About those anti-aviatoin newsgroups

"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