![]() |
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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |