Thrown out of an FBO...

Recently, Jose posted:

A specious comparison. Mixed race couples were being judged on their
*appearance*, while same sex couples are being judged by their
*actions*.

Not such a specious comparison. Mixed race couples were not being
judged on their appearance, but rather, on =what= they were. It was
like a man marrying a dog. They were a different =race= goddamit!

Then, it's incumbent on you to explain how you could tell "what they
were". One certainly can't tell by looking, but one *can* make assumptions
based on how people look.

I won't even go into the lack of validity of the concept of different
"races" within the human species. In short, I agree with Jay on the nature
of your comparison.

Neil

"Don Tabor" wrote in message
...
That is to allow civil unions for any consenting adult couple which
provide those legal privileges and responsibilities currently attached
to marriage. Other than that, government has no function relating to
marriage.

Get your civil union registered at the courthouse, get married in
front of your church, family, friends, or bowling league, whatever
community will provide the emotional and social support for your
marriage.

Separation of marriage and state and all that.

Yes, that would be a reasonable solution. Let the government provide civil
unions, and let churches or whatever sanctify marriages according to
whatever criteria they want to use. (To this day, there are still some
churches that refuse to sanctify interracial marriages. Although their
policy is morally reprehensible, it is unassailably protected as part of
their free-speech rights, and properly so, since a religious sanctification
constitutes nothing but an expression of belief.)

But as long as the government does presume to certify "marriages", they
should do so without regard to the race or gender of the participants.

--Gary

"LWG" wrote in message
. ..

And they might use the same logic against America for allowing the rise
of Whateverism. How about Christofascism? We better start wiping these
fundies out before somebody suitcase-nukes our cities and tries to wipe
us off the planet.

Bingo. You got it! They *are* using the same logic against the western
world. We are infidels, and there are only two options: conversion or
death. Which one do you want?

If we apply that logic to Islam, do we also apply it to Christianity when we
are told that the punishment for not believing is ETERNAL torture and
damnation?

Is there some reason I would wish to kill a child in Jordan or Kuwait
because of a fundamentalist in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan?

There are radical muslims in Australia. Should we nuke Sydney, too?


-c

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Gatt,

For what?

You're actually trying sensible discussion with this nutcase?

Nope. It ceased to be constructive.

-c

As such, your views have no value.


"mike regish" wrote in message
...
Yep.


Yeah I could tell by your comments that you are too intolerant of someone
who has other views.

Then, it's incumbent on you to explain how you could tell "what they
were". One certainly can't tell by looking, but one *can* make assumptions
based on how people look.

I'm not even sure what this means. Mixed race couples would not be
accepted even if they dyed their skin. Same race couples would be
accepted, even if one of them had a deep sun tan.

I won't even go into the lack of validity of the concept of different
"races" within the human species.

It doesn't have to be valid - it merely has to be a way to discriminate,
which it is. And, btw, I am not supporting such bigotry as "They were a
different =race= goddamit!" by posting it, I'm merely pointing out that
at one time, not too long ago, that bigotry did exist.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Nomen Nescio wrote:


Why should a hospital decide who has "visitation rights" in the first place?

What if a celebrity is in the hospital?

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 18:49:26 GMT, B A R R Y
wrote:

Nomen Nescio wrote:


Why should a hospital decide who has "visitation rights" in the first place?

What if a celebrity is in the hospital?

Shouldn't the person in the hospital decide who can visit?

Don

Don Tabor wrote:
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 18:49:26 GMT, B A R R Y
wrote:

Nomen Nescio wrote:

Why should a hospital decide who has "visitation rights" in the first place?
What if a celebrity is in the hospital?

Shouldn't the person in the hospital decide who can visit?

Don


I think so, but that may not be posssible.

What if they haven't been awake since admission?

Think of how many curious "friends" a celebrity or politician might have.

"Crash Lander" wrote in message
...
So homosexual people separate them selves from the rest of the population,
in turn, feeding the discrimination and segregation they so fiercely
protest!

I tend to separate myself from the non-flying population by hanging out at
airports. I do this BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE AIRPLANES ARE. Duh. Am I
feeding the discrimination against pilots just because I happen to have a
good understanding of how to most efficiently address my needs as a pilot?

There are other reasons, including the fact that discrimination still
exists

And, as I've said, is fed (in a lot of cases, but not all, I grant you)by
homosexual people themselves!

It is not "fed" at all by homosexuals. That is strictly in your perception,
and cannot be blamed on them.

and so having a relative safe place to go is also useful. I think it's
silly to criticize homosexuals for seeking out specific places for
themselves.

If all homosexual people went to the 'straight' clubs and pubs, they'd
still meet each other there!

No, they wouldn't. They would waste a lot of time meeting people who are
straight. I have several gay friends who have described this very problem.
There just aren't enough homosexual people in the general problem for them
to be effective at meeting other gays in settings not specifically
identified as being for gays.

Why have a separate one? You don't hear straight people crying
discrimination when we aren't allowed in a 'gay' club.

It is a common response from the dominant majority to cry "why aren't our
ways good enough for them?" Suffice to say, such cries are irrelevant and
misguided. They only serve to demonstrate just how little empathy those
people in the dominant majority have for what it really means to be in a
minority group.

Sexual 'hook-ups' are not the only reason one goes to a pub or club.

So what? That wasn't the question. The issue is what a gay person is to do
when the point *is* for meeting a sexual partner. Other uses for bars are
irrelevant.

If you're at a bar to meet up with a sexual partner, I think that one's
sexual preference probably *would* be a required part of the conversation
at some point.

*If* I were at the bar or club to find a sexual partner.

So you agree with me. Why did you bring it up then?

As I said before, that is not the only reason to be at a club or pub.

So what? The fact remains that meeting sexual partners IS a reason to be at
a bar, and inasmuch as this is true, having a bar where all the people there
are sexually like-minded is useful (and not at all related to the question
of "feeding discrimination").

Pete