel that traditional
moralities must a priori be discarded, and I have no idea why you would
suggest such an inane idea.

Pete

[Steve House]

I've never heard any so-called "activist" use homophobe as a synonym for
"not homosexual." I have heard it used to refer to heterosexual people who
have a negative reaction to those around them who ARE homosexual or who
oppose to the total acceptance of homosexuality as being just as normal,
just as valid, just as moral, just as legitmate, as is being straight and I
think there is a strong case to be made for that as being the explanation
for their emotional reaction to homosexuals. There is a vast sifference
between someone saying "I am heterosexual" and saying "Homosexuals and
homosexual acts disgust me and I don't want them around me or to have my
children exposed to the idea they are normal." All too often, I suspect,
opposition to gays in the workplace, gays expressing affection in public,
gays in the miltary, gays in schools and scouting, gay marriage, etc stems
from a deep set and totally illogical expression of the latter feeling. Why
anyone would care what someone else's sex, love, and relationship styles may
be is beyond me. We don't morally condemn people for having differing
tastes is food, music, art, or hobbies - why should some people should be
viewed with even the slightest bit of negativity for having a minority
sexual reaction patterns that differ from our own tastes? From any sensible
moral and social perspective, the difference between the homosexual and
heterosexual lifestyles is on a par with the difference in liking chocolate
versus vanilla ice cream and it shouldn't be considered any more of a
measure of the person's qualities and character than is that. IMHO, it is a
fact that homosexuality or bisexuality is just as moral and valid a life
pattern as is heterosexuality in every respect and any opposition to its
complete and total acceptance as such by society is prima facie evidence of
homophobia on the part of those who reject it. You don't need to be
homosexual in order to completely accept the presence and social
participation of homosexuals in all aspects of society without reservation.

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
> | "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> | ...
> | > rec.scouting.usa, for example, has been completely hijacked by
> | heterophobes
> |
> | Heterophobes? Somehow, I doubt that. Sounds like a term made up by
> | homophobes.
> |
> |
>
> Heterophobe is intended to be a response to the defamatory and over-used
> term homophobe. I doubt that there are any homophobes, but too many
> activists use the term to describe anyone who is not a homosexual.
>
>

[Steve House]

Homophobe *should* be applied to those who do not wish to associate with
homosexuals - why else would one make a blanket rejection of such an
otherwise diverse group of people as being unworthy of association, based
solely on their sexual behavior, except because of a deep-seated fear or
hatred for that behavior? And I have never heard anyone ever advocate extra
rights for gays, only for those rights and protections that will shield them
from the negative effects of other's prejudicial reactions to them. You may
not personally wish to have a black person as the scoutmaster of the local
scout troop, your opposition based solely on his race, but the law prevents
that irrational prejudice from impacting on the selection of the
scoutmaster. Homosexuals are only asking for (and rightfully deserve) the
same legal protections against the consequences of similar irrational
prejudices against their sexuality.


"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gary L. Drescher" > wrote in message
> news:FjM%a.167464$Ho3.19211@sccrnsc03...
> > "C J Campbell" > wrote in
> > What a ludicrous accusation. Please cite a single documented instance
> > anywhere of an activist using the term "homophobe" to describe "anyone
who
> > is not a homosexual" (as opposed to describing those with an explicitly
> > anti-gay agenda--that is, an agenda that denies gay people a variety of
> > rights that are taken for granted by straight people).
>
> You better extend it to people that do not wish to associate with
> homosexuals, as well as anyone not willing to grant that EXTRA rights, as
> well as other ambiguous terms that fall in when persuasion runs into
> coercion.
>
>
>

[Steve House]

The right to marry and thus extend spousal benefits that heterosexual
married couples enjoy such as survivor's pension coverage, employer provided
health insurance coverage, etc, to their partners, for starters. Sheesh,
one could spend all day listing all the ways heterosexuals and homosexuals
are treated differently based solely on their sexuality. The law cannot
force someone to like someone else, but it can insure you act publicly as if
you did in those areas that affect society as a whole.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Homophobe" may well be overused, but I'm not clear on how else one
would
> > describe anyone who is so afraid of someone else's sexual preference
that
> > they see a need to explicitly deny that person the same rights they
> > themselves enjoy.
> >
>
> What right is denied to homosexuals?
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Steve House" > wrote in message
...
>
> The right to marry and thus extend spousal benefits that heterosexual
> married couples enjoy such as survivor's pension coverage, employer
provided
> health insurance coverage, etc, to their partners, for starters.
>

Homosexuals are not denied that right.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Steve House" > wrote in message
...
>
> Really?
>

Yes, really.


>
> Go down to your local county clerk's office and apply for a
> marriage license to someone of your own gender.
>

Marriage involves persons of the opposite sex. Homosexuals are free to
marry persons of the opposite sex just as heterosexuals are. Homosexuals
are not denied any rights in this matter, nor in any other matter I can
think of.

[C J Campbell]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
| "Robert Perkins" > wrote in message
| ...
| > Heartfelt religious conviction.
|
| Last I checked, separation of church and state was still the theoretical
| policy in the US. I don't find religious conviction to be a valid
| motivation for lawmaking and in any case, the religiously convicted fall
| smack in the "homophobe" camp. It's exactly this kind of imposition of
one
| person's morality on someone else, this intolerance of someone who's
| different, that is so objectionable.
|

Well, right. For example, if someone derives sexual pleasure from rape,
torture and murder, who are we to judge? Once you are born a thief, perhaps
you cannot help yourself. Are not laws against theft therefore unjust? Why
is it right to discriminate against thieves? Or Republicans? :-)

Peter, can you show even one law on the books that does not attempt to
impose one person's morality on another?

[Robert Perkins]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 00:34:24 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>Last I checked, separation of church and state was still the theoretical
>policy in the US.

Separation of Church and State is not constitutional language. It's
popular theoretical policy today, but it has also become shorthand for
promoting the effective primacy of State over Church, which no
constructionist favors.

That's the thing many of these people fear, that the growing influence
of secular humanism in the U.S. will obviate their points of view. And
that's not a form of "homophobia" nearly as much as it is a form of
anti-federalism.

> I don't find religious conviction to be a valid
>motivation for lawmaking

Placing you in one minority group, albiet a particularly well-placed
one, these days. Honest religious conviction informs even your
opinions, Peter; even if you just don't *call* it religious
conviction, the worship of human reason is still based on a couple of
unprovables. Piety doesn't have to be directed at judaeo-christian
deity to be piety.

>and in any case, the religiously convicted fall
>smack in the "homophobe" camp.

And that's the demagoguery. Do the Scientologists or the Unitarians
fall into this "homophobe" camp? In any case, I and many like me were
pleased to permit behavior and keep company with people of all stripes
and preferences wherever they intersected with ours. But agitating for
political change so quickly is not a good idea. You gloss that with
your next paragraph:

>Ahh...the old "change is bad" philosophy.

No, it's not "the old 'change is bad' philosophy", which is another
bit of demagoguery anyway, a reiteration of the "what are you afraid
of?" challenge, reducing it to being equivalent to "homophobe".
"Change is bad" is not a philosophy.

It's markedly more accruate to say that the *position* (not the
philosophy), is more like "rapid agitative change is disruptive to an
ordered society," which is true.

Easy divorce was one such change in the institution of marriage that
many people now feel was a bad move, citing single moms, deadbeat
dads, latchkey kids, double households, and other such evidence as
proof of the mistake. Now, people are calling for yet another change
in the institution with similar preparation and reasoning.

If we're gonna make such a change, we must, in my opinion, think
through all the ramifications of it, and carefully implement it in
stages, checking our work all the way. We haven't done that, in my
opinion. All we've done so far in the last 30 years is toss epithets
calling each other sub-human.

> I've yet to hear of anyone
>supporting these "no gay marriage" bills for whom that's their reason.
>Please, show me someone whose reasoning is based on that.

You've responded to one.

> More
>interestingly, show me a single person involved in pushing for these bills
>(i.e. not just someone saying "yeah, it's a good idea...I'd vote for it")
>whose reasoning is based on that.

Members of my extended family, in connection with California Prop 22,
canvassed their own neighborhoods with flyers. I wrote to state
representatives and state senators expressing this line of reasoning.
Is Bill Clinton a "homophobe"? He signed the "Defense of Marriage Act"
into law.

Rob

[C J Campbell]

Really, I had no intention of starting a heated discussion on homosexual
rights with my original post. This thread confirms some things for me,
though:

There is no one who is so intolerant as someone who professes to hate
intolerance. The Boy Scouts is a private organization devoted to the
interests of straight young males. So what? Those who cannot stand the
existence of such an organization genuinely deserve the appellation of
"heterophobes." It is hypocritical to assert that the Scouts are attempting
to impose their morality on others. They are doing no such thing. In fact,
the critics are attempting to impose their morality on the Scouts, which I
think is just wrong.

My personal feelings about the matter is that any private organization
should be able to discriminate against any group that it wishes for any
reason. This is the only way to achieve and maintain any kind of healthy
cultural and political diversity. Here is where modern liberalism has
failed. Instead of celebrating diversity, as it claims, modern liberalism
seems solely interested in an Orwellian, politically correct monoculture
where the only value is "tolerance" -- which has been given a new and
twisted definition meaning only "tolerant of the party line."

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> Here is where modern liberalism has failed.
>

Modern liberalism has failed EVERYWHERE.

[Steve House]

You just made the point I was illustrating - to arbitrarily define that
"marriage" can only be between persons of opposite gender may be traditional
but it is an anachronism based solely on an aversion to homosexuality. It
presupposes that homosexual love is somehow of lesser moral quality than
heterosexual love. People should be free to marry any person who wishes to
marry them back, regardless of their respective genders, and have the legal
entity of a marriage of two same gender persons be indistinguishable in any
manner from that of two opposite gender persons. That is not to say that
religious organizations shouldn't be able to define marriage and those
eligible to do so within the context of their congregations and rituals as
they wish - I was married in the Catholic church and my wife and I had to
conform to certain requirements that were not part of the civil requirements
for marriage and that is at it should be. But the *civil* authority should
treat same-sex and opposite-sex couples exactly alike in every respect,
including the terminology that is used to refer to the union.


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
et...
>
> "Steve House" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Really?
> >
>
> Yes, really.
>
>
> >
> > Go down to your local county clerk's office and apply for a
> > marriage license to someone of your own gender.
> >
>
> Marriage involves persons of the opposite sex. Homosexuals are free to
> marry persons of the opposite sex just as heterosexuals are. Homosexuals
> are not denied any rights in this matter, nor in any other matter I can
> think of.
>
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 07:16:17 -0700, "C J Campbell"
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>Well, right. For example, if someone derives sexual pleasure from rape,
>torture and murder, who are we to judge? Once you are born a thief, perhaps
>you cannot help yourself. Are not laws against theft therefore unjust?


You are comparing acts which deprive an individual of his rights to
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, with consensual love,
that doesn't infringe on anyone. I know you're more astute than that.


--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John T" > wrote in message
ws.com...
>
> hmmm...
>
> France. Germany. Great Br... Hell, practically the entire European
> continent would fall under the "modern liberalism" umbrella, but they're
> still chugging along.
>

Exactly. They're just chugging along. Imagine what they could have
accomplished without the constraints that modern liberalism imposes.

[Peter Duniho]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> Well, right. For example, if someone derives sexual pleasure from rape,
> torture and murder, who are we to judge? Once you are born a thief,
perhaps
> you cannot help yourself. Are not laws against theft therefore unjust? Why
> is it right to discriminate against thieves? Or Republicans? :-)
>
> Peter, can you show even one law on the books that does not attempt to
> impose one person's morality on another?

Too bad you didn't read any farther than the first paragraph of my post.
The very first sentence in the second addresses your "concerns".

Pete

[C J Campbell]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
| On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 07:16:17 -0700, "C J Campbell"
| > wrote in Message-Id:
| >:
|
| >Well, right. For example, if someone derives sexual pleasure from rape,
| >torture and murder, who are we to judge? Once you are born a thief,
perhaps
| >you cannot help yourself. Are not laws against theft therefore unjust?
|
|
| You are comparing acts which deprive an individual of his rights to
| life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, with consensual love,
| that doesn't infringe on anyone. I know you're more astute than that.
|

Really? Then why am I, as a Mormon, deprived of the right to have more than
one wife? Yet most of the same lunatic fringe that demands homosexual rights
as part of their agenda for tolerance of absolute sexual licentiousness is
equally adamant that I not be allowed to practice my religion.

As for the Boy Scouts, most of them take issue with the notion that
homosexuality is consensual or that it does not infringe on anyone. Many of
the Scout leaders and parents are very concerned about pedophilia -- and
some of the postings by homosexual activists on rec.scouting.usa have done
little to address their concerns, to say the very least. A google search on
postings by an individual calling himself "GrabMyMonkey" will show that
there are indeed some activists who are, at best, using homosexuality as a
cover for their pedophilia.

Rightly or wrongly, the recent experience of the Catholic Church has not
helped matters, either. Homosexuality has been tolerated among Catholic
priests for some time and now, in view of the thousands of assaults against
young men, a lot of people are beginning to question whether that was a wise
policy.

[Peter Duniho]

"Robert Perkins" > wrote in message
...
> Separation of Church and State is not constitutional language.

Of course it is. The exact words "separation of church and state" don't
appear, of course. But the intent is clear.

> No, it's not "the old 'change is bad' philosophy", which is another
> bit of demagoguery anyway, a reiteration of the "what are you afraid
> of?" challenge, reducing it to being equivalent to "homophobe".

If a person's objection is only to the change itself, and not to some
specific drawback to the change, it is just applicable as "homophobe" and
just as silly an argument.

> "Change is bad" is not a philosophy.

Of course it is.

> It's markedly more accruate to say that the *position* (not the
> philosophy), is more like "rapid agitative change is disruptive to an
> ordered society," which is true.

Trust me. Nothing about granted gays marriage rights is going to be rapid.
There's no need to pass laws to specifically disallow it. But even if rapid
change were bad, why pass laws specifically against gay marriage? No...a
person who is genuinely against rapid change generally would argue not in
favor of laws specifically directed against a minority, but rather in favor
of laws that limit the progress of new laws generally.

> Easy divorce was one such change in the institution of marriage that
> many people now feel was a bad move, citing single moms, deadbeat
> dads, latchkey kids, double households, and other such evidence as
> proof of the mistake.

You forgot to put "proof" in quotes. There were single moms, deadbeat dads,
etc. long before divorce was more socially acceptable. I do think that too
many people are willing to choose divorce as a solution to their problems,
but they are people who probably will never understand what it takes to
allow a marriage to work.

Those kinds of people weren't in working marriages even when divorce wasn't
acceptable.

> Now, people are calling for yet another change
> in the institution with similar preparation and reasoning.

I don't see how expanding marriage to include gay couples is anywhere near
as radical a change as allowing divorce to be easier. If anything, it
allows a larger portion of society to return to our basic ideals.

> If we're gonna make such a change, we must, in my opinion, think
> through all the ramifications of it, and carefully implement it in
> stages, checking our work all the way. We haven't done that, in my
> opinion. All we've done so far in the last 30 years is toss epithets
> calling each other sub-human.

The gays certainly didn't start that. They are just trying to gain equality
in our society. As for thinking through all the ramifications, perhaps YOU
haven't been thinking about it for 30 years, but I assure you that lots of
people have.

> > I've yet to hear of anyone
> >supporting these "no gay marriage" bills for whom that's their reason.
> >Please, show me someone whose reasoning is based on that.
>
> You've responded to one.

Please. See above...as I said, if you were truly against the rapid change
in general, you would be arguing in favor of different, more general laws,
rather than one that singles out a minority group. At least, if you were
exercising basic common sense.

By your reasoning, you would have been in favor of bills that prohibited
freedom for slaves, voting rights for women and blacks, and desegregation as
well. All of those things were, at the time, considered radical changes.

> Members of my extended family, in connection with California Prop 22,
> canvassed their own neighborhoods with flyers. I wrote to state
> representatives and state senators expressing this line of reasoning.

But were you really doing so honestly? I suppose in the end, only you can
answer for yourself, but it sure seems to me that you're using a large
helping of rationalization here. Are you really separating your religious
beliefs from your political motivations?

> Is Bill Clinton a "homophobe"? He signed the "Defense of Marriage Act"
> into law.

I don't know if he is or is not. Politicians are a funny breed, since they
often act counter to their own moral compass (such as it is), if they think
doing so will help them or their political party. Regardless, it certainly
offends me that he would sign such a bill.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> In any event, the homophobe you speak of is not denying anybody's
> rights

Of course they are. These bills say, in essence, "gays will not be granted
the right to marry". I don't know how much more clearly someone's rights
can be denied.

> but arguing they should not explicitly be affirmed, having had
> experience with equal rights being escalated into more-than-equal
> rights (to law school admissions, for example) in other special cases.

Baloney. You are confusing Affirmative Action with other laws that prohibit
discrimination. They are not the same.

> These are very tough arguments, and neither the homophobe nor you are
> shedding any light at all on the problem. You are equally
> close-minded.

There are certain political agendas and attitudes towards which I need not
have an open mind. Racism, intolerance of religious freedom, and sexism all
come to mind. Likewise, any attitude which starts out "because a person is
gay..." is not one I need to listen any further to. A gay person should be
treated equally. No better, but no worse either.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> My personal feelings about the matter is that any private organization
> should be able to discriminate against any group that it wishes for any
> reason.

I agree with you there. However:

* The BSA should not enjoy preferential treatment or be granted any sort
of government support. As a private organization, they should be
self-sufficient if they wish to discriminate.

* As a former scout myself, I look forward to a day when in good
conscience allow my own son to participate in the BSA. The BSA has a lot of
great things to offer. I will continue to be vocal in my desire for the BSA
to change their policy, for this reason. Will I ask the government to force
a change? No, absolutely not. But if the change happens from within, as a
result of pressure from without, I see nothing wrong with that.

