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

(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

"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?

"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

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

"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

"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

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

"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

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.