About those anti-aviatoin newsgroups

"John T" wrote in message
ws.com...

hmmm...

France. Germany. Great Br... Hell, practically the entire European
continent would fall under the "modern liberalism" umbrella, but they're
still chugging along.


Exactly. They're just chugging along. Imagine what they could have
accomplished without the constraints that modern liberalism imposes.

"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

"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.

"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

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...
In any event, the homophobe you speak of is not denying anybody's
rights

Of course they are. These bills say, in essence, "gays will not be granted
the right to marry". I don't know how much more clearly someone's rights
can be denied.

but arguing they should not explicitly be affirmed, having had
experience with equal rights being escalated into more-than-equal
rights (to law school admissions, for example) in other special cases.

Baloney. You are confusing Affirmative Action with other laws that prohibit
discrimination. They are not the same.

These are very tough arguments, and neither the homophobe nor you are
shedding any light at all on the problem. You are equally
close-minded.

There are certain political agendas and attitudes towards which I need not
have an open mind. Racism, intolerance of religious freedom, and sexism all
come to mind. Likewise, any attitude which starts out "because a person is
gay..." is not one I need to listen any further to. A gay person should be
treated equally. No better, but no worse either.

Pete

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
My personal feelings about the matter is that any private organization
should be able to discriminate against any group that it wishes for any
reason.

I agree with you there. However:

* The BSA should not enjoy preferential treatment or be granted any sort
of government support. As a private organization, they should be
self-sufficient if they wish to discriminate.

* As a former scout myself, I look forward to a day when in good
conscience allow my own son to participate in the BSA. The BSA has a lot of
great things to offer. I will continue to be vocal in my desire for the BSA
to change their policy, for this reason. Will I ask the government to force
a change? No, absolutely not. But if the change happens from within, as a
result of pressure from without, I see nothing wrong with that.

In other words, the BSA should be permitted to do what they feel is best.
However, they should not be surprised when they receive social criticism.

Pete

"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
...
No, my concerns are not addressed at all.

Try reading it again. Take special note of the "protect the rights of
someone" part. Your left brain seems to be on the blink.

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?

Marriage involves persons of the opposite sex. Homosexuals are free to
marry persons of the opposite sex just as heterosexuals are. Homosexuals
are not denied any rights in this matter, nor in any other matter I can
think of.

You just made the point I was illustrating - to arbitrarily define that
"marriage" can only be between persons of opposite gender may be
traditional
but it is an anachronism based solely on an aversion to homosexuality.

You're trying to change many millennia of history and tradition by
arbitrarily re-defining marriage to suit your own agenda -- and you accuse
Steven of being arbitrary?

Now THAT is ironic.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"