In other words, the BSA should be permitted to do what they feel is best.
However, they should not be surprised when they receive social criticism.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> Really? Then why am I, as a Mormon, deprived of the right to have more
than
> one wife?

You should not be, IMHO. However, you should also be in favor of laws that
allow a woman to have more than one husband. Anything less would be
hypocritical.

> As for the Boy Scouts, most of them take issue with the notion that
> homosexuality is consensual or that it does not infringe on anyone.

Those people are ill-informed, and are allowing their fears to color their
judgment.

> Many of
> the Scout leaders and parents are very concerned about pedophilia

Pedophilia happens with or without homosexuality. The two are not related,
and to persecute all homosexuals because of some pedophiles (gay or
otherwise) is just absurd.

Most murderers are heterosexual. I suppose we shouldn't allow any straight
people to be teachers. After all, would you want your kid to have a
murderer for a teacher?

> [...] Homosexuality has been tolerated among Catholic
> priests for some time and now, in view of the thousands of assaults
against
> young men, a lot of people are beginning to question whether that was a
wise
> policy.

Not really. Pedophilia has been tolerated among *certain* Catholic priests
for some time and now, in view of the thousands of assaults against young
men *made public*, a lot of people are beginning to question whether that
was a wise policy.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> No, my concerns are not addressed at all.

Try reading it again. Take special note of the "protect the rights of
someone" part. Your left brain seems to be on the blink.

Pete

[Newps]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Robert Perkins" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Separation of Church and State is not constitutional language.
>
>
> Of course it is. The exact words "separation of church and state" don't
> appear, of course. But the intent is clear.

And just out of curiosity how do you feel about the second ammendment?

[Jay Honeck]

> Marriage involves persons of the opposite sex. Homosexuals are free to
> marry persons of the opposite sex just as heterosexuals are. Homosexuals
> are not denied any rights in this matter, nor in any other matter I can
> think of.

>> You just made the point I was illustrating - to arbitrarily define that
>> "marriage" can only be between persons of opposite gender may be
traditional
>> but it is an anachronism based solely on an aversion to homosexuality.

You're trying to change many millennia of history and tradition by
arbitrarily re-defining marriage to suit your own agenda -- and you accuse
Steven of being arbitrary?

Now THAT is ironic.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[C J Campbell]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
| "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
| ...
| > My personal feelings about the matter is that any private organization
| > should be able to discriminate against any group that it wishes for any
| > reason.
|
| I agree with you there. However:
|
| * The BSA should not enjoy preferential treatment or be granted any
sort
| of government support. As a private organization, they should be
| self-sufficient if they wish to discriminate.
|

I really get tired of that canard. The Boy Scouts do not get any more
government support than any other private organization. Yes, they are
allowed to meet in public schools, just like the gay rights groups -- many
of whom do not allow straight members. Yes, they are allowed to use the
public parks, drive on the public roads, and even breathe the public air,
despite the fact that I have heard from numerous activists who do not think
any of these things should be allowed.

[C J Campbell]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
| "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
| ...
| > In any event, the homophobe you speak of is not denying anybody's
| > rights
|
| Of course they are. These bills say, in essence, "gays will not be
granted
| the right to marry". I don't know how much more clearly someone's rights
| can be denied.
|

Baloney, as you say. The bills say they do not allow same-sex marriages.
There are no prohibitions against gays marrying persons of the opposite sex.
The restrictions are the same for everybody. Really, though, marriage has
been so re-defined and watered down in the courts and through legislation
that it has become almost meaningless from a legal standpoint. And there are
no laws against same-sex marriages being performed outside of government
sanction.

Here we have gone from "we don't want any government restricting our sex
life" to "we want the blessing of the government on our social
relationships." Seems hypocritical, to say the least.

[Tune2828]

<<Peter, can you show even one law on the books that does not attempt to
impose one person's morality on another?>>

bush's faith base iniative program - which thankfully according to this article
is not going anywhere

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/103/31.0.html

AND - this quote from latest speech:
"i believes the sanctity of marriage, which must be between a man and a woman."

shouldn't the fact that a PRESIDENT's statement starts with "i believe"
disqualify it from any credit at all? he's stating his personal BELIEFS!!
something that has nothing to do with laws, science and civil liberties.

it's already been medically proven and accepted by psychology professionals
that being gay is not a choice, or any kind of mental deficiency.

given that the only leg anti-gay rights folks stand on is "God's will" this,
and "Leviticus" that.
(reminder: we are not a CHRISTIAN nation, as many from the pulpit would have
you believe)

or - of course the other "slippery slope" argument: Well.... if you legalize
gay marriage what's next? Marrying a monkey because it's your "lifestyle"
choice? or sex with children?
reminder #2: stats show most pedo's are straight men.

so if anyone that thinks someone chooses to be gay consider this:

suppose i'm gay, and you convince me i'm a sinner and God needs me to be
straight to avoid spending eternity in ye 'ole lake o' fire. i go ahead and
suppress my urges, live a straight life, marry your daughter and have a family.
later on i wise up, realize i'm living a lie, causing turmoil for my family and
myself - and many a letter to ann landers.

this DOES happen in real life.

wouldn't you just rather me have my own gay marriage with my appropriate equal
rights - and live my life as i please - without disturbing you?

for a commited couple you'd be surprised at how important mundane basic rights
are. why should gays be screwed out of tax money because they can't file
together. if someone's partner is in an accident and in ER - how do they get
past a nurse or guard that says "sorry - immediate family only" that's not
even involving power of attorney matters.

just some fun things to consider...

[Ted Huffmire]

Check out "The right wing's summer of hate":

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/08/15/hate/index_np.html

Cub Driver wrote:
>
> >There is a great article in the latest
> >New Yorker on the subject.
>
> Yes, regretting that liberals don't have an equivalent of Rush
> Limbaugh--rather forgetting that they've got Heinrich Hertzburg, whose
> hate-filled diatribes about Bush occupy the leading article in Talk of
> the Town most every week.
>
> The funniest thing about lefties is that they truly believe they're
> moderates. How many times have you read in the New Yorker or New York
> Times about right-wing Republicans (answer: most every issue), and how
> many times about left-wing Democrats (answer: never)?
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ted Huffmire" > wrote in message
...
>
> Check out "The right wing's summer of hate":
>
> http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/08/15/hate/index_np.html
>

Pretty much what you'd expect from Blumenthal and Salon.

[Jay Honeck]

> * The BSA should not enjoy preferential treatment or be granted any
sort
> of government support. As a private organization, they should be
> self-sufficient if they wish to discriminate.

This argument was used against the Scouts here in Iowa City, and has
resulted in them being charged the "corporate rate" for using the schools
when they want to hold a meeting or function. Of course, this price is
impossibly high, and has resulted in the Scouts being driven out of the
schools.

Strangely enough, the Scouts presented a cost-benefit analysis to the School
Board during the debate, proving that for every penny the City "spent" on
the Scouts (by letting them use the schools for cheap) they received back
five-fold in donated work, landscaping done for "Eagle Scout" projects, etc.
The city actually *profited* from the Scouts, because they did work that the
school district would otherwise have to buy.

This argument did not sway the gay community, and the Scouts were
effectively banned.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:%U90b.183507$uu5.35115@sccrnsc04...
>
> This argument was used against the Scouts here in Iowa City, and has
> resulted in them being charged the "corporate rate" for using the schools
> when they want to hold a meeting or function. Of course, this price is
> impossibly high, and has resulted in the Scouts being driven out of the
> schools.
>
> Strangely enough, the Scouts presented a cost-benefit analysis to the
School
> Board during the debate, proving that for every penny the City "spent" on
> the Scouts (by letting them use the schools for cheap) they received back
> five-fold in donated work, landscaping done for "Eagle Scout" projects,
etc.
> The city actually *profited* from the Scouts, because they did work that
the
> school district would otherwise have to buy.
>
> This argument did not sway the gay community, and the Scouts were
> effectively banned.
>

Cogent argument will never sway the gay community.

[C J Campbell]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:5N90b.183470$uu5.34945@sccrnsc04...
|
| Assuming it's actually held there. You see, black activists are now
| protesting the fact that "A.P. Hill" was a Confederate general, and the
| Scouts should therefore not be allowed to hold their Jamboree at a
facility
| that "honors" the Confederacy.
|
| Political correctness is everywhere.

Which is why the Confederate Air Force changed its name, even though the
name had nothing to do with commemorating the CSA or the War Between the
States.

[C J Campbell]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
| "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
| ...
| > My personal feelings about the matter is that any private organization
| > should be able to discriminate against any group that it wishes for any
| > reason.
|
| I agree with you there. However:
|
| * The BSA should not enjoy preferential treatment or be granted any
sort
| of government support. As a private organization, they should be
| self-sufficient if they wish to discriminate.
|
| * As a former scout myself, I look forward to a day when in good
| conscience allow my own son to participate in the BSA.

You were able to participate in good conscience when you were younger, but
the BSA's policies have not changed. Instead of trying to force your views
on the Boy Scouts, why not help found another organization that espouses
what you believe?

[Margy Natalie]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> > * The BSA should not enjoy preferential treatment or be granted any
> sort
> > of government support. As a private organization, they should be
> > self-sufficient if they wish to discriminate.
>
> This argument was used against the Scouts here in Iowa City, and has
> resulted in them being charged the "corporate rate" for using the schools
> when they want to hold a meeting or function. Of course, this price is
> impossibly high, and has resulted in the Scouts being driven out of the
> schools.

Jay,

Would you feel the same way if the BSA had a no blacks or no Jews policy rather
than a no gays policy?

Margy

[C J Campbell]

"Margy Natalie" > wrote in message
...
|
|
| Jay Honeck wrote:
|
| > > * The BSA should not enjoy preferential treatment or be granted
any
| > sort
| > > of government support. As a private organization, they should be
| > > self-sufficient if they wish to discriminate.
| >
| > This argument was used against the Scouts here in Iowa City, and has
| > resulted in them being charged the "corporate rate" for using the
schools
| > when they want to hold a meeting or function. Of course, this price is
| > impossibly high, and has resulted in the Scouts being driven out of the
| > schools.
|
| Jay,
|
| Would you feel the same way if the BSA had a no blacks or no Jews policy
rather
| than a no gays policy?
|

Would you object if gay groups that have a no straights policy were allowed
to use the schools for free?

[Steve House]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
....snip...

> Really? Then why am I, as a Mormon, deprived of the right to have more
than
> one wife? Yet most of the same lunatic fringe that demands homosexual
rights
> as part of their agenda for tolerance of absolute sexual licentiousness is
> equally adamant that I not be allowed to practice my religion.

Actually I, for one, think you should be able to do exactly that. Lived in
Park City and Salt Lake City, BTW, and am very familiar with some of the
Mormon splinter groups - had a polygamous family living next door at one
point in fact. The only problem I have with the polygamy as practiced by
the LDS offshoot sects today is their penchant for keeping the female
children "home schooled" and uneducated and marrying them off at 12 or 14
before they have the mental maturity, educational background, and life
experience to make a truly free and informed choice about their lifestyle.

>
> As for the Boy Scouts, most of them take issue with the notion that
> homosexuality is consensual or that it does not infringe on anyone. Many
of
> the Scout leaders and parents are very concerned about pedophilia -- and
> some of the postings by homosexual activists on rec.scouting.usa have done
> little to address their concerns, to say the very least. A google search
on
> postings by an individual calling himself "GrabMyMonkey" will show that
> there are indeed some activists who are, at best, using homosexuality as a
> cover for their pedophilia.

Heterosexual pedophiles vastly outnumber homosexual ones. Interviewed
several authorities from the sex offender unit at the Utah State Prison on
my radio program back in the late 1980's and as I recall they said among the
prison population heterosexual pedophiles outnumbered homosexual ones by
about 4 to 1. But the notion that a homosexual scout leader is going to
sexually assault or seduce those in his charge is in itself based on an
irrational paranoia about homosexuals - there is no more reason to believe
it will happen than it is to believe that a heterosexual Cub Scout denmother
is going to lure the Cubs in her pack into sexual play. Has it happened?
Of course, to both scenarios. Is either one likely to happen? Not very.
>
> Rightly or wrongly, the recent experience of the Catholic Church has not
> helped matters, either. Homosexuality has been tolerated among Catholic
> priests for some time and now, in view of the thousands of assaults
against
> young men, a lot of people are beginning to question whether that was a
wise
> policy.
>
>

[Gary L. Drescher]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Yd90b.182702$YN5.135190@sccrnsc01...
> > Marriage involves persons of the opposite sex. Homosexuals are free to
> > marry persons of the opposite sex just as heterosexuals are.
Homosexuals
> > are not denied any rights in this matter, nor in any other matter I can
> > think of.
>
> >> You just made the point I was illustrating - to arbitrarily define that
> >> "marriage" can only be between persons of opposite gender may be
> traditional
> >> but it is an anachronism based solely on an aversion to homosexuality.
>
> You're trying to change many millennia of history and tradition by
> arbitrarily re-defining marriage to suit your own agenda -- and you accuse
> Steven of being arbitrary?

No, we're trying to remove an arbitrary restriction that has been in place
for millennia. You speak as though the mere extent of the historical
precedent automatically makes the restriction reasonable. What if
interracial marriage had been banned for millennia? Suppose marriage had
always been defined as the union of two persons of the same race (as indeed
it has been in many times and places). Presumably you would not object to
the "redefinition" of marriage then, nor call the proposed change
"arbitrary". Therefore, you need to cite something other than history and
tradition if you are to justify continuing the exclusion of same-gender
couples from marriage.

--Gary

>
> Now THAT is ironic.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Gary L. Drescher]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
> | "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> | ...
> | > My personal feelings about the matter is that any private organization
> | > should be able to discriminate against any group that it wishes for
any
> | > reason.
> |
> | I agree with you there. However:
> |
> | * The BSA should not enjoy preferential treatment or be granted any
> sort
> | of government support. As a private organization, they should be
> | self-sufficient if they wish to discriminate.
> |
>
> I really get tired of that canard. The Boy Scouts do not get any more
> government support than any other private organization. Yes, they are
> allowed to meet in public schools, just like the gay rights groups -- many
> of whom do not allow straight members.

Again, CJ, you are just inventing claims about your opponents from thin air,
so reflexively that you don't even notice that you're doing it.

Please cite even *one* example *anywhere* of a gay rights group meeting in
public schools and not allowing straight members. I doubt you can even find
a completely *private* gay rights group anywhere that doesn't allow straight
members.

> Yes, they are allowed to use the
> public parks, drive on the public roads, and even breathe the public air,
> despite the fact that I have heard from numerous activists who do not
think
> any of these things should be allowed.

This is beyond ludicrous. Apparently these activists confide in you their
secret intentions that they do not reveal anywhere else, or else you would
be able to find at least one documented instance of activists who oppose
Scouts' use of public parks or roads.

Back in the real world, CJ, groups like the ACLU that are at the forefront
of the gay rights movement are also the most adamantly in *support* of the
free-speech rights of those they disagree with, such as when the ACLU
defends the rights of Nazis to march in the streets of Skokie.

--Gary

[Gary L. Drescher]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Margy Natalie" > wrote in message
> ...
> |
> |
> | Jay Honeck wrote:
> |
> | > > * The BSA should not enjoy preferential treatment or be granted
> any
> | > sort
> | > > of government support. As a private organization, they should be
> | > > self-sufficient if they wish to discriminate.
> | >
> | > This argument was used against the Scouts here in Iowa City, and has
> | > resulted in them being charged the "corporate rate" for using the
> schools
> | > when they want to hold a meeting or function. Of course, this price
is
> | > impossibly high, and has resulted in the Scouts being driven out of
the
> | > schools.
> |
> | Jay,
> |
> | Would you feel the same way if the BSA had a no blacks or no Jews policy
> rather
> | than a no gays policy?
> |
>
> Would you object if gay groups that have a no straights policy were
allowed
> to use the schools for free?

CJ, you cannot cite a single documented instance of that ever occurring.

--Gary

[Jay Honeck]

> Would you feel the same way if the BSA had a no blacks or no Jews policy
rather
> than a no gays policy?

Well, Margy, if you are you asking if I would be upset that the Scouts were
banned from the schools for hypothetically banning Jewish and black members,
the answer is no. In your example, the Scouts (or any other group) would
quite deservedly have earned the wrath of the School Board and the Civil
Rights community by arbitrarily banning members based on skin color or
religion.

Apples and oranges.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter Duniho]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> Baloney, as you say. The bills say they do not allow same-sex marriages.
> There are no prohibitions against gays marrying persons of the opposite
sex.

Um, huh? How would you feel about a law that allowed ONLY same-sex
marriage? Would you feel that your right to marry had been abridged?

By your reasoning, you would not. Me, I'd feel very differently. Allowing
gays to marry a member of the opposite sex is not any better than not
allowing them to marry at all.

> Here we have gone from "we don't want any government restricting our sex
> life" to "we want the blessing of the government on our social
> relationships." Seems hypocritical, to say the least.

There are numerous benefits, all of them regarding legal standing, to
marriage as acknowledged by the government. It is those rights that gays
want and deserve. Same-sex "marriages" happen all the time already.
However, they don't afford the participants any of the legal benefits that
the government grants participants of opposite-sex marriages.

I don't really care how the government creates equality. If they want to
get rid of marriage benefits for ALL citizens, that would be fine with me.
If they want to make life-partner benefits dependent on something other than
the ritual of marriage, that would be fine with me. And if they want to
allow gays to participate in the same legalistic ritual of marriage that
opposite-sex couples are allowed to, that would be fine with me. But the
government SHOULD allow equal standing.

You obviously haven't had any friends who were, for all intents and
purposes, a married couple of the same gender and yet could not enjoy the
same rights a government-sanctioned married couple enjoy, such as survivor
rights or health care decision-making rights. Perhaps if you had, you'd
understand better how gays are discriminated against.

But regardless, the law already does not recognize gay marriage. Adding new
laws to ban gay marriage is just plain silly. It's a waste of legislative
bandwidth.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:OEc0b.184590$uu5.34852@sccrnsc04...
> [...] In your example, the Scouts (or any other group) would
> quite deservedly have earned the wrath of the School Board and the Civil
> Rights community by arbitrarily banning members based on skin color or
> religion.

And therein lies the crux of the disagreement (contrary to what was said
earlier by someone else).

You apparently think that sexual preference is different from race, and is
not one that should be protected. Maybe you think it's some kind of option.
That's the classic religious right argument: "it's a lifestyle choice, and
they could change if they wanted to".

Well, that's just not true. Sexual "preference" doesn't mean the person has
decided to prefer one gender over another. It means that nature has decided
that they will prefer one gender over another. A gay didn't decide to be
gay any more than you decided to be heterosexual. The vast numbers of gay
people who have suffered years of self-inflicted psychological torment
because they do NOT want to be gay is about as clear evidence as anyone
could ask for that it's not a choice.

In any case, clearly religious belief IS a choice, and is protected. So
even if sexual preference were a choice, your objection to discrimination
against Jews is only consistent if you also object to discrimination against
gays.

Margy's question is very much apples and apples.

Pete

[Tom S.]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:OEc0b.184590$uu5.34852@sccrnsc04...
> > Would you feel the same way if the BSA had a no blacks or no Jews policy
> rather
> > than a no gays policy?
>
> Well, Margy, if you are you asking if I would be upset that the Scouts
were
> banned from the schools for hypothetically banning Jewish and black
members,
> the answer is no. In your example, the Scouts (or any other group) would
> quite deservedly have earned the wrath of the School Board and the Civil
> Rights community by arbitrarily banning members based on skin color or
> religion.

How about the collegiate groups for blacks, women, Hispanics...? They're
heroes.

[Peter Duniho]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> You were able to participate in good conscience when you were younger

Out of pure ignorance, I assure you.

> but the BSA's policies have not changed.

Sorry? You said earlier that the BSA doesn't want gays because they are
concerned that pedophiles would be a problem. However, when I was in the
Scouts, no one ever talked about pedophiles. It just wasn't anything anyone
worried about.

If the BSA's policies have not changed, they sure were nearly as concerned
about following them to the letter when I was a Scout as they are now.

> Instead of trying to force your views on the Boy Scouts

What makes you think I'm trying to force my views on the Boy Scouts? Do you
understand the difference in meaning between the word "force" and the word
"persuade"?

> why not help found another organization that espouses what you believe?

Even if I had the time and motivation to do so, I would never live to see a
new organization achieve what the BSA has achieved in terms of public
recognizance and acceptance. On the other hand, I genuinely believe that
the BSA *will* eventually modify their policies. The anti-gay attitude, in
the BSA and in society in general, will be a VERY long time before it goes
away 100%. Heck, we're still trying to get rid of racism.

But that attitude WILL eventually go away, and while there will be
stragglers for a long time, society in general (and, I believe, the Boy
Scouts) will no longer be anti-gay sooner rather than later. I feel it's a
lot more productive to try to help an existing organization come into the
modern era than to reinvent the wheel. Force them? No, not at all. But
education and persuasion goes a long way.

Pete

[Gary L. Drescher]

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:OEc0b.184590$uu5.34852@sccrnsc04...
> > > Would you feel the same way if the BSA had a no blacks or no Jews
policy
> > rather
> > > than a no gays policy?
> >
> > Well, Margy, if you are you asking if I would be upset that the Scouts
> were
> > banned from the schools for hypothetically banning Jewish and black
> members,
> > the answer is no. In your example, the Scouts (or any other group)
would
> > quite deservedly have earned the wrath of the School Board and the Civil
> > Rights community by arbitrarily banning members based on skin color or
> > religion.
>
> How about the collegiate groups for blacks, women, Hispanics...? They're
> heroes.

Do they exclude members based on race, gender, etc.? And use public-school
facilities to meet?

Look, putting aside the legal question for a moment, there's nothing morally
unreasonable about a group of people organizing around a shared interest or
activity. But it doesn't work to declare every prejudice the group has as a
morally legitimate shared interest; for example, it would be immoral for
your local golf organization to declare that its shared interest is in
playing golf among white people, so that nonwhites can be excluded. In
reality, its shared activity is just playing golf, and the exclusion of
nonwhites would be a shameful prejudice (though legally permitted--as it
should be--if the group is private).

In the same way, if the central activity of the Boy Scouts were to get
together and worship deities, then their exclusion of atheists would be
morally unobjectionable. Or if the Scouts' central activity were to conduct
heterosexual orgies, then their exclusion of gay people would be morally
unobjectionable. But if instead their central activities are things like
tying knots and lighting campfires, and learning about civics and
leadership, then to exclude gays and atheists on the grounds that they're
inherently bad role models (which is the Scouts' official reason for the
exclusion--see their web site) is just as shamefully prejudiced as it would
be for the Scouts to exclude blacks and Jews on the grounds that *they* are
inherently bad role models.

--Gary

[Margy Natalie]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> > Would you feel the same way if the BSA had a no blacks or no Jews policy
> rather
> > than a no gays policy?
>
> Well, Margy, if you are you asking if I would be upset that the Scouts were
> banned from the schools for hypothetically banning Jewish and black members,
> the answer is no. In your example, the Scouts (or any other group) would
> quite deservedly have earned the wrath of the School Board and the Civil
> Rights community by arbitrarily banning members based on skin color or
> religion.

So it's just a matter of which bigotry you agree with. If the group won't let
in Blacks they are bad, if they won't let in Jews they are bad, if they won't
let in gay people they are ok? What about Gypsies? Catholics?

Margy

[John Gaquin]

"Steve House" > wrote in message

> ....- to arbitrarily define that
> "marriage" can only be between persons of opposite gender may be
traditional
> but it is an anachronism based solely on an aversion to homosexuality.

Ah, so even in prehistory we are to blame all on "homophobes". Tripe. The
notion of a two-gender relationship around a core family unit evolved
millenia ago, even before the concept was recognized or codified as
"marriage". It evolved that way because even the most primitive of human
groups could recognize and understand the benefit to the entire clan of a
structured society and of a cohesive social fabric in which to provide
security for the clan and to raise and protect their young as they grew and
learned the ways of the clan. To state that such an evolution was based on
an arbitrary aversion to homosexuality is ludicrous.

>It presupposes that homosexual love is somehow of lesser moral quality than
> heterosexual love.

I can't quite get my hands around a picture of a primitive clan discussing
the "...lesser moral quality..." of other members of the clan. Such a
prehistoric evolution more likely simply recognized that a homosexual
relationship made no concrete contribution to the stability, security, or
social interweave of the clan.

JG

[Big John]

I refuse to support United Way and any other organization who
discriminates against the BSA.

Saw this year where UW did not meet their quota <G>

Won't meet if I have anything to say about it.

Big John


On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 11:28:17 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>> My personal feelings about the matter is that any private organization
>> should be able to discriminate against any group that it wishes for any
>> reason.
>
>I agree with you there. However:
>
> * The BSA should not enjoy preferential treatment or be granted any sort
>of government support. As a private organization, they should be
>self-sufficient if they wish to discriminate.
>
> * As a former scout myself, I look forward to a day when in good
>conscience allow my own son to participate in the BSA. The BSA has a lot of
>great things to offer. I will continue to be vocal in my desire for the BSA
>to change their policy, for this reason. Will I ask the government to force
>a change? No, absolutely not. But if the change happens from within, as a
>result of pressure from without, I see nothing wrong with that.
>
>In other words, the BSA should be permitted to do what they feel is best.
>However, they should not be surprised when they receive social criticism.
>
>Pete
>

[Big John]

As I read this thread it seems that Gays do not check their mags at
the same RPM as Straights? (on thread)

Before the posters come to blows, I'd suggest the thread be moved to a
'gay' site where it can be argued to eternity.


Big John.


On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 11:28:17 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>> My personal feelings about the matter is that any private organization
>> should be able to discriminate against any group that it wishes for any
>> reason.
>
>I agree with you there. However:
>
> * The BSA should not enjoy preferential treatment or be granted any sort
>of government support. As a private organization, they should be
>self-sufficient if they wish to discriminate.
>
> * As a former scout myself, I look forward to a day when in good
>conscience allow my own son to participate in the BSA. The BSA has a lot of
>great things to offer. I will continue to be vocal in my desire for the BSA
>to change their policy, for this reason. Will I ask the government to force
>a change? No, absolutely not. But if the change happens from within, as a
>result of pressure from without, I see nothing wrong with that.
>
>In other words, the BSA should be permitted to do what they feel is best.
>However, they should not be surprised when they receive social criticism.
>
>Pete
>

[Margy Natalie]

Big John wrote:

> As I read this thread it seems that Gays do not check their mags at
> the same RPM as Straights? (on thread)
>
> Before the posters come to blows, I'd suggest the thread be moved to a
> 'gay' site where it can be argued to eternity.

But we aren't gay, we are straight.

Margy

[G.R. Patterson III]

Steve House wrote:
>
> You may
> not personally wish to have a black person as the scoutmaster of the local
> scout troop, your opposition based solely on his race, but the law prevents
> that irrational prejudice from impacting on the selection of the
> scoutmaster.

The law provides no such thing. The Boy Scouts is a private organization and
*could* exclude blacks if they chose (which they do not choose to do).

George Patterson
Brute force has an elegance all its own.

[Big John]

Margy

But you are attracting Gays and the tenor of the posts is changing.
None of the posts now have anything to do with aviation or the
aircraft noise factor thread it started out about.

I do a lot of posting off thread but 'most' of these posts are about
my life with heavy iron and places where I flew and the surroundings,
etc. A few, like this one, could be considered a "net nanny" post I
guess, which is not good. I therefore apologize before I get taken to
the cleaners. <G>

Big John


On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 22:20:29 -0400, Margy Natalie >
wrote:

>
>
>Big John wrote:
>
>> As I read this thread it seems that Gays do not check their mags at
>> the same RPM as Straights? (on thread)
>>
>> Before the posters come to blows, I'd suggest the thread be moved to a
>> 'gay' site where it can be argued to eternity.
>
>But we aren't gay, we are straight.
>
>Margy
>

[Gary L. Drescher]

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> Margy
>
> But you are attracting Gays

Yep, Margy's just busing us in from everywhere.

--Gary

[Big John]

Gary

No way can you play the race card.

Big John


On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 03:15:49 GMT, "Gary L. Drescher"
> wrote:

>"Big John" > wrote in message
...
>> Margy
>>
>> But you are attracting Gays
>
>Yep, Margy's just busing us in from everywhere.
>
>--Gary
>

[Gary L. Drescher]

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steve House" > wrote in message
>
> > ....- to arbitrarily define that
> > "marriage" can only be between persons of opposite gender may be
> traditional
> > but it is an anachronism based solely on an aversion to homosexuality.
>
> Ah, so even in prehistory we are to blame all on "homophobes". Tripe.

You don't think there were bigots thousands of years ago? The Biblical
penalty for inter-ethnic sex was death--same as the penalty for gay sex, or
for worshipping the wrong deity. Those sentiments echo all the way to the
present.

> The notion of a two-gender relationship around a core family unit evolved
> millenia ago, even before the concept was recognized or codified as
> "marriage". It evolved that way because even the most primitive of human
> groups could recognize and understand the benefit to the entire clan of a
> structured society and of a cohesive social fabric in which to provide
> security for the clan and to raise and protect their young as they grew
and
> learned the ways of the clan. To state that such an evolution was based
on
> an arbitrary aversion to homosexuality is ludicrous.

To say that heterosexual unions evolved as an aversion to homosexuality
would indeed be ludicrous, but no one has said anything of the sort.

However, there does seem to have been an ancient, widespread aversion to
homosexuality, just as there were similar ancient, widespread aversions to
inter-ethnic sex, religious pluralism, political and social equality between
men and women, and countless other such prejudices. (No one knew better
back then; now we do.)

What Steve said is that the present-day insistence on excluding gay couples
from codified marriage has its origins in an arbitrary, ancient
prejudice--not that heterosexual couples or families originate from such
prejudice.

Incidentally, your fanciful story as to the origins of family structure is
almost as ludicrous as the story that you inaccurately attribute to Steve.
Family structures occur even in species that have no cognitive ability to
assess and compare the relative merits of various forms of social
organization, hence no ability to "recognize" or "understand" the putative
benefits of what they are doing. There is no evidence that early human
family structures arose more ratiocinatively than did the similar structures
in other primates.

> >It presupposes that homosexual love is somehow of lesser moral quality
than
> > heterosexual love.
>
> I can't quite get my hands around a picture of a primitive clan discussing
> the "...lesser moral quality..." of other members of the clan.

Good, since no one has proposed that picture. If you look at the full
quote, the "it" Steve refers to is the present-day marriage exclusion,
rooted in the ancient prejudice.

> Such a
> prehistoric evolution more likely simply recognized that a homosexual
> relationship made no concrete contribution to the stability, security, or
> social interweave of the clan.

That's a pretty far-fetched conversation for the ancient clansfolk to have
had, too. But since I can't interpellate your prehistoric protagonists,
I'll have to ask you instead: In what way does a childless gay couple make
less of a contribution to social stability etc. than does a childless
straight couple? In what way does a gay couple raising children make less
of a contribution to social stability etc. than does a straight couple
raising children?

--Gary

> JG
>
>
>

[John Gaquin]

No, I'm done with this. You run in circles, "proving" that the sky is green
by claiming that the sky is green.

There are subsets of humankind that have managed to alienate themselves from
every society they have lived in for thousands upon thousands of years. Is
this arbitrary coincidence? Secularists would have you believe that just
within the past few hundred years we have become so sophisticated as to
negate millions of years of evolutionary caution. I don't buy it. Species
continually protect themselves. Sophistication is a thin patina indeed.

[C J Campbell]

Well, Gary, you can call me a liar if you wish, but in fact gay rights
activists have posted their opinion on rec.scouting.usa and
rec.scouting.issues that BSA should not be allowed to use public facilities,
including parks and roads, because to do so constitutes a government subsidy
of a discriminatory group.

You can fantasize all you want, but your refusal to accept the facts does
not change them.

[Dave Stadt]

"Margy Natalie" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Big John wrote:
>
> > I refuse to support United Way and any other organization who
> > discriminates against the BSA.
>
> But organizations that discriminate against children are ok?
>
> Margy

"As a licensed woman pilot (current or not), you are invited to become a
part of our legacy as the first and only international organization of women
pilots."

How does one explain the above discrimination by the 99s.

[Peter Duniho]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
.com...
> "As a licensed woman pilot (current or not), you are invited to become a
> part of our legacy as the first and only international organization of
women
> pilots."
>
> How does one explain the above discrimination by the 99s.

This has already been pointed out, but I guess you went to the bathroom or
something and missed it.

There's a difference between discrimination for the sake of discrimination
(e.g. BSA discriminating against gays) and discrimination inherent in the
organization (e.g. 99's). The 99's is *specifically* for the benefit of
women pilots, and as such it makes sense for them to exclude men. The BSA
is not *specifically* for the benefit of heterosexual men, and as such it
makes no sense for them to exclude homosexuals.

Pete

[Steve House]

Never said that heterosexual marriage relationships grew out of an aversion
to homosexuality or evolved as a reaction to it. And since a heterosexual
orientation represents the majority of the population it is also going to be
the predominant type of relationship. But you are taking that farther and
saying that because it is the majority type then it must be the only
acceptable one, and b) it is somehow innate within heterosexuals to feel
that way. You then suggst that we tell it's innate because you assert that
within primitive cultures homosexuality either does not coexist alongside
heterosexual relationships in or is rejected. But many cultures both
primitive and not-so primitive have accepted homosexuality as fully equal to
heterosexuality, some Native American cultures, for example, even ascribing
a sacred quality to it.

By the way, tell the Spartans that homosexuality made no contribution to "a
structured society and of a cohesive social fabric in which to provide
security for the clan and to raise and protect their young as they grew and
learned the ways of the clan." Among that "clan" it was not only tolerated
but mandatory and was considered to be fundamental to the stable structure
of society and the military security of the State.


"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steve House" > wrote in message
>
> > ....- to arbitrarily define that
> > "marriage" can only be between persons of opposite gender may be
> traditional
> > but it is an anachronism based solely on an aversion to homosexuality.
>
> Ah, so even in prehistory we are to blame all on "homophobes". Tripe.
The
> notion of a two-gender relationship around a core family unit evolved
> millenia ago, even before the concept was recognized or codified as
> "marriage". It evolved that way because even the most primitive of human
> groups could recognize and understand the benefit to the entire clan of a
> structured society and of a cohesive social fabric in which to provide
> security for the clan and to raise and protect their young as they grew
and
> learned the ways of the clan. To state that such an evolution was based
on
> an arbitrary aversion to homosexuality is ludicrous.
>
> >It presupposes that homosexual love is somehow of lesser moral quality
than
> > heterosexual love.
>
> I can't quite get my hands around a picture of a primitive clan discussing
> the "...lesser moral quality..." of other members of the clan. Such a
> prehistoric evolution more likely simply recognized that a homosexual
> relationship made no concrete contribution to the stability, security, or
> social interweave of the clan.
>
> JG
>
>
>

[Gary L. Drescher]

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
...
> No, I'm done with this. You run in circles, "proving" that the sky is
green
> by claiming that the sky is green.
>
> There are subsets of humankind that have managed to alienate themselves
from
> every society they have lived in for thousands upon thousands of years.
Is
> this arbitrary coincidence?

First, your historical claim is in error; not all cultures have oppressed
gay people. Such oppression has been widespread across many cultures for
millennia, but then so has the oppression of Jews. By your reasoning, the
Jews too must be at fault for having "managed to alienate themselves", since
that's the only alternative you acknowledge to "coincidence" as an
explanation for widespread, persistent oppression.

> Secularists would have you believe that just
> within the past few hundred years we have become so sophisticated as to
> negate millions of years of evolutionary caution.

Secularists like the new Episcopal bishop in New Hampshire, and the
congregations that appointed him? Apparently "secularists" for you includes
the growing number of devoutly religious people who disagree with you.

