About those anti-aviatoin newsgroups

"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?

"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.

"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"

"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

"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

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"

"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

"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

"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.

"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