Leaving the community

"Terry Bolands" wrote in message
om...
"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
. ..

But they can't get married and they can't fly low wing planes. That's
just
they way it is.

It's not "just the way it is". You can feel it is wrong if you want,
but it's not an innate truism that gay people can't get married.

Ahh, but it is a truism if one accept the absolute fact that "marraige" has
been recognized for thousands of years as a religous tenant. We aren't
talking "unions" but marraige. Governemental support of a marraige between
a man and a woman and, thus, protection of the familial unit is supported
and recognized beacause such support has historically contributed to to
overall, long-term survival of governing bodies.

Man+man and woman+woman does NOT a stable family make and does a government
absolutely no good.

This makes it a truism, Terry. You don't have to like it but a rational
person cannot deny it.

To say that "Denying sexually aberrant citizens 'marital' status is akin
to
human rights abuses endured by black Americans" is an affront to my, and
your, intelligence.

Why call it sexually aberrant? I agree, that is an affront to your
intelligence.

"ab·er·rant (br-nt, -br,-)
adj.
1.. Deviating from the proper or expected course.
2.. Deviating from what is normal; untrue to type.
Man+woman - Expected and even proper.
Man+man - Untrue to type

Gay+high wing: Expected and proper.
Straight+low wing: Expected and proper

Woman+Woman - I don't necessarily have a problem with this (marriage or
adoptive rights-wise) but it is still aberrant.

Until the gay population becomes a significant portion of the population,
gay behavior will be considered "abnormal" and "aberrant." You don't have
to like that fact but it is axiomatic.

--
Jim Fisher

In rec.aviation.ifr Jim Fisher wrote:

Ahh, but it is a truism if one accept the absolute fact that "marraige" has
been recognized for thousands of years as a religous tenant.

So True. But arn't we supposed to have a separation of church and state?
If thats the case what's the state doing in the marriage business?

Governemental support of a marraige between
a man and a woman and, thus, protection of the familial unit is supported
and recognized beacause such support has historically contributed to to
overall, long-term survival of governing bodies.

I've heard this arguement before. It usually infers that marriage needs
to be governmentally supported for the protection of the children in the
marriage. If you agree to this, then do you agree that the hetrosexual
couples who can't/won't have children need to have the licenses revoked?

Man+man and woman+woman does NOT a stable family make and does a government
absolutely no good.

Depends upon your definition of stable family.

Its a poor sampling, but right now the divorce rate between legally
married gay couples is a lot less than hetrosexual couples.


--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

Jim Fisher wrote:

Gay+high wing: Expected and proper.
Straight+low wing: Expected and proper

You got this half wrong. Birds are high wing, therefore high wing is
natural and proper. :-)


Matt

"Jim Fisher" wrote
"Terry Bolands" wrote
"Jim Fisher" wrote

But they can't get married and they can't fly low wing
planes. That's just they way it is.

It's not "just the way it is". You can feel it is wrong if
you want, but it's not an innate truism that gay people can't
get married.

Ahh, but it is a truism if one accept the absolute fact that
"marraige" has been recognized for thousands of years as a
religous tenant. We aren't talking "unions" but marraige.

That doesn't make it a truism at all. There are plenty of
non-religious individuals who still believe in the institution of
marriage. Civil servants can perform marriages.

Governemental support of a marraige between a man and a woman
and, thus, protection of the familial unit is supported and
recognized beacause such support has historically contributed
to to overall, long-term survival of governing bodies.

Man+man and woman+woman does NOT a stable family make and does
a government absolutely no good.

You presenting this as a fact, but it is only an opinion.

This makes it a truism, Terry. You don't have to like it but
a rational person cannot deny it.

I disagree. This is a debatable issue, and debatable by fully
rational persons.

Beyond this, doesn't the practice of same-sex marriages in some
European countries prove that it isn't a truism?

I think the line between the religious and civil role is fairly
vague. I, personally, am in favor of same-sex marriage, but I
think I could be in favor a situation in which marriage is soley
a religious rite and civil unions are a, well, civil
distinction. Marriage would only have a religious significance
and civil unions would have legal/financial/etc significance.
Any given religion coud define marriage however they liked, but
any two people could get a civil union.

To say that "Denying sexually aberrant citizens 'marital'
status is akin to human rights abuses endured by black
Americans" is an affront to my, and your, intelligence.

Why call it sexually aberrant? I agree, that is an affront
to your intelligence.

"abeeeeeeerrrrrrrrant (br-nt, -br,-)
adj.
1.. Deviating from the proper or expected course.
2.. Deviating from what is normal; untrue to type.
Man+woman - Expected and even proper.
Man+man - Untrue to type

Gay+high wing: Expected and proper.
Straight+low wing: Expected and proper

Woman+Woman - I don't necessarily have a problem with this
(marriage or adoptive rights-wise) but it is still aberrant.