It is only in the last 150 years that humanity has become so sophisticated
as to universally abolish overt, legally-sanctioned slavery. It is only in
the last 100 years that humanity has become so sophisticated as to have
nations *anywhere* in which both women and men elect their political
leadership. You suggest that if a group has been "alienated" from societies
until recently, then their continued disfavor must be warranted, and
arguments to the contrary are just "claiming that the sky is green". By
that view, the very tenaciousness of oppression becomes its own
justification! That position is as intellectually preposterous as it is
morally preposterous.

It is telling that despite your repeated assertion that same-gender unions
make no contribution to social stability, you have not even *tried* to
answer my simple questions: In what way does a childless gay couple make
less of a contribution to social stability than does a childless straight
couple? In what way does a gay couple raising children make less of a
contribution to social stability than does a straight couple raising
children?

--Gary

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Steve House" > wrote in message
...
>
> You just made the point I was illustrating - to arbitrarily define that
> "marriage" can only be between persons of opposite gender may be
traditional
> but it is an anachronism based solely on an aversion to homosexuality.
>

No it isn't.


>
> It presupposes that homosexual love is somehow of lesser moral quality
than
> heterosexual love.
>

No it doesn't.


>
> People should be free to marry any person who wishes to
> marry them back, regardless of their respective genders, and have the
legal
> entity of a marriage of two same gender persons be indistinguishable in
any
> manner from that of two opposite gender persons. That is not to say that
> religious organizations shouldn't be able to define marriage and those
> eligible to do so within the context of their congregations and rituals as
> they wish - I was married in the Catholic church and my wife and I had to
> conform to certain requirements that were not part of the civil
requirements
> for marriage and that is at it should be. But the *civil* authority
should
> treat same-sex and opposite-sex couples exactly alike in every respect,
> including the terminology that is used to refer to the union.
>

Persons of the same sex cannot marry because marriage involves persons of
the opposite sex. You want government to redefine marriage so that they
can, but government doesn't have that authority.

[Gary L. Drescher]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
news:ITn0b.897>>
> Persons of the same sex cannot marry because marriage involves persons of
> the opposite sex. You want government to redefine marriage so that they
> can, but government doesn't have that authority.

Apparently the Canadian government does.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> Of course it is. The exact words "separation of church and state" don't
> appear, of course. But the intent is clear.
>

The exact words are, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". The intent is
clearly to prevent the US Congress from making a law establishing a national
religion or any law prohibiting the free exercise of one's religion.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> Of course they are. These bills say, in essence, "gays will not be
> granted the right to marry". I don't know how much more clearly someone's
rights
> can be denied.
>

Which bills say that? I've seen nothing that remotely suggests that.

[Jay Honeck]

> > [...] In your example, the Scouts (or any other group) would
> > quite deservedly have earned the wrath of the School Board and the Civil
> > Rights community by arbitrarily banning members based on skin color or
> > religion.
>
> And therein lies the crux of the disagreement (contrary to what was said
> earlier by someone else).
>
> You apparently think that sexual preference is different from race, and is
> not one that should be protected. Maybe you think it's some kind of
option.

No, Peter, this has nothing to do with whether homosexuality is a lifestyle
"choice" or not. (I personally don't believe anyone would choose such a
difficult path for themselves.)

This has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that skin color or religious
preference is patently and demonstrably harmless, while sexual attraction is
potentially and demonstrably harmful -- especially in groups of pre-teen
boys (and girls).

I wouldn't want my Girl Scout daughter chaperoned overnight by a male troop
leader, either, for fear of what might happen. How is this any different
than having a homosexual Boy Scout leader?

THAT is an "apples and apples" comparison.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Maule Driver]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> Which is why the Confederate Air Force changed its name, even though the
> name had nothing to do with commemorating the CSA or the War Between the
> States.

What did the the word "Confederate" refer to? Anyone know?

[C J Campbell]

"Maule Driver" > wrote in message
m...
|
| "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
| ...
| > Which is why the Confederate Air Force changed its name, even though the
| > name had nothing to do with commemorating the CSA or the War Between the
| > States.
|
| What did the the word "Confederate" refer to? Anyone know?
|
|

IIRC it referred to its organizational structure.

[C J Campbell]

"Gary L. Drescher" > wrote in message
news:NMn0b.199096$o%2.91497@sccrnsc02...
|
| I don't doubt that there may be one or two people on the face of the
planet
| with access to Usenet who have typed in such an idea (though your past
| misquotes of me and others have been so egregious that I can't just take
| your word for it). What I disputed is your claim that "numerous
activists"
| take that position--a position which is in fact eschewed by every
gay-rights
| organization I know of.
|

Well, I don't know about 'egregious,' but I do not intentionally misquote
you or anybody else. In view, however, of your tendency to contradict
yourself and to try to change the meaning of what you say, I can understand
how you might think that others are misquoting you.

[Gary L. Drescher]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> Well, I don't know about 'egregious,' but I do not intentionally misquote
> you or anybody else.

I never said it was intentional or that you're lying. I think you
reflexively fabricate convenient facts, and then turn around and sincerely
believe your own fabrications. For instance, I'd bet you actually believe
your claim that there are many gay-rights groups that exclude straight
members and meet in public schools, despite your apparently having never
encountered even a single example.

--Gary

[Maule Driver]

> | "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> | ...
> | > Which is why the Confederate Air Force changed its name, even though
the
> | > name had nothing to do with commemorating the CSA or the War Between
the
> | > States.
> |
> | What did the the word "Confederate" refer to? Anyone know?
> |
> IIRC it referred to its organizational structure.
>
That might be a bit revisionist. I see according to the American Heritage
Airmuseum page at http://www.airpowermuseum.org/aahmhist.html
"Over the years, a small museum began to grow as World War II artifacts were
donated to the CAF. In 1965, the first museum building consisting of 26,000
square feet was completed at old Rebel Field, Mercedes, Texas.
The CAF created a new Rebel Field at Harlingen, Texas, when they moved there
in 1968, occupying three large buildings."

Sounds like some good 'ol boys commemorating the CSA, the War and the Rebel
cause. Seems like a reasonable explanation for the times. Great
organization filled with great people, great airplanes and a better name.

No need to change history, just improve the future.

[Margy Natalie]

Dave Stadt wrote:

> "Margy Natalie" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Big John wrote:
> >
> > > I refuse to support United Way and any other organization who
> > > discriminates against the BSA.
> >
> > But organizations that discriminate against children are ok?
> >
> > Margy
>
> "As a licensed woman pilot (current or not), you are invited to become a
> part of our legacy as the first and only international organization of women
> pilots."
>
> How does one explain the above discrimination by the 99s.

Men are not excluded from the 99s. I'm sure if you want to pony up the
membership fee they would be glad to take it and welcome you to their meetings.
At school I had an aviation club and a "women in aviation" club. I did this
because at the first meeting I knew my two quiet little girls would not stay
with my loud boys. I didn't say the boys couldn't join the women in aviation
club and if they wanted to come they could.

Margy

[Ron Natalie]

"Margy Natalie" > wrote in message ...

> Pedophilia is a different situation than having a gay troop leader. Just
> because one is gay does not make one a pedophile.

And there have certainly been lots of experience with heterosexual pedophile
in the BSA. Pedophilia does not seem to be particularly oriented to M/F sexual
orientation.

[Margy Natalie]

Big John wrote:

> Margy
>
> But you are attracting Gays and the tenor of the posts is changing.
> None of the posts now have anything to do with aviation or the
> aircraft noise factor thread it started out about.
>

Geez, this sounds like the same arguement we had a church when we hired a
minister. Hoards of gays would flock to the church because she was there.
Exactly ONE gay person joined the church because of her. The rest of the
congregation nick-named her "the hoard". Everyone had lots of fun with it.

I know it's way off topic, but that's never happened before ;-),

Margy

[Ron Natalie]

"Margy Natalie" > wrote in message ...

>
> Men are not excluded from the 99s. I'm sure if you want to pony up the
> membership fee they would be glad to take it and welcome you to their meetings.

Voting membership is reserved to woman who hold pilot certificates. They have a
FWP non-voting status for woman who are not yet licensed.

[C J Campbell]

"Gary L. Drescher" > wrote in message
news:_tr0b.199730$o%2.92520@sccrnsc02...
| "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
| ...
| > Well, I don't know about 'egregious,' but I do not intentionally
misquote
| > you or anybody else.
|
| I never said it was intentional or that you're lying. I think you
| reflexively fabricate convenient facts, and then turn around and sincerely
| believe your own fabrications. For instance, I'd bet you actually believe
| your claim that there are many gay-rights groups that exclude straight
| members and meet in public schools, despite your apparently having never
| encountered even a single example.
|
| --Gary


Broward County in Florida is debating right now whether to allow Boy Scouts
to continue to meet in their schools. "No matter what they decide, Till and
some board members said they do not plan to back off exactly what the Scouts
challenged in federal court this year: the district's insistence that some
groups meeting in schools not discriminate based on sexual orientation." I
see that as saying that it is OK for some groups to discriminate, but not
others. Perhaps you can ask Broward County if there really are other groups
that discriminate based on sexual orientation, and why it is tolerable for
them to do it but not the Boy Scouts.

The assault has the South Florida Council, Boy Scouts of America, fearing
for the very survival of its programs. "If you're not allowed to meet in
public schools, if you're not allowed to use city facilities, if you're not
allowed to raise money, it's kind of tough to have a program for children,"
said Jeffrie Herrmann, Scout executive.

You might want to ask some of your gay friends just how far they are willing
to go to destroy the Boy Scouts. If they are not allowed to meet in public
schools (as in South Florida) or in fire stations (as in Chicago), how long
will it be before they are not allowed to meet in recreation centers in
public parks? And from there, how long will it be that they will not be
allowed in the public parks at all?

[Ron Natalie]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message

> Broward County in Florida is debating right now whether to allow Boy Scouts
> to continue to meet in their schools.

Crikes around here we have Churches renting space in the schools on the weekend.
It's one of the most cost-effective venues for them. Local court decisions said that
if you're going to allow entities to rent the facility you can't discriminate against churches.

[Margy Natalie]

C J Campbell wrote:

>
> You might want to ask some of your gay friends just how far they are willing
> to go to destroy the Boy Scouts. If they are not allowed to meet in public
> schools (as in South Florida) or in fire stations (as in Chicago), how long
> will it be before they are not allowed to meet in recreation centers in
> public parks? And from there, how long will it be that they will not be
> allowed in the public parks at all?

As a straight woman and mother I don't have any problem with the BSA destroying
itself by having a policy that bans a group of children from becoming or staying
members. It's hard enough for a kid to come to grips with being gay, but then
to be thrown out of a social group where he has been a member for years because
of it is awful. I don't think any group should be allowed to harm children in
this way. When a kid is 7 they usually don't think much about sexual
orientation, but that same cute little cub scout at 13 or 15 might know full
well he is gay. Now, should he lie, hide who he is, or get thrown out of a
group he's belonged to for 8 years. Tough choice for a kid! BTW my daughter
was a girl scout, but I didn't look into boy scouts for my son because I was not
comfortable having my son surrounded by a group of bigots.

Margy

[Peter Duniho]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
> The exact words are, "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment
> of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". The intent is
> clearly to prevent the US Congress from making a law establishing a
national
> religion or any law prohibiting the free exercise of one's religion.

Seems to me "respecting an establishment of religion" refers to laws based
on religion, not the establishment of a national religion. If they wanted
to limit it to prohibiting only the establishment of a national religion,
they would have written "THE establishment of A NATIONAL religion", not "an
establishment of religion".

Don't worry though...I know that you'll disagree 'til you're blue in the
face. So feel free to disagree once again. Don't bother me none. There is
ample interpretive precedent that disagrees with you, and I have no need to
engage in a futile effort to change your mind.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Which bills say that? I've seen nothing that remotely suggests that.

No, of course you haven't. That's because you live in your own special
world, where things mean only what you'd like them to mean.

Suffice to say, the rest of us HAVE seen exactly what I said we've seen.

Pete

[Gary L. Drescher]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gary L. Drescher" > wrote in message
> news:_tr0b.199730$o%2.92520@sccrnsc02...
> | "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> | ...
> | > Well, I don't know about 'egregious,' but I do not intentionally
> misquote
> | > you or anybody else.
> |
> | I never said it was intentional or that you're lying. I think you
> | reflexively fabricate convenient facts, and then turn around and
sincerely
> | believe your own fabrications. For instance, I'd bet you actually
believe
> | your claim that there are many gay-rights groups that exclude straight
> | members and meet in public schools, despite your apparently having never
> | encountered even a single example.
> |
> | --Gary
>
>
> Broward County in Florida is debating right now whether to allow Boy
Scouts
> to continue to meet in their schools. "No matter what they decide, Till
and
> some board members said they do not plan to back off exactly what the
Scouts
> challenged in federal court this year: the district's insistence that some
> groups meeting in schools not discriminate based on sexual orientation." I
> see that as saying that it is OK for some groups to discriminate, but not
> others. Perhaps you can ask Broward County if there really are other
groups
> that discriminate based on sexual orientation, and why it is tolerable for
> them to do it but not the Boy Scouts.

CJ, this illustrates why it is a good thing to cite sources for your claims.
Now that you have done so, it is apparent that you have simply
*misunderstood* what you read. In fact, you got it exactly backwards. Look
again please. What Till is quoted as saying is that the board will NOT BACK
OFF FROM INSISTING that groups meeting in schools must NOT discriminate
based on sexual orientation. The phrase "some groups" obviously refers to
the fact that *only some* school-meeting groups (namely, the Scouts) have
ever even *tried* to discriminate based on sexual orientation; it is not a
declaration that it would be OK for some other groups to so discriminate!
And *even given* your tortured misreading, the statement *still* would not
remotely attest to the actual existence of any gay-rights group that did
discriminate in that manner.

So *that* was your basis for claiming that many gay-rights groups meet in
public schools and exclude straight members?

--Gary

[Trent Moorehead]

"Margy Natalie" > wrote in message
...
> Geez, this sounds like the same arguement we had a church when we hired a
> minister. Hoards of gays would flock to the church because she was there.
> Exactly ONE gay person joined the church because of her. The rest of the
> congregation nick-named her "the hoard". Everyone had lots of fun with
it.
>
> I know it's way off topic, but that's never happened before ;-),
>
> Margy

This reminds me of an experience that I had:
My wife and I used to attend a Unitarian church. The pastor there gave
awesome sermons, all of which would be welcome in any church or synagogue
anywhere. He left after a year and his understudy took over while a new
pastor was being secured. She really liked to have guest "sermonizers" which
I thought was cool. Well, it seemed that the only people who would get up
and talk were people with various political agendas. They would go on for 20
minutes or more talking about population control, environmental concerns,
you name it. The good feeling that we used to have when we left the church
was gone.

I figured that eventually that the political diatribes would peter out, but
then the new minister turned out to be gay. Not a problem until a good half
of his sermons was about being gay or how awful Jesse Helms is. I fully
expected him to burn ol' Jesse in effigy, that's how bad it was. The last
service I went to had us holding hands and singing "We shall overcome". This
dude essentially hijacked a church to hold gay rights rallies. Not my cup of
tea for a Sunday morning.

I'm not anti-gay, but I have to draw the line at lame-o gay ministers
though.

-Trent
PP-ASEL

[Newps]

Peter Duniho wrote:

>
> Seems to me "respecting an establishment of religion" refers to laws based
> on religion, not the establishment of a national religion. If they wanted
> to limit it to prohibiting only the establishment of a national religion,
> they would have written "THE establishment of A NATIONAL religion", not "an
> establishment of religion".

You'd think that. England had/has a national religion. We wanted to
avoid that. It could have been written a whole lot clearer, just like
the second ammendment could have been written clearer, even though the
intent is obvious. I suspect they thought it was plenty clear at the
time they wrote and approved it.

[Ron Natalie]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message ...
> If they wanted
> to limit it to prohibiting only the establishment of a national religion,
> they would have written "THE establishment of A NATIONAL religion", not "an
> establishment of religion".
>
National would be redundant. Establishment doesn't mean "creation" in this
context, it means giving official recognition by the government. Since the constitution
lays out the powers and limitations of the NATIONAL government, that's pretty much
what they mean.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:bUp0b.200383$Ho3.26912@sccrnsc03...
> This has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that skin color or religious
> preference is patently and demonstrably harmless, while sexual attraction
is
> potentially and demonstrably harmful -- especially in groups of pre-teen
> boys (and girls).

Skin color is patently harmless? Really? Ever heard of the Black Panthers?
Religious preference is harmless? Really? Funny...seems like a couple of
years ago, some VERY religious-minded folks destroyed the World Trade
Center.

Differences in skin color or religious preference have a GREAT potential for
causing conflict and harm. That potential need not be nearly as militant as
the examples I've given to do serious harm, either psychologically or
physically.

As far as sexual attraction being potentially and demonstrably harmful, I
suppose that depends on what you mean. If teenages are not properly
supervised, there is the potential for fraternization. However, I will tell
you this: there was a LOT more fraternization and a LOT less supervision
when I was a teenager at co-ed church retreats then when I was a teenager at
Boy Scout camping trips (and remember, I was in the Boy Scouts before it
occurred to anyone to ask someone if they were gay before letting them be in
the troop, either as a scout or a leader).

However, I fail to see what is inherently harmful about the fraternization.
Even the military is on pretty thin ice with their claim that romantic
involvements between servicemen can undermine the safety of the entire
group, and at least in their case they do have people shooting at them on a
regular basis.

I can't imagine what harm could come from a couple of gay boys in the same
Boy Scout troop having a romantic involvement (other than the usual problems
of immature teenagers being involved sexually, regardless of sexual
preference). At least you know they're not going to get pregnant.

> I wouldn't want my Girl Scout daughter chaperoned overnight by a male
troop
> leader, either, for fear of what might happen.

There were lots of women at the summer camp I went to when I was a Boy
Scout. For some reason, no funny business ever happened, nor was anyone
worried about mixed-gender leadership. Beyond that, as has been pointed out
multiple times already, you are more likely to find a heterosexual male
willing to prey on a teenage boy than you are to find a homosexual male
willing to do the same.

