About those anti-aviatoin newsgroups

"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

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
| "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.
|

Well, right. For example, if someone derives sexual pleasure from rape,
torture and murder, who are we to judge? Once you are born a thief, perhaps
you cannot help yourself. Are not laws against theft therefore unjust? Why
is it right to discriminate against thieves? Or Republicans? :-)

Peter, can you show even one law on the books that does not attempt to
impose one person's morality on another?

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 07:16:17 -0700, "C J Campbell"
wrote in Message-Id:
:

Well, right. For example, if someone derives sexual pleasure from rape,
torture and murder, who are we to judge? Once you are born a thief, perhaps
you cannot help yourself. Are not laws against theft therefore unjust?


You are comparing acts which deprive an individual of his rights to
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, with consensual love,
that doesn't infringe on anyone. I know you're more astute than that.


--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
| On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 07:16:17 -0700, "C J Campbell"
| wrote in Message-Id:
| :
|
| Well, right. For example, if someone derives sexual pleasure from rape,
| torture and murder, who are we to judge? Once you are born a thief,
perhaps
| you cannot help yourself. Are not laws against theft therefore unjust?
|
|
| You are comparing acts which deprive an individual of his rights to
| life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, with consensual love,
| that doesn't infringe on anyone. I know you're more astute than that.
|

Really? Then why am I, as a Mormon, deprived of the right to have more than
one wife? Yet most of the same lunatic fringe that demands homosexual rights
as part of their agenda for tolerance of absolute sexual licentiousness is
equally adamant that I not be allowed to practice my religion.

As for the Boy Scouts, most of them take issue with the notion that
homosexuality is consensual or that it does not infringe on anyone. Many of
the Scout leaders and parents are very concerned about pedophilia -- and
some of the postings by homosexual activists on rec.scouting.usa have done
little to address their concerns, to say the very least. A google search on
postings by an individual calling himself "GrabMyMonkey" will show that
there are indeed some activists who are, at best, using homosexuality as a
cover for their pedophilia.

Rightly or wrongly, the recent experience of the Catholic Church has not
helped matters, either. Homosexuality has been tolerated among Catholic
priests for some time and now, in view of the thousands of assaults against
young men, a lot of people are beginning to question whether that was a wise
policy.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
Really? Then why am I, as a Mormon, deprived of the right to have more
than
one wife?

You should not be, IMHO. However, you should also be in favor of laws that
allow a woman to have more than one husband. Anything less would be
hypocritical.

As for the Boy Scouts, most of them take issue with the notion that
homosexuality is consensual or that it does not infringe on anyone.

Those people are ill-informed, and are allowing their fears to color their
judgment.

Many of
the Scout leaders and parents are very concerned about pedophilia

Pedophilia happens with or without homosexuality. The two are not related,
and to persecute all homosexuals because of some pedophiles (gay or
otherwise) is just absurd.

Most murderers are heterosexual. I suppose we shouldn't allow any straight
people to be teachers. After all, would you want your kid to have a
murderer for a teacher?

[...] Homosexuality has been tolerated among Catholic
priests for some time and now, in view of the thousands of assaults
against
young men, a lot of people are beginning to question whether that was a
wise
policy.

Not really. Pedophilia has been tolerated among *certain* Catholic priests
for some time and now, in view of the thousands of assaults against young
men *made public*, a lot of people are beginning to question whether that
was a wise policy.

Pete

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

....snip...

Really? Then why am I, as a Mormon, deprived of the right to have more
than
one wife? Yet most of the same lunatic fringe that demands homosexual
rights
as part of their agenda for tolerance of absolute sexual licentiousness is
equally adamant that I not be allowed to practice my religion.

Actually I, for one, think you should be able to do exactly that. Lived in
Park City and Salt Lake City, BTW, and am very familiar with some of the
Mormon splinter groups - had a polygamous family living next door at one
point in fact. The only problem I have with the polygamy as practiced by
the LDS offshoot sects today is their penchant for keeping the female
children "home schooled" and uneducated and marrying them off at 12 or 14
before they have the mental maturity, educational background, and life
experience to make a truly free and informed choice about their lifestyle.


