About those anti-aviatoin newsgroups

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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

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

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

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

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

"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.

"Robert Perkins" wrote in message
news
[...]
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