About those anti-aviatoin newsgroups

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:bUp0b.200383$Ho3.26912@sccrnsc03...
....snip...

No, Peter, this has nothing to do with whether homosexuality is a
lifestyle
"choice" or not. (I personally don't believe anyone would choose such a
difficult path for themselves.)

This has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that skin color or religious
preference is patently and demonstrably harmless, while sexual attraction
is
potentially and demonstrably harmful -- especially in groups of pre-teen
boys (and girls).


Actually there is nothing demonstrably harmful in sexual attraction either.
Attraction, arousal, and even orgasms do not in and of themselves harm the
persons experiencing them, regardless of the source of the stimulation. I
suspect that the real reason for the sometimes violent opposition to
homosexual Scout leaders, teachers, clergy, etc is not a fear of sexual
assault but rather the fear that young people will be exposed to positive
role models who happen to be gay, thus reinforcing the idea that it's no big
deal whether one's sexual partners of the same or opposite genders. Assume
that they are not having sex with the kids in the group, what difference
could the kids knowing the leader has a sex life with a member of the
opposite sex or with a member of the same sex matter? I think the debate
between whether homosexuality is a lifestyle choice or somehow biologically
determined is moot, except from an academic bio/psychological research
viewpoint, as the entire debate is based on the notion that it should
somehow MATTER who someone has their orgasms with. If everyone involved is
consenting, what possible difference could it make? As a parent, I could
care less if my daughter turns out straight, gay, or bisexual. All that
matters is that she is happy.

If everyone involved is
consenting, what possible difference could it make? As a parent, I could
care less if my daughter turns out straight, gay, or bisexual. All that
matters is that she is happy.

This conversation is about children who, by definition, cannot be
"consenting".

Or do you dispute this assertion to?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

The conversation is about not about children and consent, though the laws
establishing the age of sexual consent are based more on the age at which a
person is sufficiently educated to marginally function as an independent
economic entity rather than on the age at which they reach a level of sexual
and emotional maturity where consent is actually possible psychologically.
More at issue is the apparent fear that accepting homosexuality as
completely normal, sanctioning gay relationships by recognizing them as
morally and socially indistinguishable from heterosexual relationships, and
accepting those openly gay as legitimate models for children in roles such
as teachers, clergy, coaches, scout leaders, etc will somehow expose
children to assult and/or will persuade them to abandon their straight
sexual orientation and become gay themselves. My point is that whether a
person is gay or straight or whether one's children turn out gay, straight,
or bi *should* be of no greater importance than whether they turn out to
prefer chocolate or vanilla ice cream - in an enlightened society one's
sexual orientation and practices would be a total non-issue. It *is* an
issue in our society because for some unfathomable and bizzare reason, so
many heterosexual people have an aversion to homosexuals and homosexuality
and that attitude, by its very existence, is directly harmful to the people
toward which it's directed. It parallels the civil rights movement because
it makes no more sense to feel aversion to someone based on their sexual
preferences than it does to have an aversion to someone based solely on skin
pigmentation.



"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:r0y0b.202309$YN5.141543@sccrnsc01...
If everyone involved is
consenting, what possible difference could it make? As a parent, I
could
care less if my daughter turns out straight, gay, or bisexual. All that
matters is that she is happy.

This conversation is about children who, by definition, cannot be
"consenting".

Or do you dispute this assertion to?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

The conversation is about not about children and consent,

Unless I'm completely daft, the term "boy" (as in "Boy Scouts") refers to
children, of the male persuasion.

More at issue is the apparent fear that accepting homosexuality as
completely normal, sanctioning gay relationships by recognizing them as
morally and socially indistinguishable from heterosexual relationships,
and
accepting those openly gay as legitimate models for children in roles such
as teachers, clergy, coaches, scout leaders, etc will somehow expose
children to assult and/or will persuade them to abandon their straight
sexual orientation and become gay themselves.

You continually (and conveniently) avoid the fact that homosexuality is not
"completely normal", any more than a host of other sexual fetishes are
"normal". However, as with most of these peculiar aberrations,
homosexuality is mostly a harmless (if somewhat bizarre) quirk of nature,
and I certainly don't advocate persecution of homosexuals. In fact, quite
frankly I suspect most people don't care who you want to have sex with, and
you're more than welcome to practice your lifestyle.

But this benign tolerance does not translate into allowing you chaperone my
son on a camping trip, nor should you expect to be viewed as a "role model"
for our youth.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
newsKW0b.213405$uu5.38488@sccrnsc04...
The conversation is about not about children and consent.

Unless I'm completely daft, the term "boy" (as in "Boy Scouts") refers to
children, of the male persuasion.

True enough, but the subject of debate is not whether a child is able to
consent to sexual activity but rather whether a child is endangered by
exposure to the mere presence homosexuals in their environment. The
assumption appears to be, in part, that if homosexuals are allowed to be
around them, whether as leaders or peers, they will be approached for sexual
activity.

....snip

You continually (and conveniently) avoid the fact that homosexuality is
not
"completely normal", any more than a host of other sexual fetishes are
"normal".

I am not "avoiding the fact" because it is simply not a fact at all. If you
like, I'll state it unambiguously in case there was some confusion.
Homosexuality and homosexual relationships are completely, totally, 100%
normal by any objective criterion you may choose except statistical
incidence - morally, medically, socially, and psychologically they are
fully equal to heterosexuality in every meaningful respect. It is no more
an abberation or quirk of nature than is a liking for rhubarb pie. The only
signifigant way homosexuals differ from heterosexuals is that there are
fewer of them. And therein lies the second part of the debate, the apparent
fear that if children become aware of this fact they will somehow defect
from the heterosexual camp in droves. I suggest that a young person should
be encouraged to develop their sexuality in their own way - some will be
heterosexual, some will be homosexual, some may be bisexual - having
positive role models of both sexual orientations in their lives. Their
sexuality will develop wherever their natural proclivities lead them,
leading in turn to happier, healthier, more fulfilled, and more stable
adults. Because it IS equally acceptable in every meaningful way to be
homosexual or heterosexual, not only should they not only not be shielded
from role models of differing orientations, such role models should be
actively encouraged by organizations such as schools, churches, Scouts, etc
who share the responsibility with the parents of molding children into
healthy, happy adults.

However, as with most of these peculiar aberrations,
homosexuality is mostly a harmless (if somewhat bizarre) quirk of nature,
and I certainly don't advocate persecution of homosexuals. In fact, quite
frankly I suspect most people don't care who you want to have sex with,
and
you're more than welcome to practice your lifestyle.

But this benign tolerance does not translate into allowing you chaperone
my
son on a camping trip, nor should you expect to be viewed as a "role
model"
for our youth.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
newsKW0b.213405$uu5.38488@sccrnsc04...
You continually (and conveniently) avoid the fact that homosexuality is
not
"completely normal", any more than a host of other sexual fetishes are
"normal". However, as with most of these peculiar aberrations,
homosexuality is mostly a harmless (if somewhat bizarre) quirk of nature,

Jay, in order for something to be a "fact", it must have a factual basis.
Your claims have none; they fly in the face of medical science.

To declare same-gender relationships "abnormal", "fetishistic", "bizarre",
etc. is just as arbitrary and factually false (and morally offensive) as
when segregationists declared inter-racial relationships to be abnormal,
unnatural, perverted, disgusting, etc. The thought of homosexuality
provokes in you the same visceral aversion and discomfort that the thought
of inter-racial sex provoked in the segregationists. Both of those visceral
reactions have been common for millennia (and are both reflected in the
Bible, for example). In both cases, though, the pathology actually resides
in the reaction itself, but is ignorantly presumed to reside in the things
that provoke the reaction.

In past discussions, you have emphasized that homosexuality does not promote
reproduction, which you think makes it "abnormal" from the standpoint of
evolution. This stance reflects several basic confusions about evolutionary
biology:
1) Although the mechanism of natural selection can metaphorically be said
to have a goal of survival, its "goal" is not the survival or reproduction
of individuals or of species, but rather of specific genes (e.g., possible
genes for homosexuality); specific genes have no (metaphorical) concern for
*other* genes except to be able to exploit them. The very fact that
homosexuality thrives as a minority inclination (in our species and others)
attests to its evolutionary success; evolution has no other concern, even
metaphorically. (*Universal* homosexuality would not enjoy evolutionary
success, which is why we don't find it.)
2) Even if (contrary to fact) homosexuality were somehow contrary to the
(metaphorical) goals of evolution, that would have no consequence whatsoever
as to its normality or desirability. Evolution is amoral. Caring for the
frail elderly, for example, when they can no longer contribute to
child-rearing, may be contrary to the "goals" of evolution, but that doesn't
make it "abnormal" in any reasonable sense. Evolution's (metaphorical)
goals are not necessarily *our* goals, nor should they be.
3) There are many heterosexuals who have voluntarily sterilized
themselves. You do not regard their subsequent sexual relationships as
abnormal, bizarre, fetishistic, etc. Your fallacy about the evolutionary
"normality" of non-reproductive sex is applied quite selectively.

In short, you are merely projecting your petty prejudices onto the supposed
"intent" of natural selection the way more-religious people project their
prejudices onto the supposed will of God. You naively convince yourself that
evolution is on your side the way some people convince themselves that God
is on their side.

nor should you expect to be viewed as a "role model" for our youth.

The feeling is mutual, Jay. Many gay people are excellent role models and
many are not, just as with straight people. I sadly conclude that your
insulting prejudices place you among those who are not.

--Gary

The feeling is mutual, Jay. Many gay people are excellent role models and
many are not, just as with straight people. I sadly conclude that your
insulting prejudices place you among those who are not.

Good luck in your quest, Gary. You've been given a hard row to hoe...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"