"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. Therein lies the crux of the issue that makes it such a
thorny one to debate. 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'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. The "anti-" prefix is used by many
groups for a variety of purposes. It seems to be generally used by
homosexual activists to denote not only persons who are specifically opposed
to their agenda, but also persons who do not specifically support their
agenda. These are two very different positions, and it is a basic
innacuracy to characterize them this way. It is done, I believe,
intentionally. The language is the language, and twisting it to your
purposes does not change anything, or serve you well in the long run.

JG