As for the Boy Scouts, most of them take issue with the notion that
homosexuality is consensual or that it does not infringe on anyone. Many
of
the Scout leaders and parents are very concerned about pedophilia -- and
some of the postings by homosexual activists on rec.scouting.usa have done
little to address their concerns, to say the very least. A google search
on
postings by an individual calling himself "GrabMyMonkey" will show that
there are indeed some activists who are, at best, using homosexuality as a
cover for their pedophilia.

Heterosexual pedophiles vastly outnumber homosexual ones. Interviewed
several authorities from the sex offender unit at the Utah State Prison on
my radio program back in the late 1980's and as I recall they said among the
prison population heterosexual pedophiles outnumbered homosexual ones by
about 4 to 1. But the notion that a homosexual scout leader is going to
sexually assault or seduce those in his charge is in itself based on an
irrational paranoia about homosexuals - there is no more reason to believe
it will happen than it is to believe that a heterosexual Cub Scout denmother
is going to lure the Cubs in her pack into sexual play. Has it happened?
Of course, to both scenarios. Is either one likely to happen? Not very.

Rightly or wrongly, the recent experience of the Catholic Church has not
helped matters, either. Homosexuality has been tolerated among Catholic
priests for some time and now, in view of the thousands of assaults
against
young men, a lot of people are beginning to question whether that was a
wise
policy.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
Well, right. For example, if someone derives sexual pleasure from rape,
torture and murder, who are we to judge? Once you are born a thief,
perhaps
you cannot help yourself. Are not laws against theft therefore unjust? Why
is it right to discriminate against thieves? Or Republicans? :-)

Peter, can you show even one law on the books that does not attempt to
impose one person's morality on another?

Too bad you didn't read any farther than the first paragraph of my post.
The very first sentence in the second addresses your "concerns".

Pete

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 00:34:24 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

Last I checked, separation of church and state was still the theoretical
policy in the US.

Separation of Church and State is not constitutional language. It's
popular theoretical policy today, but it has also become shorthand for
promoting the effective primacy of State over Church, which no
constructionist favors.

That's the thing many of these people fear, that the growing influence
of secular humanism in the U.S. will obviate their points of view. And
that's not a form of "homophobia" nearly as much as it is a form of
anti-federalism.

I don't find religious conviction to be a valid
motivation for lawmaking

Placing you in one minority group, albiet a particularly well-placed
one, these days. Honest religious conviction informs even your
opinions, Peter; even if you just don't *call* it religious
conviction, the worship of human reason is still based on a couple of
unprovables. Piety doesn't have to be directed at judaeo-christian
deity to be piety.

and in any case, the religiously convicted fall
smack in the "homophobe" camp.

And that's the demagoguery. Do the Scientologists or the Unitarians
fall into this "homophobe" camp? In any case, I and many like me were
pleased to permit behavior and keep company with people of all stripes
and preferences wherever they intersected with ours. But agitating for
political change so quickly is not a good idea. You gloss that with
your next paragraph:

Ahh...the old "change is bad" philosophy.

No, it's not "the old 'change is bad' philosophy", which is another
bit of demagoguery anyway, a reiteration of the "what are you afraid
of?" challenge, reducing it to being equivalent to "homophobe".
"Change is bad" is not a philosophy.

It's markedly more accruate to say that the *position* (not the
philosophy), is more like "rapid agitative change is disruptive to an
ordered society," which is true.

Easy divorce was one such change in the institution of marriage that
many people now feel was a bad move, citing single moms, deadbeat
dads, latchkey kids, double households, and other such evidence as
proof of the mistake. Now, people are calling for yet another change
in the institution with similar preparation and reasoning.

