About those anti-aviatoin newsgroups

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
| "Dave Stadt" wrote in message
| .com...
| "As a licensed woman pilot (current or not), you are invited to become a
| part of our legacy as the first and only international organization of
| women
| pilots."
|
| How does one explain the above discrimination by the 99s.
|
| This has already been pointed out, but I guess you went to the bathroom or
| something and missed it.
|
| There's a difference between discrimination for the sake of discrimination
| (e.g. BSA discriminating against gays) and discrimination inherent in the
| organization (e.g. 99's). The 99's is *specifically* for the benefit of
| women pilots, and as such it makes sense for them to exclude men. The BSA
| is not *specifically* for the benefit of heterosexual men,

Well, actually, it is.

"Margy Natalie" wrote in message
...
|
|
| Big John wrote:
|
| I refuse to support United Way and any other organization who
| discriminates against the BSA.
|
| But organizations that discriminate against children are ok?
|
|

BSA does not discriminate against children.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
| [...] The BSA is not *specifically* for the benefit of heterosexual men,

Well, actually, it is.

Well, actually, no it's not. Nothing in the original charter says anything
about sexual preference. Furthermore, the raison d'etre for the BSA is to
teach boys about leadership, civic duties, outdoorsmanship, and the like.

The 99's exist specifically to provide an organization for female pilots.
That's the charter. Just as the BSA is for *boys* and as such do not allow
girls to participate.

It's not called the "Heterosexual Scouts of America". The discrimination
the 99's engage in is not the same. For that matter, the completely
legitimate discrimination that the BSA engages in when they exclude girls is
not the same as the absurd discrimination that they engage in when they
exclude gays.

Pete

Uhhhhh try "since he was 10" instead of 14. Seriously, I suspect a major
reason the number of cases of adult women having sex with young boys are so
much much lower than those of adult males having sex with young girls is due
to a difference in reporting rate rather than a difference in incidence.
And I can easily understand why - what 12 or 14 year old boy in his right
mind is going to complain when his greatest desire, the forbidden fruit he
so desperately wants experience, is handed to him on a silver platter? "Mom
and Dad, have that woman arrested! She gave me the most exquisite
experience of my life today and promsed to do it again for me tomorrow if I
came back over!" Sheesh, not very likely!

"Newps" wrote in message
news:3cB0b.152090$cF.55663@rwcrnsc53...


Jay Honeck wrote:

I would say the odds of a woman "preying" upon a teenage boy are an
order of
magnitude smaller than the reverse example

That's because it's not "preying". It's the fulfillment of the dream he
has had every night since he was 14.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

Seems to me "respecting an establishment of religion" refers to laws based
on religion, not the establishment of a national religion. If they wanted
to limit it to prohibiting only the establishment of a national religion,
they would have written "THE establishment of A NATIONAL religion", not
"an
establishment of religion".


It's the US Congress, Peter, that's the national government.



Don't worry though...I know that you'll disagree 'til you're blue in the
face. So feel free to disagree once again. Don't bother me none. There
is
ample interpretive precedent that disagrees with you, and I have no need
to
engage in a futile effort to change your mind.


It's not me you're disagreeing with, Peter, you're disagreeing with the 1st
Amendment.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

No, of course you haven't. That's because you live in your own special
world, where things mean only what you'd like them to mean.

Suffice to say, the rest of us HAVE seen exactly what I said we've seen.


Actually, the reason I haven't seen any is because there have been no bills
that say, in essence, "gays will not be granted the right to marry". You
can prove me wrong by citing such a bill. Of course, if you knew of such a
bill you would have already cited it in your reply.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:wIt0b.201425$YN5.140717@sccrnsc01...

I would say the odds of a woman "preying" upon a teenage boy are an order
of magnitude smaller than the reverse example (i.e.: A man preying on a
teenage girl.).


How many teenage boys would consider a sexual advance by a woman being
"preyed upon", rather than a terrific stroke of luck?

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"

"Jim Baker" wrote in message
et...

What a hoot McNicoll. I doubt you even know the definition of cogent. It
is not a valid, forceful, reasoned, cogent argument to say that a
discriminatory group (and the BSA is by admission) should be accorded the
discount rate use of public buildings because they do good deeds for the
people holding the reservations book. It may be fact, but it isn't a
sound
argument. If it were, the gays would be out there planting trees and
flowers like crazy and demanding the same benefits. In fact though, as
far
as I know, they just demand the same treatment based on legalities.


I don't believe I've posted anything at all about the BSA or any similar
group.



P.S. I just casually wandered into this thread and found it interesting,
if
grossly OT. I have to say though, that for someone with some obvious, at
least to me, intelligence, you've done the best job here of all the
posters
of posting inane, shallow, childish responses. For God's sake man, try to
do better. LOL


Example?

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

I'm not aware of any arbitrary restriction on perpetual motion machines.


Exactly. There's no point in restricting what is impossible anyway, such as
same-sex marriage.