A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

About those anti-aviatoin newsgroups



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 17th 03, 10:40 PM
John Gaquin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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


  #2  
Old August 18th 03, 12:10 AM
Gary L. Drescher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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




  #3  
Old August 18th 03, 12:21 AM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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


  #4  
Old August 18th 03, 03:30 AM
John Gaquin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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


  #5  
Old August 18th 03, 04:02 AM
Gary L. Drescher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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




  #6  
Old August 18th 03, 04:49 AM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Stupid Question About Newsgroups RST Engineering General Aviation 1 January 17th 05 05:59 PM
Re; What do you think? Kelsibutt Naval Aviation 0 September 29th 03 06:55 AM
Newsgroups and Email Jim Weir Home Built 8 July 8th 03 11:30 PM
Newsgroups and Email Jim Weir Owning 8 July 8th 03 11:30 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.