Your concern should be based on reality, not your existing prejudice and
lack of understanding of what it actually means to be homosexual.

Pete

[Ron Natalie]

"Trent Moorehead" > wrote in message ...
> The last
> service I went to had us holding hands and singing "We shall overcome". This
> dude essentially hijacked a church to hold gay rights rallies. Not my cup of
> tea for a Sunday morning.
>
> I'm not anti-gay, but I have to draw the line at lame-o gay ministers
> though.

Not all gay ministers are lame-o. I can't recall Gretchen ever mentioning
sexuality in a sermon. She had more important topics. I most enjoyed
being invited to her house to view and have a theological discussion of
"The Life of Brian."

Of course, it was her (non-gay) replacement that we had to have defrocked
(an uncommon event for the UU ministry). Sounds like your congregation
should have throttled your minister.

[Ron Natalie]

"Newps" > wrote in message news:SVs0b.202258$uu5.36211@sccrnsc04...
>
> You'd think that. England had/has a national religion.

and not just England. Every major European power at the time had an
established religion.

[Peter Duniho]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
. ..
> National would be redundant. Establishment doesn't mean "creation" in
this
> context, it means giving official recognition by the government.

And would not a law passed based solely on religious beliefs be "official
recognition"?

I agree that establishment doesn't mean creation in this context. That was
my point.

Pete

[Ron Natalie]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message ...
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > National would be redundant. Establishment doesn't mean "creation" in
> this
> > context, it means giving official recognition by the government.
>
> And would not a law passed based solely on religious beliefs be "official
> recognition"?
>
> I agree that establishment doesn't mean creation in this context. That was
> my point.
>
Then I don't understand you point. The ammendement says congress may not
establish a religion. Do you think that the rule is limitted to a national religion or
congress establishing one for Maryland alone?

[Trent Moorehead]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
. ..

> Not all gay ministers are lame-o. I can't recall Gretchen ever
mentioning
> sexuality in a sermon. She had more important topics. I most enjoyed
> being invited to her house to view and have a theological discussion of
> "The Life of Brian."
>
> Of course, it was her (non-gay) replacement that we had to have defrocked
> (an uncommon event for the UU ministry). Sounds like your congregation
> should have throttled your minister.

I didn't mean to imply that all gay ministers were bad, just this one. It
didn't seem that anyone really objected to his sermons, so I'm not sure he
got put in his place. The place was so political, this may have been what
they wanted, I don't know.

I also should have mentioned that he couldn't sing either. :( I would
cringe when he would start butcherin' some "Old Negro Spiritual" or some
such. Just awful.

By the way, I'm more of a "Holy Grail" kinda guy. :)

-Trent

[Ron Natalie]

"Trent Moorehead" > wrote in message ...
>
> I also should have mentioned that he couldn't sing either. :( I would
> cringe when he would start butcherin' some "Old Negro Spiritual" or some
> such. Just awful.
>
The Unitarians have been murdering the classics for years. I cringe at some
of the lyrics in Singing the Living Tradition no matter how accomplished the
soloist.

[Ron Natalie]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message ...

>
> You are getting hung up on the "national" vs. "local" (my fault for
> capitalizing the word "national", I suppose), when in fact the real question
> is whether the amendment prohibits simply the creation of a national
> religion, or if it prohibits all lawmaking based solely on religion.

OK, I misunderstood, I thought you were trying to limit the definition, not expand it.
I am of the same opinion.

[Jay Honeck]

> There were lots of women at the summer camp I went to when I was a Boy
> Scout. For some reason, no funny business ever happened, nor was anyone
> worried about mixed-gender leadership. Beyond that, as has been pointed
out
> multiple times already, you are more likely to find a heterosexual male
> willing to prey on a teenage boy than you are to find a homosexual male
> willing to do the same.

I would say the odds of a woman "preying" upon a teenage boy are an order of
magnitude smaller than the reverse example (i.e.: A man preying on a teenage
girl.). According to my wife (a Girl Scout leader, BTW), most women just
ain't wired "that way". (I'll have to take her word for it.)

Men, on the other hand, I understand. It would be sheer folly to assume
that a man, left alone with a teenage girl, overnight, wouldn't be tempted.
Would most men ACT on this temptation? No, of course not. But I'd bet you
a hundred bucks that a higher percentage of men than women would... This is
the model to follow when considering leaving a gay man in charge of a Boy
Scout troop, IMHO.

Finally, I'm totally baffled by your statement that "you are more likely to
find a heterosexual male willing to prey on a teenage boy than you are to
find a homosexual male willing to do the same." In what way would a
HETEROsexual male be likely to prey upon a teenage boy?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Trent Moorehead]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:wIt0b.201425$YN5.140717@sccrnsc01...
In what way would a
> HETEROsexual male be likely to prey upon a teenage boy?

That would be a pedaphile.

They are sickos that don't think along lines that normal-thinking people do.
That would include GAY normal-thinking people.

[Margy Natalie]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> > There were lots of women at the summer camp I went to when I was a Boy
> > Scout. For some reason, no funny business ever happened, nor was anyone
> > worried about mixed-gender leadership. Beyond that, as has been pointed
> out
> > multiple times already, you are more likely to find a heterosexual male
> > willing to prey on a teenage boy than you are to find a homosexual male
> > willing to do the same.
>
> I would say the odds of a woman "preying" upon a teenage boy are an order of
> magnitude smaller than the reverse example (i.e.: A man preying on a teenage
> girl.). According to my wife (a Girl Scout leader, BTW), most women just
> ain't wired "that way". (I'll have to take her word for it.)

Didn't hear about that teacher out west then (the one who had a kid by her
middle school student). We had a PE teacher here in VA (female) busted for
fooling around with the boys.

>
>
> Men, on the other hand, I understand. It would be sheer folly to assume
> that a man, left alone with a teenage girl, overnight, wouldn't be tempted.
> Would most men ACT on this temptation? No, of course not. But I'd bet you
> a hundred bucks that a higher percentage of men than women would... This is
> the model to follow when considering leaving a gay man in charge of a Boy
> Scout troop, IMHO.

Gee, so men are inherently evil! I knew it, I knew it, I knew it!!!!!! (Yes,
I am joking!)

>
>
> Finally, I'm totally baffled by your statement that "you are more likely to
> find a heterosexual male willing to prey on a teenage boy than you are to
> find a homosexual male willing to do the same." In what way would a
> HETEROsexual male be likely to prey upon a teenage boy?
> -

Because pedophilia isn't necessarily related to gender. Male pedophiles who
prey on little boys might be straight when it comes to normal sex.

Margy

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:wIt0b.201425$YN5.140717@sccrnsc01...
> I would say the odds of a woman "preying" upon a teenage boy are an order
of
> magnitude smaller than the reverse example (i.e.: A man preying on a
teenage
> girl.). According to my wife (a Girl Scout leader, BTW), most women just
> ain't wired "that way". (I'll have to take her word for it.)

Why would you have to take her word for it? Does she know most women? How
is her position as a Girl Scout leader relevant?

As far as wiring goes, most men aren't either. Most people in our society
are able to resist temptations that fall outside of socially acceptable
behavior. Beyond that, there are ample examples of women preying on teenage
boys (Mary Kay Letourneau being a recent high-profile case).

Of course, our society being what it is, the boys don't usually think of
themselves as "prey". As enlightened as we'd like to think we are, boys are
still encouraged to have sex while girls are told they are sluts for even
thinking about it. But that doesn't diminish the fact that it is, indeed,
preying.

> Men, on the other hand, I understand. It would be sheer folly to assume
> that a man, left alone with a teenage girl, overnight, wouldn't be
tempted.

Left alone? What kind of arrangements do they have in your Boy Scout troop?
If male leaders and scouts are pairing up and sleeping alone together, I'd
submit that you have bigger problems than the question of homosexuals on
your hands.

Further, I'm a bit curious why you think you understand gay men. Do you
understand what it feels like to be attracted to another man? To be
attracted ONLY to other men? If you cannot understand that, what makes you
think you can understand how a gay man would feel around a teenage boy?

> Would most men ACT on this temptation? No, of course not. But I'd bet
you
> a hundred bucks that a higher percentage of men than women would...

I'd take that bet. After all, the victim is much more likely to be
compliant in the case of a woman trying to act on her temptation (due to our
screwed up sexual double-standard, in which teenage boys are encouraged to
have sex while girls are discouraged). In any case, the question is not one
of "how many", but rather of "whether". If you are concerned about the
potential for abuse, you need to look at the individual.

Furthermore, there are far more women involved in Boy Scouts than there
would ever be gay men; if you feel that gay men are a risk, simply because
they would be "tempted", then you should be arguing to ban all female
involvement with the Scouts as well.

> Finally, I'm totally baffled by your statement that "you are more likely
to
> find a heterosexual male willing to prey on a teenage boy than you are to
> find a homosexual male willing to do the same." In what way would a
> HETEROsexual male be likely to prey upon a teenage boy?

Pedophilia is not about gender preference. It's about preying on children.
Most pedophiles are heterosexual. Furthermore, just as all but a very few
heterosexuals are pedophiles, so are just a very few homosexuals pedophiles.

If you think that just because a man is heterosexual, you can be assured he
won't want to have sex with your boy, you are dangerously ill-informed.
Your bafflement reveals a hazardous gap in your awareness of sexual deviance
and its risk to you and your family. It's the same as if you had the belief
that putting a second engine on an airplane ensures that it couldn't be
crashed.

Pete

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gary L. Drescher" > wrote in message
news:x2b0b.148123$Oz4.40213@rwcrnsc54...
>
> No, we're trying to remove an arbitrary restriction that has been in place
> for millennia.
>

Why don't you remove the "restriction" on division by zero while you're at
it, or the "restriction" on perpetual motion machines. Those are just as
arbitrary.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> Allowing gays to marry a member of the opposite sex is not any better than
not
> allowing them to marry at all.
>

You say that as if gays were prohibited from marrying a member of the
opposite sex. They're not.


>
> There are numerous benefits, all of them regarding legal standing, to
> marriage as acknowledged by the government. It is those rights that gays
> want and deserve.
>

They have them now.


>
> Same-sex "marriages" happen all the time already.
>

Same-sex marriage does not exist.

[Ron Natalie]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:wIt0b.201425$YN5.140717@sccrnsc01...


>
> Finally, I'm totally baffled by your statement that "you are more likely to
> find a heterosexual male willing to prey on a teenage boy than you are to
> find a homosexual male willing to do the same." In what way would a
> HETEROsexual male be likely to prey upon a teenage boy?

Because pedophilia is neither a homo or heterosexual act. Sexual preference
between consenting adults is not a good predictor as to whether they would
molest a child or vice versa.

[Jay Honeck]

> Because pedophilia isn't necessarily related to gender. Male pedophiles
who
> prey on little boys might be straight when it comes to normal sex.

Really?

I would submit that any male who is sexually aroused by the same sex -- no
matter what the age -- is NOT "straight". What your are describing, IMHO,
is a bisexual male.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Ron Natalie]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:kVv0b.201928$YN5.141200@sccrnsc01...
> > Because pedophilia isn't necessarily related to gender. Male pedophiles
> who
> > prey on little boys might be straight when it comes to normal sex.
>
> Really?
>
> I would submit that any male who is sexually aroused by the same sex -- no
> matter what the age -- is NOT "straight". What your are describing, IMHO,
> is a bisexual male.
Someone who is sexually aroused by small girls isn't "straight" either.
What part of molesting small children is an unnatural act (even for homosexuals)
do you have a hard time wrapping your more-rigtht-wing-than-Ronald-Reagan brain
around?

[Margy Natalie]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> > Because pedophilia isn't necessarily related to gender. Male pedophiles
> who
> > prey on little boys might be straight when it comes to normal sex.
>
> Really?
>
> I would submit that any male who is sexually aroused by the same sex -- no
> matter what the age -- is NOT "straight". What your are describing, IMHO,
> is a bisexual male.
>

The pedophile is attracted to kids. I think to label a male as gay or bi they
need to be attracted to adult males.

Margy

[Steve House]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:bUp0b.200383$Ho3.26912@sccrnsc03...
....snip...
>
> No, Peter, this has nothing to do with whether homosexuality is a
lifestyle
> "choice" or not. (I personally don't believe anyone would choose such a
> difficult path for themselves.)
>
> This has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that skin color or religious
> preference is patently and demonstrably harmless, while sexual attraction
is
> potentially and demonstrably harmful -- especially in groups of pre-teen
> boys (and girls).
>

Actually there is nothing demonstrably harmful in sexual attraction either.
Attraction, arousal, and even orgasms do not in and of themselves harm the
persons experiencing them, regardless of the source of the stimulation. I
suspect that the real reason for the sometimes violent opposition to
homosexual Scout leaders, teachers, clergy, etc is not a fear of sexual
assault but rather the fear that young people will be exposed to positive
role models who happen to be gay, thus reinforcing the idea that it's no big
deal whether one's sexual partners of the same or opposite genders. Assume
that they are not having sex with the kids in the group, what difference
could the kids knowing the leader has a sex life with a member of the
opposite sex or with a member of the same sex matter? I think the debate
between whether homosexuality is a lifestyle choice or somehow biologically
determined is moot, except from an academic bio/psychological research
viewpoint, as the entire debate is based on the notion that it should
somehow MATTER who someone has their orgasms with. If everyone involved is
consenting, what possible difference could it make? As a parent, I could
care less if my daughter turns out straight, gay, or bisexual. All that
matters is that she is happy.

[Jay Honeck]

> What part of molesting small children is an unnatural act (even for
homosexuals)
> do you have a hard time wrapping your more-rigtht-wing-than-Ronald-Reagan
brain
> around?

Both straight and gay pedophiles are repugnant, and my statement stands.

But an adult male that is attracted to male children is just double-trouble.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> If everyone involved is
> consenting, what possible difference could it make? As a parent, I could
> care less if my daughter turns out straight, gay, or bisexual. All that
> matters is that she is happy.

This conversation is about children who, by definition, cannot be
"consenting".

Or do you dispute this assertion to?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[III]

I just looked at the rec.scouting.usa group on Google and saw one,
maybe two, of the most recent 50 threads related to issues of sexual
orientation. The rest, to my inexperienced eye, seemed related to
other topics relevant to scouting. The group doesn't appear useless,
for discussing scouting, to me.


"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> We should be cautious about posting anything on these news groups. There is
> no way of convincing the mentally ill that airplanes are not a threat to
> them, so arguing with them is futile. At worst, somebody in these groups
> could find out about the rec.aviation news groups. This is a serious matter.
> rec.scouting.usa, for example, has been completely hijacked by heterophobes
> and is virtually useless for discussing Scouting. We would not want that to
> happen here.

[Jim Baker]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:%U90b.183507$uu5.35115@sccrnsc04...
> >
> > This argument was used against the Scouts here in Iowa City, and has
> > resulted in them being charged the "corporate rate" for using the
schools
> > when they want to hold a meeting or function. Of course, this price is
> > impossibly high, and has resulted in the Scouts being driven out of the
> > schools.
> >
> > Strangely enough, the Scouts presented a cost-benefit analysis to the
> School
> > Board during the debate, proving that for every penny the City "spent"
on
> > the Scouts (by letting them use the schools for cheap) they received
back
> > five-fold in donated work, landscaping done for "Eagle Scout" projects,
> etc.
> > The city actually *profited* from the Scouts, because they did work that
> the
> > school district would otherwise have to buy.
> >
> > This argument did not sway the gay community, and the Scouts were
> > effectively banned.
> >
>
> Cogent argument will never sway the gay community.

What a hoot McNicoll. I doubt you even know the definition of cogent. It
is not a valid, forceful, reasoned, cogent argument to say that a
discriminatory group (and the BSA is by admission) should be accorded the
discount rate use of public buildings because they do good deeds for the
people holding the reservations book. It may be fact, but it isn't a sound
argument. If it were, the gays would be out there planting trees and
flowers like crazy and demanding the same benefits. In fact though, as far
as I know, they just demand the same treatment based on legalities.

JB

P.S. I just casually wandered into this thread and found it interesting, if
grossly OT. I have to say though, that for someone with some obvious, at
least to me, intelligence, you've done the best job here of all the posters
of posting inane, shallow, childish responses. For God's sake man, try to
do better. LOL

[Peter Duniho]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Why don't you remove the "restriction" on division by zero

There are, in fact, methods for dealing with division by zero.

> [...] or the "restriction" on perpetual motion machines.

I'm not aware of any arbitrary restriction on perpetual motion machines.
You are more than welcome to build one, should you happen across a method to
do so.

In any case, as far as genuine arbitrary restrictions go, be patient.
Eventually, we'll get to them all. But for the time-being, it's "one step
at a time".

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
> You say that as if gays were prohibited from marrying a member of the
> opposite sex. They're not.

If I didn't take the bait before, why do you think I'd take it now?

A good troll knows when to direct his efforts elsewhere...do you want to be
a good troll or not?

[Jay Honeck]

You can tell NOTHING AT ALL about a person's proclivity to
> pedophilia by their outward, adult-oriented sexual preference. A
homosexual
> adult male is no more likely to be attracted to your children than a
> heterosexual male.

That's just (to put it politely) counterintuitive, Pete.

What you're saying (I think) is this: The odds of a heterosexual guy being
attracted to my 13 year old son are THE SAME AS those of a homosexual guy
being attracted to my son?

I think we're back to calling the sky green here. Do you really believe
this?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> I would say the odds of a woman "preying" upon a teenage boy are an order of
> magnitude smaller than the reverse example

That's because it's not "preying". It's the fulfillment of the dream he
has had every night since he was 14.