If we're gonna make such a change, we must, in my opinion, think
through all the ramifications of it, and carefully implement it in
stages, checking our work all the way. We haven't done that, in my
opinion. All we've done so far in the last 30 years is toss epithets
calling each other sub-human.

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.

You've responded to one.

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.

Members of my extended family, in connection with California Prop 22,
canvassed their own neighborhoods with flyers. I wrote to state
representatives and state senators expressing this line of reasoning.
Is Bill Clinton a "homophobe"? He signed the "Defense of Marriage Act"
into law.

Rob

"Robert Perkins" wrote in message
...
Separation of Church and State is not constitutional language.

Of course it is. The exact words "separation of church and state" don't
appear, of course. But the intent is clear.

No, it's not "the old 'change is bad' philosophy", which is another
bit of demagoguery anyway, a reiteration of the "what are you afraid
of?" challenge, reducing it to being equivalent to "homophobe".

If a person's objection is only to the change itself, and not to some
specific drawback to the change, it is just applicable as "homophobe" and
just as silly an argument.

"Change is bad" is not a philosophy.

Of course it is.

It's markedly more accruate to say that the *position* (not the
philosophy), is more like "rapid agitative change is disruptive to an
ordered society," which is true.

Trust me. Nothing about granted gays marriage rights is going to be rapid.
There's no need to pass laws to specifically disallow it. But even if rapid
change were bad, why pass laws specifically against gay marriage? No...a
person who is genuinely against rapid change generally would argue not in
favor of laws specifically directed against a minority, but rather in favor
of laws that limit the progress of new laws generally.

Easy divorce was one such change in the institution of marriage that
many people now feel was a bad move, citing single moms, deadbeat
dads, latchkey kids, double households, and other such evidence as
proof of the mistake.

You forgot to put "proof" in quotes. There were single moms, deadbeat dads,
etc. long before divorce was more socially acceptable. I do think that too
many people are willing to choose divorce as a solution to their problems,
but they are people who probably will never understand what it takes to
allow a marriage to work.

Those kinds of people weren't in working marriages even when divorce wasn't
acceptable.

Now, people are calling for yet another change
in the institution with similar preparation and reasoning.

I don't see how expanding marriage to include gay couples is anywhere near
as radical a change as allowing divorce to be easier. If anything, it
allows a larger portion of society to return to our basic ideals.

If we're gonna make such a change, we must, in my opinion, think
through all the ramifications of it, and carefully implement it in
stages, checking our work all the way. We haven't done that, in my
opinion. All we've done so far in the last 30 years is toss epithets
calling each other sub-human.

The gays certainly didn't start that. They are just trying to gain equality
in our society. As for thinking through all the ramifications, perhaps YOU
haven't been thinking about it for 30 years, but I assure you that lots of
people have.

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.

You've responded to one.

Please. See above...as I said, if you were truly against the rapid change
in general, you would be arguing in favor of different, more general laws,
rather than one that singles out a minority group. At least, if you were
exercising basic common sense.

By your reasoning, you would have been in favor of bills that prohibited
freedom for slaves, voting rights for women and blacks, and desegregation as
well. All of those things were, at the time, considered radical changes.

Members of my extended family, in connection with California Prop 22,
canvassed their own neighborhoods with flyers. I wrote to state
representatives and state senators expressing this line of reasoning.

But were you really doing so honestly? I suppose in the end, only you can
answer for yourself, but it sure seems to me that you're using a large
helping of rationalization here. Are you really separating your religious
beliefs from your political motivations?

Is Bill Clinton a "homophobe"? He signed the "Defense of Marriage Act"
into law.

I don't know if he is or is not. Politicians are a funny breed, since they
often act counter to their own moral compass (such as it is), if they think
doing so will help them or their political party. Regardless, it certainly
offends me that he would sign such a bill.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:
"Robert Perkins" wrote in message
...

Separation of Church and State is not constitutional language.


Of course it is. The exact words "separation of church and state" don't
appear, of course. But the intent is clear.

And just out of curiosity how do you feel about the second ammendment?