[Dave Stadt]

"Margy Natalie" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Dave Stadt wrote:
>
> > "Margy Natalie" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > >
> > > Big John wrote:
> > >
> > > > I refuse to support United Way and any other organization who
> > > > discriminates against the BSA.
> > >
> > > But organizations that discriminate against children are ok?
> > >
> > > Margy
> >
> > "As a licensed woman pilot (current or not), you are invited to become a
> > part of our legacy as the first and only international organization of
women
> > pilots."
> >
> > How does one explain the above discrimination by the 99s.
>
> Men are not excluded from the 99s. I'm sure if you want to pony up the
> membership fee they would be glad to take it and welcome you to their
meetings.

From what I saw on their WEB site that is simply not true. To be a member
you must
be a licensed female pilot.

> At school I had an aviation club and a "women in aviation" club. I did
this
> because at the first meeting I knew my two quiet little girls would not
stay
> with my loud boys. I didn't say the boys couldn't join the women in
aviation
> club and if they wanted to come they could.
>
> Margy
>
>

[C J Campbell]

"Margy Natalie" > wrote in message
...
|
|
| C J Campbell wrote:
|
| >
| > You might want to ask some of your gay friends just how far they are
willing
| > to go to destroy the Boy Scouts. If they are not allowed to meet in
public
| > schools (as in South Florida) or in fire stations (as in Chicago), how
long
| > will it be before they are not allowed to meet in recreation centers in
| > public parks? And from there, how long will it be that they will not be
| > allowed in the public parks at all?
|
| As a straight woman and mother I don't have any problem with the BSA
destroying
| itself by having a policy that bans a group of children from becoming or
staying
| members. It's hard enough for a kid to come to grips with being gay, but
then
| to be thrown out of a social group where he has been a member for years
because
| of it is awful. I don't think any group should be allowed to harm
children in
| this way. When a kid is 7 they usually don't think much about sexual
| orientation, but that same cute little cub scout at 13 or 15 might know
full
| well he is gay. Now, should he lie, hide who he is, or get thrown out of
a
| group he's belonged to for 8 years. Tough choice for a kid! BTW my
daughter
| was a girl scout, but I didn't look into boy scouts for my son because I
was not
| comfortable having my son surrounded by a group of bigots.
|

The BSA does not throw out kids who are homosexuals. The policy applies to
adult leaders only.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:HRA0b.204564$uu5.36650@sccrnsc04...
> That's just (to put it politely) counterintuitive, Pete.

To you, yes it is. That's because you continue to confuse a person who is
homosexual with a person who is a pedophile.

You need to get past your prejudices and come to terms with the fact that
the only thing that makes a homosexual different from you is that they
prefer someone of their own gender. Otherwise, they follow basically the
same societal norms that we do. In particular, for most homosexual adults,
just as is the case for most heterosexual adults, the thought of having sex
with a child is just plain abhorrent.

The way you talk, a person with a girl ought to be nervous about allowing
you to supervise that child alone. Are you really in such little control of
your sexual desires, and so terribly attracted to children, that you are
unsuitable as a guardian for someone else's girl?

> What you're saying (I think) is this: The odds of a heterosexual guy being
> attracted to my 13 year old son are THE SAME AS those of a homosexual guy
> being attracted to my son?

That is basically true, and is in fact what I'm saying. The statistics bear
that out. Most pedophiles are not homosexuals, and yet most pedophiles prey
equally on girls and boys.

The gender of the victim isn't the attraction. The age is.

> I think we're back to calling the sky green here. Do you really believe
> this?

I not only believe it, I have seen the statistics that prove it.

Pete

[C J Campbell]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
| "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
| .com...
| > "As a licensed woman pilot (current or not), you are invited to become a
| > part of our legacy as the first and only international organization of
| women
| > pilots."
| >
| > How does one explain the above discrimination by the 99s.
|
| This has already been pointed out, but I guess you went to the bathroom or
| something and missed it.
|
| There's a difference between discrimination for the sake of discrimination
| (e.g. BSA discriminating against gays) and discrimination inherent in the
| organization (e.g. 99's). The 99's is *specifically* for the benefit of
| women pilots, and as such it makes sense for them to exclude men. The BSA
| is not *specifically* for the benefit of heterosexual men,

Well, actually, it is.

[C J Campbell]

"Margy Natalie" > wrote in message
...
|
|
| Big John wrote:
|
| > I refuse to support United Way and any other organization who
| > discriminates against the BSA.
|
| But organizations that discriminate against children are ok?
|
|

BSA does not discriminate against children.

[Peter Duniho]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> | [...] The BSA is not *specifically* for the benefit of heterosexual men,
>
> Well, actually, it is.

Well, actually, no it's not. Nothing in the original charter says anything
about sexual preference. Furthermore, the raison d'etre for the BSA is to
teach boys about leadership, civic duties, outdoorsmanship, and the like.

The 99's exist specifically to provide an organization for female pilots.
That's the charter. Just as the BSA is for *boys* and as such do not allow
girls to participate.

It's not called the "Heterosexual Scouts of America". The discrimination
the 99's engage in is not the same. For that matter, the completely
legitimate discrimination that the BSA engages in when they exclude girls is
not the same as the absurd discrimination that they engage in when they
exclude gays.

Pete

[Steve House]

Uhhhhh try "since he was 10" instead of 14. Seriously, I suspect a major
reason the number of cases of adult women having sex with young boys are so
much much lower than those of adult males having sex with young girls is due
to a difference in reporting rate rather than a difference in incidence.
And I can easily understand why - what 12 or 14 year old boy in his right
mind is going to complain when his greatest desire, the forbidden fruit he
so desperately wants experience, is handed to him on a silver platter? "Mom
and Dad, have that woman arrested! She gave me the most exquisite
experience of my life today and promsed to do it again for me tomorrow if I
came back over!" Sheesh, not very likely!

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:3cB0b.152090$cF.55663@rwcrnsc53...
>
>
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> > I would say the odds of a woman "preying" upon a teenage boy are an
order of
> > magnitude smaller than the reverse example
>
> That's because it's not "preying". It's the fulfillment of the dream he
> has had every night since he was 14.
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> Seems to me "respecting an establishment of religion" refers to laws based
> on religion, not the establishment of a national religion. If they wanted
> to limit it to prohibiting only the establishment of a national religion,
> they would have written "THE establishment of A NATIONAL religion", not
"an
> establishment of religion".
>

It's the US Congress, Peter, that's the national government.


>
> Don't worry though...I know that you'll disagree 'til you're blue in the
> face. So feel free to disagree once again. Don't bother me none. There
is
> ample interpretive precedent that disagrees with you, and I have no need
to
> engage in a futile effort to change your mind.
>

It's not me you're disagreeing with, Peter, you're disagreeing with the 1st
Amendment.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> No, of course you haven't. That's because you live in your own special
> world, where things mean only what you'd like them to mean.
>
> Suffice to say, the rest of us HAVE seen exactly what I said we've seen.
>

Actually, the reason I haven't seen any is because there have been no bills
that say, in essence, "gays will not be granted the right to marry". You
can prove me wrong by citing such a bill. Of course, if you knew of such a
bill you would have already cited it in your reply.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:wIt0b.201425$YN5.140717@sccrnsc01...
>
> I would say the odds of a woman "preying" upon a teenage boy are an order
> of magnitude smaller than the reverse example (i.e.: A man preying on a
> teenage girl.).
>

How many teenage boys would consider a sexual advance by a woman being
"preyed upon", rather than a terrific stroke of luck?

[Steve House]

The conversation is about not about children and consent, though the laws
establishing the age of sexual consent are based more on the age at which a
person is sufficiently educated to marginally function as an independent
economic entity rather than on the age at which they reach a level of sexual
and emotional maturity where consent is actually possible psychologically.
More at issue is the apparent fear that accepting homosexuality as
completely normal, sanctioning gay relationships by recognizing them as
morally and socially indistinguishable from heterosexual relationships, and
accepting those openly gay as legitimate models for children in roles such
as teachers, clergy, coaches, scout leaders, etc will somehow expose
children to assult and/or will persuade them to abandon their straight
sexual orientation and become gay themselves. My point is that whether a
person is gay or straight or whether one's children turn out gay, straight,
or bi *should* be of no greater importance than whether they turn out to
prefer chocolate or vanilla ice cream - in an enlightened society one's
sexual orientation and practices would be a total non-issue. It *is* an
issue in our society because for some unfathomable and bizzare reason, so
many heterosexual people have an aversion to homosexuals and homosexuality
and that attitude, by its very existence, is directly harmful to the people
toward which it's directed. It parallels the civil rights movement because
it makes no more sense to feel aversion to someone based on their sexual
preferences than it does to have an aversion to someone based solely on skin
pigmentation.



"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:r0y0b.202309$YN5.141543@sccrnsc01...
> > If everyone involved is
> > consenting, what possible difference could it make? As a parent, I
could
> > care less if my daughter turns out straight, gay, or bisexual. All that
> > matters is that she is happy.
>
> This conversation is about children who, by definition, cannot be
> "consenting".
>
> Or do you dispute this assertion to?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Baker" > wrote in message
et...
>
> What a hoot McNicoll. I doubt you even know the definition of cogent. It
> is not a valid, forceful, reasoned, cogent argument to say that a
> discriminatory group (and the BSA is by admission) should be accorded the
> discount rate use of public buildings because they do good deeds for the
> people holding the reservations book. It may be fact, but it isn't a
sound
> argument. If it were, the gays would be out there planting trees and
> flowers like crazy and demanding the same benefits. In fact though, as
far
> as I know, they just demand the same treatment based on legalities.
>

I don't believe I've posted anything at all about the BSA or any similar
group.


>
> P.S. I just casually wandered into this thread and found it interesting,
if
> grossly OT. I have to say though, that for someone with some obvious, at
> least to me, intelligence, you've done the best job here of all the
posters
> of posting inane, shallow, childish responses. For God's sake man, try to
> do better. LOL
>

Example?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'm not aware of any arbitrary restriction on perpetual motion machines.
>

Exactly. There's no point in restricting what is impossible anyway, such as
same-sex marriage.

[Gary L. Drescher]

> Exactly. There's no point in restricting what is impossible anyway, such
as
> same-sex marriage.

Can you explain how this "impossibility" is occurring now in Canada and
several other nations?

[Gary L. Drescher]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> The BSA does not throw out kids who are homosexuals. The policy applies to
> adult leaders only.

That's just false, CJ. The BSA does not have a policy of waiting until a
boy scout reaches majority age before expelling him for being openly gay.
Can you cite any statement of Scout policy (or any other evidence) to
support your claim?

In Dale v. BSA, the Scouts argued that the exclusion of gay members is
fundamental to their organizational purpose. In support of that argument,
the BSA took the position that their requirement of being "morally straight"
is inherently incompatible with being openly gay (or atheist). The
requirement to be "morally straight" applies to all Scouts, not just adult
leaders; so if "moral straightness" is construed to preclude being openly
gay, then gay children too are thereby deemed unfit for Scouting.

In an earlier thread here, at least one adult Scout leader acknowledged that
he would not refrain, merely because a scout is still a child, from
expelling that scout for being openly gay. He did say that his personal
inclination would be to try to find loopholes in the policy so as to avoid
or delay the child's expulsion. But one could look for loopholes with
regard to adult leaders, too, if one were personally so inclined--that
doesn't change what the policy is.

Keep in mind, too, that the BSA insists that its exclusion of people who are
openly gay is *required policy* for individual troops. It may be that many
troops covertly defy this policy, but those who do so openly are subject to
decertification. Just this month, a troop in Sebastopol, California lost
its BSA charter because the troop had an official nondiscrimination policy
with regard to sexual orientation and belief about religion.

Here is an anecdote ( http://www.inclusivescouting.net/bsa/cases/hill/ )
about Matt Hill, a 14-year-old scout in North Carolina expelled in December,
2000 for being gay after he helped found a gay-straight alliance at his high
school. "I have tried to join [another] unit at a pretty liberal minded
Presbyterian church but the leader for the troop said that because of the
BSA policy they couldn't do it. They did not want to lose their charter with
the BSA."

--Gary

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gary L. Drescher" > wrote in message
news:TpJ0b.207367$YN5.143841@sccrnsc01...
>
> Can you explain how this "impossibility" is occurring now in Canada and
> several other nations?
>

It isn't.

[Gary L. Drescher]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Gary L. Drescher" > wrote in message
> news:TpJ0b.207367$YN5.143841@sccrnsc01...
> >"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
> > > Exactly. There's no point in restricting what is impossible anyway,
such
> > > as same-sex marriage.
> >
> > Can you explain how this "impossibility" is occurring now in Canada and
> > several other nations?
> >
>
> It isn't.

When the Canadian government lawfully issues what it calls a "marriage
license", you don't think that constitutes a marriage? Why not?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gary L. Drescher" > wrote in message
news:A0K0b.208559$uu5.36901@sccrnsc04...
>
> When the Canadian government lawfully issues what it calls a "marriage
> license", you don't think that constitutes a marriage? Why not?
>

The Canadian government can call a desk an elephant if it chooses to do so,
but that doesn't make it so, it just makes the Canadian government appear
stupid.

[Gary L. Drescher]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Gary L. Drescher" > wrote in message
> news:A0K0b.208559$uu5.36901@sccrnsc04...
> >
> > When the Canadian government lawfully issues what it calls a "marriage
> > license", you don't think that constitutes a marriage? Why not?
> >
>
> The Canadian government can call a desk an elephant if it chooses to do
so,
> but that doesn't make it so

If the meaning of the word "marriage" is not set by statute and by various
people's actual uses of the term, then what *does* determine the meaning of
the word? Dictionaries? Surely you understand that a dictionary merely
codifies actual usage, and as a growing number of jurisdictions issue
marriage licenses without regard to gender, dictionaries will soon amend
their definitions accordingly. The meanings of words constantly evolve; if
not, the English language wouldn't even exist.

In some times and places, the word "marriage" referred only to unions
sanctioned by the Catholic Church. The meaning of the word has changed, and
is changing again.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gary L. Drescher" > wrote in message
news:wsK0b.207750$YN5.144004@sccrnsc01...
>
> If the meaning of the word "marriage" is not set by statute and by various
> people's actual uses of the term, then what *does* determine the meaning
of
> the word? Dictionaries? Surely you understand that a dictionary merely
> codifies actual usage, and as a growing number of jurisdictions issue
> marriage licenses without regard to gender, dictionaries will soon amend
> their definitions accordingly. The meanings of words constantly evolve;
if
> not, the English language wouldn't even exist.
>
> In some times and places, the word "marriage" referred only to unions
> sanctioned by the Catholic Church. The meaning of the word has changed,
and
> is changing again.
>

Surely you understand that since only a very small minority will ever
consider same-sex unions to be "marriage" in any sense "marriage" will
continue to be defined as it has been for centuries.

[Gary L. Drescher]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Surely you understand that since only a very small minority will ever
> consider same-sex unions to be "marriage" in any sense "marriage" will
> continue to be defined as it has been for centuries.

No, my expectation is that within a year or two, dictionaries will amend the
definition of "marriage" to include same-gender unions; and within a
generation or two, the notion of mixed-gender-only marriage will be viewed
by most people in democracies the same way the notion of same-race-only
marriage is now viewed by most people in democracies, namely as a shameful
anachronism.

But these are empirical predictions, so we'll just have to see.

[Gary L. Drescher]

"Gary L. Drescher" > wrote in message
news:LLK0b.208842$uu5.37894@sccrnsc04...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> > Surely you understand that since only a very small minority will ever
> > consider same-sex unions to be "marriage" in any sense "marriage" will
> > continue to be defined as it has been for centuries.

By the way, according to a recent poll (
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/30/opinion/polls/main565918.shtml ),
40% of the US population favors gay marriage rights; among
18-to-29-year-olds, 61% are in favor. So unless those percentages are what
you consider "a very small minority", the fact is that we have *already*
reached a point that you just predicted we would *never* reach.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gary L. Drescher" > wrote in message
news:FXK0b.207807$Ho3.27724@sccrnsc03...
>
> By the way, according to a recent poll (
>
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/30/opinion/polls/main565918.shtml ),
> 40% of the US population favors gay marriage rights; among
> 18-to-29-year-olds, 61% are in favor. So unless those percentages are
what
> you consider "a very small minority", the fact is that we have *already*
> reached a point that you just predicted we would *never* reach.
>

I see the poll doesn't provide the questions asked.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gary L. Drescher" > wrote in message
news:yAL0b.207998$Ho3.27776@sccrnsc03...
>
> "Would you favor or oppose a law that would allow homosexual couples to
> marry, giving them the same legal rights as other married couples?
> Favor: 40%"
>

Which indicates that respondents are not aware that homosexuals are not
prohibited from marrying now. If you want to see how people feel about
creating same-sex marriage, then ask them about that.

"Would you favor or oppose a law that would create "marriage" between
persons of the same sex, giving them the same legal rights and
responsibilities as married persons?"

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Steve House" > wrote in message
...
>
> You are arbitraily choosing a very narrow definition of the word
"marriage"
> and then asserting that your definition is absolute and universal, somehow
> derived from natural law analogous to the impossibility of division by
zero
> or the creation of perpetual motion machines.
>

Actually, I'm not defining anything at all, it's you that is trying to
redefine marriage.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gary L. Drescher" > wrote in message
news:e%L0b.208190$Ho3.27404@sccrnsc03...
>
> Ah, so you think at least 40% of Americans, when asked the above question,
> understand the term "homosexual couple" to refer to a gay man paired with
a
> lesbian, and give their approval on the basis of that understanding.
>
> Congratulations, Steven. You've just outdone yourself. :)
>

I'm saying that an ambiguous question gives ambiguous results, and that
pollsters can phrase questions in a manner to achieve a desired result.

[Gary L. Drescher]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Gary L. Drescher" > wrote in message
> news:e%L0b.208190$Ho3.27404@sccrnsc03...
> >
> > Ah, so you think at least 40% of Americans, when asked the above
question,
> > understand the term "homosexual couple" to refer to a gay man paired
with
> a
> > lesbian, and give their approval on the basis of that understanding.
> >
> > Congratulations, Steven. You've just outdone yourself. :)
> >
>
> I'm saying that an ambiguous question gives ambiguous results, and that
> pollsters can phrase questions in a manner to achieve a desired result.

And you think the term "homosexual couple" is ambiguous, because you think
many people could suppose it refers to a gay man paired with a lesbian?

--Gary

[Steve House]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Steve House" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > You are arbitraily choosing a very narrow definition of the word
> "marriage"
> > and then asserting that your definition is absolute and universal,
somehow
> > derived from natural law analogous to the impossibility of division by
> zero
> > or the creation of perpetual motion machines.
> >
>
> Actually, I'm not defining anything at all, it's you that is trying to
> redefine marriage.
> l
>

Yes, of course. And since it's a human invention it can be reinvented as
needed. Replacing a definition that is needlessly harmful to certain
members of society with one that is more humane and enhances the personal
liberty of everyone.

[C J Campbell]

"Gary L. Drescher" > wrote in message
news:VQJ0b.206533$o%2.95221@sccrnsc02...
| "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
| ...
| > The BSA does not throw out kids who are homosexuals. The policy applies
to
| > adult leaders only.
|
| That's just false, CJ. The BSA does not have a policy of waiting until a
| boy scout reaches majority age before expelling him for being openly gay.
| Can you cite any statement of Scout policy (or any other evidence) to
| support your claim?
|

The Broward County case that I cited earlier acknowledged that the problem
was discrimination against adult leaders, not youth. There is no written
policy from the National Council telling people to not accept gay youth in
their units.

Units that expel gay youths (especially 14 year olds, who can hardly be
expected to know whether they are gay or not), do so in error.

OTOH, there are those who are expelled for being disruptive who later claim
that they were expelled for being gay. Your anecdote gives only Matt Hill's
account, which is likely to be distorted to say the least. You might
remember that the people reporting on the Boy Scouts and their admission
policies are the same ones that believe that airplanes crash because they
did not file a flight plan. The news media are highly selective in their
reporting, including only those 'facts' that support their particular
agendas.

The Boy Scouts do not discriminate against youth and anybody who does is
doing so against national policy.

This is from BSA's own web site:

FICTION


The Boy Scouts of America sued to have members and leaders who are avowed
homosexuals kicked out of the organization.
FACT


The Boy Scouts of America is a private organization that has the right to
set its own standards for membership and leadership. We have only defended
ourselves in court when others have chosen to attack our standards by taking
the BSA to court.

The Boy Scouts of America makes no effort to discover the sexual
orientation of any member or leader. Scouting's message is compromised when
members or leaders present themselves as role models whose actions are
inconsistent with the standards set in the Scout Oath and Law.

Rarely, if ever, has a boy expressed opposition to any of the values of
the Scout Oath and Law. In the event that were to happen, we would encourage
the boy to seek counsel from his parents or religious leaders to make sure
that his expression was the product of a mature decision.

Scouting's record of inclusion is impressive by any standard.

We respect other people's rights to hold opinions different than ours and
ask that they respect ours.
The Boy Scouts have also published the following position paper on
diversity. There is nothing in these papers requiring the expulsion of youth
who are gay. In fact, BSA policy is that youth are incapable of knowing
whether they are really gay or not. Those who insist on turning every
meeting into some kind of gay rights political forum, though, are likely to
be asked to leave. We have a program to run, and it is not fair to the other
boys to have that program usurped by a single issue simply because some
member or leader decides that is not only the most important thing in the
world, it is the only thing in the world:

More than 90 years ago, the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) was founded on the
premise of teaching boys moral and ethical values through an outdoor program
that challenges them and teaches them respect for nature, one another, and
themselves. Scouting has always represented the best in community,
leadership, and service.

The Boy Scouts of America has selected its leaders using the highest
standards because strong leaders and positive role models are so important
to the healthy development of youth. Today, the organization still stands
firm that their leaders exemplify the values outlined in the Scout Oath and
Law.

On June 28, 2000, the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed the Boy Scouts
of America's standing as a private organization with the right to set its
own membership and leadership standards.

The BSA respects the rights of people and groups who hold values that differ
from those encompassed in the Scout Oath and Law, and the BSA makes no
effort to deny the rights of those whose views differ to hold their
attitudes or opinions.

Scouts come from all walks of life and are exposed to diversity in Scouting
that they may not otherwise experience. The Boy Scouts of America aims to
allow youth to live and learn as children and enjoy Scouting without
immersing them in the politics of the day.

We hope that our supporters will continue to value the Boy Scouts of
America's respect for diversity and the positive impact Scouting has on
young people's lives. We realize that not every individual nor organization
prescribes to the same beliefs that the BSA does, but we hope that all
Americans can be as respectful of our beliefs as we are of theirs and
support the overall good Scouting does in American communities.



The Boy Scouts' policy on school access is similar:

For more than 90 years, the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) has complemented
youth education with a program that teaches boys skills and values that will
help them throughout their lifetimes.

Scouting has become an American institution, a natural element in most
communities. Scouts exemplify the values outlined in the Scout Oath and Law
and dedicate themselves to serving their communities.

On June 28, 2000, the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed the Boy Scouts
of America's standing as a private organization with the right to set its
own membership and leadership standards.

The BSA respects the rights of people and groups who hold values that differ
from those encompassed in the Scout Oath and Laws, and the BSA makes no
effort to deny the rights of those whose views differ to hold their
attitudes or opinions.

The Boy Scouts of America aims to allow youth to live and to learn as
children and enjoy Scouting without immersing them in the politics of the
day. However, people dissatisfied with the Boy Scouts of America's
membership policies and the moral views on which they are based have
suggested that the BSA not have the privilege of meeting in public schools
or distributing recruitment information at public schools.

Just as other student or community groups are permitted to have access to
public school facilities, the Boy Scouts of America aims to have the same
access.



The Boy Scouts also suggests these points should be made whenever there is
any discussion of our values.

a.. The U.S. Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the right of the Boy Scouts
of America to freedom of association. They made the right choice.


b.. Those who disagree with the Scouts are free to do so, but all
Americans living in our free society should respect the rights of a private
group to establish guidelines for what they believe is best for their
membership and leaders.


c.. Scouting aims to immerse America's youth in character-building
experiences without subjecting them to the politics of the day. No youth
organization or club should ever be used as a vehicle for promoting a
political or social agenda. Childhood is too important.


d.. A key tenet of the Scouting program is respect; respect for different
ideas, customs, and cultures as well as the recognition of the right of
individuals to subscribe to other beliefs. Respect for others, however,
doesn't mean the forced inclusion of people whose values, ethics, or morals
are contrary to your own.


e.. In a time of eroding morality, I applaud Scouting's resolve to remain
a beacon of values and ideals. Our children are in desperate need of
meaningful experiences, values, and character-building lessons that are
critical to a happy and successful life.


f.. Our children are forced to deal with very difficult issues and
problems every day: violent television and video games, teen pregnancy,
increased childhood obesity, juvenile crime, to name a few. I suggest that
we focus on the roots of these problems instead of attacking a group such as
Scouting that tries to solve them.


g.. The Boy Scouts of America symbolizes what is right with our country,
an organization whose Oath reads: On my honor I will do my best to do my
duty to God and my country. Thankfully, these youth will continue to have
the right to join a group that promotes faith-based values, instead of one
that condemns them.


h.. I appreciate the Boy Scouts' unwavering commitment to helping develop
the future leaders of this country. We need more groups, not fewer, which
understand that America's youth will always be the cornerstone of a
successful and responsible society.


i.. Scouts come from all walks of life and experience diversity in
Scouting that they often cannot see elsewhere in their lives. Scouting helps
children from cities, suburbs, and rural areas, and from all faiths and
races regardless of economic status. Parents look to Scouting to support
their efforts to raise their children, reinforcing the values taught in the
home, school, and church.

BSA has no real choice in the matter, either. If BSA is forced to abandon
its values then the organizations (mostly churches) that sponsor most of the
units will bolt. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the
Catholics, and the Methodists have made this quite clear. Funding will dry
up completely and membership will be reduced by as much as two thirds. BSA
regards homosexuality as a spiritual matter and aims to support the
spiritual values of its chartered organizations. BSA's policy statements
were not authored by committees from these organizations, either. They were
authored by a committee of National Board members headed by Steve Fossett.

No doubt you will still insist on misrepresenting what I say, the nature of
the Boy Scouts' position and policies on values, and what is really going on
in a full-scale assault to destroy a fine youth organization. Fine. Be
dishonest if you must. But don't expect me or anybody else to swallow the
tripe you have been pushing in this thread. Your arguments and the arguments
of others posting here boil down to advocacy of using the armed might of the
federal government to suppress an organization that you have a political
disagreement with. Because that is really what it is: you want the Boy
Scouts to change their values, by force or the threat of force if necessary.
And you have the unmitigated gall to suggest that you somehow support
diversity.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Steve House" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes, of course. And since it's a human invention it can be reinvented as
> needed.
>

It doesn't need reinventing.


>
> Replacing a definition that is needlessly harmful to certain
> members of society with one that is more humane and enhances the personal
> liberty of everyone.
>

The current definition is not harmful to any member of society, it is not in
any way inhumane, it detracts from the personal liberty of noone.

[Ron Natalie]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message

> Here is the mission statement of the Boy Scouts of America:

They don't have to promise to be square anymore?

[Margy Natalie]

C J Campbell wrote:

> "Margy Natalie" > wrote in message
> ...
> |
> |
> | Big John wrote:
> |
> | > I refuse to support United Way and any other organization who
> | > discriminates against the BSA.
> |
> | But organizations that discriminate against children are ok?
> |
> |
>
> BSA does not discriminate against children.

Gay boys cannot be members of the BSA. There was a highly public case a
number of years ago (but I can't remember where) when a soon to be Eagle
scout came out and he was promptly thrown out.

Margy

[Gary L. Drescher]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gary L. Drescher" > wrote in message
> news:VQJ0b.206533$o%2.95221@sccrnsc02...
> | "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> | ...
> | > The BSA does not throw out kids who are homosexuals. The policy
applies
> to
> | > adult leaders only.
> |
> | That's just false, CJ. The BSA does not have a policy of waiting until
a
> | boy scout reaches majority age before expelling him for being openly
gay.
> | Can you cite any statement of Scout policy (or any other evidence) to
> | support your claim?
> |
>
> There is no written
> policy from the National Council telling people to not accept gay youth in
> their units.

CJ, the very BSA statement you quoted says the following, specifically in
reference to gays in the Scouts:

> Scouting's message is compromised when
> members or leaders present themselves as role models whose actions are
> inconsistent with the standards set in the Scout Oath and Law.

Note the phrase "members OR leaders". No restriction to adults. And the
BSA resolution adopted on Feb 6, 2002 by the National Executive Board of the
Boy Scouts says explicitly that merely being openly gay (an "avowed
homosexual", as they put it) was inherently inconsistent with the standards
of the Scout Oath and Law, as BSA interprets it.

Nothing elsewhere in what you quoted says otherwise (if you disagree, please
cite the specific relevant passage). Yes, it says they don't investigate
sexual orientation (don't-ask-don't-tell). Yes, it says they'll give a
child a chance to reconsider if he comes out as being gay (they'd encourage
the boy to "seek counsel" to verify that he'd made a "mature decision"),
before holding him responsible. But nowhere does it back off from the
position that an openly gay child (unless he recants) is to be expelled.

> The Boy Scouts do not discriminate against youth and anybody who does is
> doing so against national policy.

> Units that expel gay youths (especially 14 year olds, who can hardly be
> expected to know whether they are gay or not), do so in error.

That's not what the national policy says, and it's not what the adult Scout
leaders who've spoken up on this newsgroup feel bound by. If the national
policy is being as widely misinterpreted as you seem to think, why do you
suppose the BSA hasn't made the clear statement that you just did? All they
have to say is "No youth should be expelled from the Scouts just for being
openly gay." Why don't you propose such a statement to them, and see what
they say? Ask them if a Scout troop would be lose its charter for refusing
to expel openly gay children who don't recant, and see what they say.

--Gary

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Steve House" > wrote in message
...
>
> You must be wearing blinders if you believe that ascribing different (and
> inferior) legal status to loving relationships between partners of the
same
> gender than is given to loving relationships between partners of opposite
> genders does not harm the persons or diminish the individual liberty of
> those so affected.
>

That's not the situation.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gary L. Drescher" > wrote in message
news:6zP0b.159128$Oz4.43337@rwcrnsc54...
>
> Steven, provoking you to further self-parody would be like shooting fish
> at a sushi bar. I'll stop now. >
>

In other words, you're stumped.

[Tom S.]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > You are getting hung up on the "national" vs. "local" (my fault for
> > capitalizing the word "national", I suppose), when in fact the real
> question
> > is whether the amendment prohibits simply the creation of a national
> > religion, or if it prohibits all lawmaking based solely on religion.
> >
> > It's my opinion that it's the latter.
> >
>
> It's the former.
>
It's both.

[Peter Duniho]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
y.com...
> Based on your statements should the BSA change their charter to state they
> intend to benefit _hetero males only_ all would be OK by you.

Based on what statements? That's certainly not how I feel.

The 99's were formed to specifically address the need to support women in
aviation. The Boy Scouts was NOT formed for the specific purpose of
addressing the needs of heterosexual males. It is what it is, and changing
the charter today would not change that. It would just be revisionism at
its worst.

> You talk in circles Peter.

I cannot help it if you insist on imagining a meaning that was never
conveyed. Only you have control over that.

Pete

[Robert Perkins]

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 11:16:14 GMT, "Gary L. Drescher"
> wrote:

>It is only in the last 150 years that humanity has become so sophisticated
>as to universally abolish overt, legally-sanctioned slavery.

Tell that to an unskilled laborer.

Rob

[Robert Perkins]

The rest of it is well-trod ground, but some if it is worth answering.

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 11:19:31 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>"Robert Perkins" > wrote in message
...
>> Separation of Church and State is not constitutional language.
>
>Of course it is. The exact words "separation of church and state" don't
>appear, of course. But the intent is clear.

Heh. If the intent were clear, there wouldn't be differences of
opinion on how to interpret it.

By and large, I've seen the Supreme Court treat the Establishment
Clause with great care. "Congress shall make no law respecting the
establishment of religion" *used* to mean, to so many people, that
Congress was not permitted to set up a Church of the United States.

So many people today forget that the clause ends in "or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof." The Supreme Court decision upholding the
notion that large traditional folkways such as marriage as defined by
most people throughout history trump Article IV is one such careful
consideration. States may solmenize gay marriage, or not, and may
recognize it, or not, but

>You forgot to put "proof" in quotes.

Probably because I think that we are worse off today the way things
are concerning easy divorce as implemented than was true 40 years ago.

>but they are people who probably will never understand what it takes to
>allow a marriage to work.

Wait until you do understand, then marry. If necessary, court for a
year or more. (No, I'm *not* a fan of Dr. Laura, but what she says
makes sense in this one narrow instance.)

>I don't see how expanding marriage to include gay couples is anywhere near
>as radical a change as allowing divorce to be easier. If anything, it
>allows a larger portion of society to return to our basic ideals.

Statistically speaking, no, it does not.

>> You've responded to one.
>
>Please.

Please indeed. Before you proceed any further along the strawman, best
you check my taglines in posts from this week.

>But were you really doing so honestly? I suppose in the end, only you can
>answer for yourself, but it sure seems to me that you're using a large
>helping of rationalization here. Are you really separating your religious
>beliefs from your political motivations?

NO! And, you'll forgive me for shouting, but I actually think this is
important enough that I want to get everyone's attention:

WHY ON EARTH WOULD ANYONE IN HIS RIGHT MIND WANT TO SEPARATE HIS
RELIGIOUS BELIEFS FROM HIS POLITICAL MOTIVATIONS?!?!?!?!?

Good grief. Religious belief is fundamentally human! Separating
religious motivation from its expression in politics is the surest way
to get yourself manipulated out of a voice in the process!

>Regardless, it certainly
>offends me that he would sign such a bill.

Then you may be offended. And lest you be offended any more, I guess
I'll have to go back to plonking your email. Wouldn't want to offend
you, after all.

Rob

[Robert Perkins]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 18:44:26 GMT, Newps > wrote:

>
>
>Peter Duniho wrote:
>> "Robert Perkins" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Separation of Church and State is not constitutional language.
>>
>>
>> Of course it is. The exact words "separation of church and state" don't
>> appear, of course. But the intent is clear.
>
>And just out of curiosity how do you feel about the second ammendment?

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Seems clear enough to me.

Rob, in favor of firearm licenses, prohibition to felons, taxes and
fees on firearms, and education requirements

[Robert Perkins]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 11:30:50 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>> Establishment doesn't mean "creation" in this context, it means giving
>> official recognition by the government.
>>
>
>I don't see any difference. If they recognize a particular religion as the
>national religion where there had been none before, have they not created a
>national religion?

Haven't they? The way things are going now, the Unofficial Church of
Secular Humanism appears to be the religion the activist judiciary
wishes to establish.

Not even that State Supreme Court judge in the South with the 10
Commandments thing is quite as activist about his little monument, in
my opinion.

Rob

[Jim Baker]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Jim Baker" > wrote in message
> et...
> >
> > What a hoot McNicoll. I doubt you even know the definition of cogent.
It
> > is not a valid, forceful, reasoned, cogent argument to say that a
> > discriminatory group (and the BSA is by admission) should be accorded
the
> > discount rate use of public buildings because they do good deeds for the
> > people holding the reservations book. It may be fact, but it isn't a
> sound
> > argument. If it were, the gays would be out there planting trees and
> > flowers like crazy and demanding the same benefits. In fact though, as
> far
> > as I know, they just demand the same treatment based on legalities.
> >
>
> I don't believe I've posted anything at all about the BSA or any similar
> group.

I didn't say you did. I said you made an error in logic and proper word
selection. And, you painted an entire population with the same brush which
is almost never correct.

> >
> > P.S. I just casually wandered into this thread and found it
interesting,
> if
> > grossly OT. I have to say though, that for someone with some obvious,
at
> > least to me, intelligence, you've done the best job here of all the
> posters
> > of posting inane, shallow, childish responses. For God's sake man, try
to
> > do better. LOL
> >
>
> Example?
>
Well, I would point you to the current thread to read all the posts. You
could compare and contrast your answers to the others and maybe draw the
same conclusion and that I and others have drawn over the years...that you
usually prefer to post one line zingers that add very little to an
intelligent, thoughtful, in-depth discussion. It's the same tactic John
Tarver uses and he is a literal pariah on Usenet.

[Peter Duniho]

"Robert Perkins" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> >Are you really separating your religious
> >beliefs from your political motivations?
>
> NO!

Then how can you claim that your sole objection to those bills is that they
are changes?

> Then you may be offended. And lest you be offended any more, I guess
> I'll have to go back to plonking your email. Wouldn't want to offend
> you, after all.

Ahh, yes...when all else fails, stop listening. That will keep your belief
system perfectly intact. Good for you.

Pete

[Robert Perkins]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 16:42:34 GMT, "Gary L. Drescher"
> wrote:

>Yes, it says they'll give a
>child a chance to reconsider if he comes out as being gay (they'd encourage
>the boy to "seek counsel" to verify that he'd made a "mature decision"),

Just as a point of order, I'd like to point out that "seek counsel" is
far and away not the same as "seek counseling" in the clinical sense.

Rob

[Robert Perkins]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 21:22:48 GMT, "Gary L. Drescher"
> wrote:

>> Would you object if gay groups that have a no straights policy were
>allowed
>> to use the schools for free?
>
>CJ, you cannot cite a single documented instance of that ever occurring.

Can't you? Takes the form of academic clubs, most places, IIRC.

Rob

[Robert Perkins]

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:48:09 GMT, "Maule Driver"
> wrote:

>"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>news:bUp0b.200383$Ho3.26912@sccrnsc03...
>> This has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that (snip) sexual attraction is
>> potentially and demonstrably harmful -- especially in groups of pre-teen
>> boys (and girls).
>
>Sexual attraction is as natural as rain.

Don't recall being taught that "natural" is the antonym to "harmful".

Rob

[Gary L. Drescher]

"Robert Perkins" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 21:22:48 GMT, "Gary L. Drescher"
> > wrote:
>
> >> Would you object if gay groups that have a no straights policy were
> >allowed
> >> to use the schools for free?
> >
> >CJ, you cannot cite a single documented instance of that ever occurring.
>
> Can't you? Takes the form of academic clubs, most places, IIRC.

Academic clubs that exclude heterosexuals and meet in public schools?

[Robert Perkins]

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:30:04 -0400, Margy Natalie >
wrote:

>Because pedophilia isn't necessarily related to gender. Male pedophiles who
>prey on little boys might be straight when it comes to normal sex.

Um, male pedophiles who prey on little boys, and are "straight"
otherwise, are "bisexuals", aren't they?

I think y'all are splitting hairs, there.

Rob

[Robert Perkins]

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:44:32 GMT, "Gary L. Drescher"
> wrote:

>but rather because they claim that *all
>atheists and gays are bad role models*.

When one of the roles the BSA claims to teach is that of a pious
heterosexual, then by definition, and without impugning *anyone's*
character, they are.

Rob

[Robert Perkins]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 23:58:05 GMT, "Gary L. Drescher"
> wrote:

>In the same way, if the central activity of the Boy Scouts were to get
>together and worship deities, then their exclusion of atheists would be
>morally unobjectionable.

Then, Gary, it is morally unobjectionable: "On my honor I promise to
do my duty to God..." is the *oath* of a Scout. Likewise, "to keep
myself...morally straight" is also just as much a part of that oath.

By that reasoning, standing alone, no one should object to the Boy
Scouts. People don't seem to understand that the knot-tying, service
projects, and merit badges are an expression of that oath, the
*means*, not the end.

Rob

[Peter Duniho]

"Robert Perkins" > wrote in message
...
> Um, male pedophiles who prey on little boys, and are "straight"
> otherwise, are "bisexuals", aren't they?

No, they are not. They are pedophiles. If you ask a male who is attracted
to boys as well as adult women what his sexual orientation is, do you really
think his answer is going to be "bisexual"?

Pete

[Gary L. Drescher]

"Robert Perkins" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 14:28:46 GMT, "Gary L. Drescher"
> > wrote:
> Yes, yes, the poll was "scientific", indicating the opinion of a
> larger population of people within a margin of error. But, the
> question itself was not carefully phrased, makes tacit some
> assumptions, such as the notion that marriage is a right,

No, I don't see that the question makes any such assumption.

Here it is again: "Would you favor or oppose a law that would
allow homosexual couples to marry, giving them the same
legal rights as other married couples?"

There's no mention of marriage as a "right" for *anyone*. The question asks
about *allowing* people to marry, and refers to the "legal rights" that are
*conferred by* marriage, not the right *to* marriage. (The reference to
"the same legal rights" just clarifies that the poll is asking about full
marriage status for same-gender couples, rather than some watered-down
version.)

--Gary

[Jay Honeck]

> The conversation is about not about children and consent,

Unless I'm completely daft, the term "boy" (as in "Boy Scouts") refers to
children, of the male persuasion.

> More at issue is the apparent fear that accepting homosexuality as
> completely normal, sanctioning gay relationships by recognizing them as
> morally and socially indistinguishable from heterosexual relationships,
and
> accepting those openly gay as legitimate models for children in roles such
> as teachers, clergy, coaches, scout leaders, etc will somehow expose
> children to assult and/or will persuade them to abandon their straight
> sexual orientation and become gay themselves.

You continually (and conveniently) avoid the fact that homosexuality is not
"completely normal", any more than a host of other sexual fetishes are
"normal". However, as with most of these peculiar aberrations,
homosexuality is mostly a harmless (if somewhat bizarre) quirk of nature,
and I certainly don't advocate persecution of homosexuals. In fact, quite
frankly I suspect most people don't care who you want to have sex with, and
you're more than welcome to practice your lifestyle.

But this benign tolerance does not translate into allowing you chaperone my
son on a camping trip, nor should you expect to be viewed as a "role model"
for our youth.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Robert Perkins]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:53:10 -0500, Big John >
wrote:

>I refuse to support United Way and any other organization who
>discriminates against the BSA.

The feeling is mutual in places, apparantly. Here in Portland Oregon
the BSA Councils no longer receive UW funding.

Pity, too. The BSA was one of the founding organizations behind the
United Way.

Rob

[Robert Perkins]

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 23:36:34 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>Furthermore, the raison d'etre for the BSA is to
>teach boys about leadership, civic duties, outdoorsmanship, and the like.

The raison d'etre of the BSA, at its very core, is to promote the
Scout Oath and Law. Everything they do is in service of *that*, *not*
the reverse.

Rob

[Robert Perkins]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 12:33:52 -0400, Margy Natalie >
wrote:

>> BSA does not discriminate against children.
>
>Gay boys cannot be members of the BSA. There was a highly public case a
>number of years ago (but I can't remember where) when a soon to be Eagle
>scout came out and he was promptly thrown out.

Eagle Scout, as a title, confers leadership status on a Boy Scout for
life. That, too, was definitionally true before popular society
changed its folkways enough to require the Scouts to articulate its
position on gay leaders. Once an Eagle, always so, unless you've found
yourself at variance with the Oath and Law.

Rob

[Dave Stadt]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Perkins" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Um, male pedophiles who prey on little boys, and are "straight"
> > otherwise, are "bisexuals", aren't they?
>
> No, they are not. They are pedophiles. If you ask a male who is
attracted
> to boys as well as adult women what his sexual orientation is, do you
really
> think his answer is going to be "bisexual"?
>
> Pete
>

He is probably going to say and claim he is normal.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
> It's both.
>

No, it's just the former.

[Steve House]

"Robert Perkins" > wrote in message
...
....snip...
> that I want to get everyone's attention:
>
> WHY ON EARTH WOULD ANYONE IN HIS RIGHT MIND WANT TO SEPARATE HIS
> RELIGIOUS BELIEFS FROM HIS POLITICAL MOTIVATIONS?!?!?!?!?
>
> Good grief. Religious belief is fundamentally human! Separating
> religious motivation from its expression in politics is the surest way
> to get yourself manipulated out of a voice in the process!
>

Because they realize that in order to preserve the freedom of belief for
everyone, it is wrong to enact laws that force people who do not share some
particular set of beliefs to act as if they do. Back when meatless Fridays
were the norm in the Catholic faith, for predominantly Catholic Boston to
pass a law prohibiting the sale of hamburgers on Friday would be an example
of such a thing. Laws mandating businesses closing on the Sabbath would be
another.

The only way for the State to be fair to all religions and to protect the
individual's freedom to choose their own faith is to function as if religion
had never been invented. Any laws that are motivated by a particular
religious conviction are, by definition, an attempt to mandate that all
people, believers in the dominant faith or not, behave as if they shared
that conviction. If by chance the religious view and the secular
justification on an issue parallel each other well and good, but where the
justification for a law is based solely on religious arguments it must be
opposed. Legislators simply MUST leave their religious faith in the
cloakroom with their hats and coats less they oppress all other faiths
except their own.

[Steve House]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:pKW0b.213405$uu5.38488@sccrnsc04...
> > The conversation is about not about children and consent.

>Unless I'm completely daft, the term "boy" (as in "Boy Scouts") refers to
>children, of the male persuasion.

True enough, but the subject of debate is not whether a child is able to
consent to sexual activity but rather whether a child is endangered by
exposure to the mere presence homosexuals in their environment. The
assumption appears to be, in part, that if homosexuals are allowed to be
around them, whether as leaders or peers, they will be approached for sexual
activity.
>
....snip
>
> You continually (and conveniently) avoid the fact that homosexuality is
not
> "completely normal", any more than a host of other sexual fetishes are
> "normal".

I am not "avoiding the fact" because it is simply not a fact at all. If you
like, I'll state it unambiguously in case there was some confusion.
Homosexuality and homosexual relationships are completely, totally, 100%
normal by any objective criterion you may choose except statistical
incidence - morally, medically, socially, and psychologically they are
fully equal to heterosexuality in every meaningful respect. It is no more
an abberation or quirk of nature than is a liking for rhubarb pie. The only
signifigant way homosexuals differ from heterosexuals is that there are
fewer of them. And therein lies the second part of the debate, the apparent
fear that if children become aware of this fact they will somehow defect
from the heterosexual camp in droves. I suggest that a young person should
be encouraged to develop their sexuality in their own way - some will be
heterosexual, some will be homosexual, some may be bisexual - having
positive role models of both sexual orientations in their lives. Their
sexuality will develop wherever their natural proclivities lead them,
leading in turn to happier, healthier, more fulfilled, and more stable
adults. Because it IS equally acceptable in every meaningful way to be
homosexual or heterosexual, not only should they not only not be shielded
from role models of differing orientations, such role models should be
actively encouraged by organizations such as schools, churches, Scouts, etc
who share the responsibility with the parents of molding children into
healthy, happy adults.

>However, as with most of these peculiar aberrations,
> homosexuality is mostly a harmless (if somewhat bizarre) quirk of nature,
> and I certainly don't advocate persecution of homosexuals. In fact, quite
> frankly I suspect most people don't care who you want to have sex with,
and
> you're more than welcome to practice your lifestyle.
>
> But this benign tolerance does not translate into allowing you chaperone
my
> son on a camping trip, nor should you expect to be viewed as a "role
model"
> for our youth.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Gary L. Drescher]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:pKW0b.213405$uu5.38488@sccrnsc04...
> You continually (and conveniently) avoid the fact that homosexuality is
not
> "completely normal", any more than a host of other sexual fetishes are
> "normal". However, as with most of these peculiar aberrations,
> homosexuality is mostly a harmless (if somewhat bizarre) quirk of nature,

Jay, in order for something to be a "fact", it must have a factual basis.
Your claims have none; they fly in the face of medical science.

To declare same-gender relationships "abnormal", "fetishistic", "bizarre",
etc. is just as arbitrary and factually false (and morally offensive) as
when segregationists declared inter-racial relationships to be abnormal,
unnatural, perverted, disgusting, etc. The thought of homosexuality
provokes in you the same visceral aversion and discomfort that the thought
of inter-racial sex provoked in the segregationists. Both of those visceral
reactions have been common for millennia (and are both reflected in the
Bible, for example). In both cases, though, the pathology actually resides
in the reaction itself, but is ignorantly presumed to reside in the things
that provoke the reaction.

In past discussions, you have emphasized that homosexuality does not promote
reproduction, which you think makes it "abnormal" from the standpoint of
evolution. This stance reflects several basic confusions about evolutionary
biology:
1) Although the mechanism of natural selection can metaphorically be said
to have a goal of survival, its "goal" is not the survival or reproduction
of individuals or of species, but rather of specific genes (e.g., possible
genes for homosexuality); specific genes have no (metaphorical) concern for
*other* genes except to be able to exploit them. The very fact that
homosexuality thrives as a minority inclination (in our species and others)
attests to its evolutionary success; evolution has no other concern, even
metaphorically. (*Universal* homosexuality would not enjoy evolutionary
success, which is why we don't find it.)
2) Even if (contrary to fact) homosexuality were somehow contrary to the
(metaphorical) goals of evolution, that would have no consequence whatsoever
as to its normality or desirability. Evolution is amoral. Caring for the
frail elderly, for example, when they can no longer contribute to
child-rearing, may be contrary to the "goals" of evolution, but that doesn't
make it "abnormal" in any reasonable sense. Evolution's (metaphorical)
goals are not necessarily *our* goals, nor should they be.
3) There are many heterosexuals who have voluntarily sterilized
themselves. You do not regard their subsequent sexual relationships as
abnormal, bizarre, fetishistic, etc. Your fallacy about the evolutionary
"normality" of non-reproductive sex is applied quite selectively.

In short, you are merely projecting your petty prejudices onto the supposed
"intent" of natural selection the way more-religious people project their
prejudices onto the supposed will of God. You naively convince yourself that
evolution is on your side the way some people convince themselves that God
is on their side.

> nor should you expect to be viewed as a "role model" for our youth.

The feeling is mutual, Jay. Many gay people are excellent role models and
many are not, just as with straight people. I sadly conclude that your
insulting prejudices place you among those who are not.

--Gary

[Jay Honeck]

> The feeling is mutual, Jay. Many gay people are excellent role models and
> many are not, just as with straight people. I sadly conclude that your
> insulting prejudices place you among those who are not.

Good luck in your quest, Gary. You've been given a hard row to hoe...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dave Stadt]

"Steve House" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert Perkins" > wrote in message
> ...
> ...snip...
> > that I want to get everyone's attention:
> >
> > WHY ON EARTH WOULD ANYONE IN HIS RIGHT MIND WANT TO SEPARATE HIS
> > RELIGIOUS BELIEFS FROM HIS POLITICAL MOTIVATIONS?!?!?!?!?
> >
> > Good grief. Religious belief is fundamentally human! Separating
> > religious motivation from its expression in politics is the surest way
> > to get yourself manipulated out of a voice in the process!
> >
>
> Because they realize that in order to preserve the freedom of belief for
> everyone, it is wrong to enact laws that force people who do not share
some
> particular set of beliefs to act as if they do. Back when meatless
Fridays
> were the norm in the Catholic faith, for predominantly Catholic Boston to
> pass a law prohibiting the sale of hamburgers on Friday would be an
example
> of such a thing. Laws mandating businesses closing on the Sabbath would
be
> another.
>
> The only way for the State to be fair to all religions and to protect the
> individual's freedom to choose their own faith is to function as if
religion
> had never been invented. Any laws that are motivated by a particular
> religious conviction are, by definition, an attempt to mandate that all
> people, believers in the dominant faith or not, behave as if they shared
> that conviction. If by chance the religious view and the secular
> justification on an issue parallel each other well and good, but where the
> justification for a law is based solely on religious arguments it must be
> opposed. Legislators simply MUST leave their religious faith in the
> cloakroom with their hats and coats less they oppress all other faiths
> except their own.
>

You have way more faith in our legislators than I do. Special interest is
the name of the game be it religion or any other group with big $$$$.

[Steve House]

On the contrary, I have very little faith in politicians indeed. One reason
is that so many of them cannot divorce their religious beliefs from their
governmental responsibilities to safeguard the freedom of all citizens
regardless of their religious beliefs or non-belief.


"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
y.com...
>
> "Steve House" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Robert Perkins" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > ...snip...
> > > that I want to get everyone's attention:
> > >
> > > WHY ON EARTH WOULD ANYONE IN HIS RIGHT MIND WANT TO SEPARATE HIS
> > > RELIGIOUS BELIEFS FROM HIS POLITICAL MOTIVATIONS?!?!?!?!?
> > >
> > > Good grief. Religious belief is fundamentally human! Separating
> > > religious motivation from its expression in politics is the surest way
> > > to get yourself manipulated out of a voice in the process!
> > >
> >
> > Because they realize that in order to preserve the freedom of belief for
> > everyone, it is wrong to enact laws that force people who do not share
> some
> > particular set of beliefs to act as if they do. Back when meatless
> Fridays
> > were the norm in the Catholic faith, for predominantly Catholic Boston
to
> > pass a law prohibiting the sale of hamburgers on Friday would be an
> example
> > of such a thing. Laws mandating businesses closing on the Sabbath would
> be
> > another.
> >
> > The only way for the State to be fair to all religions and to protect
the
> > individual's freedom to choose their own faith is to function as if
> religion
> > had never been invented. Any laws that are motivated by a particular
> > religious conviction are, by definition, an attempt to mandate that all
> > people, believers in the dominant faith or not, behave as if they shared
> > that conviction. If by chance the religious view and the secular
> > justification on an issue parallel each other well and good, but where
the
> > justification for a law is based solely on religious arguments it must
be
> > opposed. Legislators simply MUST leave their religious faith in the
> > cloakroom with their hats and coats less they oppress all other faiths
> > except their own.
> >
>
> You have way more faith in our legislators than I do. Special interest is
> the name of the game be it religion or any other group with big $$$$.
>
>
>
>