Until the gay population becomes a significant portion of the
population, gay behavior will be considered "abnormal" and
"aberrant." You don't have to like that fact but it is
axiomatic.

No, it is just different. Calling it aberrant puts the judgment
of 'improper' on it. Your opinions aren't axiomatic, Jim. Most
people in the US used to look on interracial marriage as
aberrant. Opinions have changed...not axiomatic.

tb

Jim Fisher wrote:



Comparing gay folks to "colored" people is just utter bullsquat. If I were
black, I'd smack people who say this upside the face. If you weren't such a
generally nice feller, this honkey would wanna smack you.

Black folks do just that. Look for the vote breakdowns against the gay
marriage bills on the ballot.

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
...
"Cecil Chapman" wrote in message
The gay population has become the new 'coloreds' - get over your
bigotry. Live and let live.

You pushed a button, Cecil. I see this kind of statement repeated with
sickening frequency

Comparing gay folks to "colored" people is just utter bullsquat. If I
were black, I'd smack people who say this upside the face. If you weren't
such a generally nice feller, this honkey would wanna smack you.

Black folks suffered brutally for hundreds of years right here in America.
Many still suffer today from generations of whip-toting, slave-owning,
water-cannon-wielding white folks denying them basic, God given,
Constitutional rights to equal treatment by their representative
government.

Not one should is denying gay folks their constitutional rights to
practice their behavior in private . . . or even in public. They can
vote. They can get elected to office. They can hold powerful positions
in the media and corporate America.

Hell, they can even fly a high wing airplanes.

But they can't get married and they can't fly low wing planes. That's
just they way it is.

To say that "Denying sexually aberrant citizens 'marital' status is akin
to human rights abuses endured by black Americans" is an affront to my,
and your, intelligence.

Bull**** - why shouldn't they have a right to take advantage of "marriage?"
Also, the gays/queers/fags have suffered brutally. They are still routinely
victims of hate crimes. Now, here I am sounding like a liberal, but tht is
not the case. I would never vote for the socialist, I mean democratic
party, but for all love, why this unbending rule against "marriage" for
queers?

Perhaps that analogy is not quite right, but there is no excuse for the
gubment to take moral stands and deny certain status to some citizens that
are routinely granted to others?



--
Jim Fisher

*"Sexually aberrant" is defined as a behavior that is outside the norm.
Homosexuality might become a "normal" behavior in the distant future but
for now it is an aberration, pure and simple.

Richard Hertz wrote:

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
...

"Cecil Chapman" wrote in message
The gay population has become the new 'coloreds' - get over your

bigotry. Live and let live.

You pushed a button, Cecil. I see this kind of statement repeated with
sickening frequency

Comparing gay folks to "colored" people is just utter bullsquat. If I
were black, I'd smack people who say this upside the face. If you weren't
such a generally nice feller, this honkey would wanna smack you.

Black folks suffered brutally for hundreds of years right here in America.
Many still suffer today from generations of whip-toting, slave-owning,
water-cannon-wielding white folks denying them basic, God given,
Constitutional rights to equal treatment by their representative
government.

Not one should is denying gay folks their constitutional rights to
practice their behavior in private . . . or even in public. They can
vote. They can get elected to office. They can hold powerful positions
in the media and corporate America.

Hell, they can even fly a high wing airplanes.

But they can't get married and they can't fly low wing planes. That's
just they way it is.

To say that "Denying sexually aberrant citizens 'marital' status is akin
to human rights abuses endured by black Americans" is an affront to my,
and your, intelligence.


Bull**** - why shouldn't they have a right to take advantage of "marriage?"
Also, the gays/queers/fags have suffered brutally. They are still routinely
victims of hate crimes. Now, here I am sounding like a liberal, but tht is
not the case. I would never vote for the socialist, I mean democratic
party, but for all love, why this unbending rule against "marriage" for
queers?

Perhaps that analogy is not quite right, but there is no excuse for the
gubment to take moral stands and deny certain status to some citizens that
are routinely granted to others?

The government takes moral stands all of the time. A good share of our
laws are based on morality. Things such as not killing your neighbors.


Matt

You pushed a button, Cecil. I see this kind of statement repeated with
sickening frequency

Comparing gay folks to "colored" people is just utter bullsquat. If I
were black, I'd smack people who say this upside the face. If you weren't
such a generally nice feller, this honkey would wanna smack you.

I understand, why. Often when people are confronted with the facts that
their feelings are colored by bigotry of one type or another, their first
impulse is to vehemently deny it.

Black folks suffered brutally for hundreds of years right here in America.
Many still suffer today from generations of whip-toting, slave-owning,
water-cannon-wielding white folks denying them basic, God given,
Constitutional rights to equal treatment by their representative
government.

But they DON"T have equal rights. If their lifetime partner is in the
hospital they have NO legal visiting rights as a spouse would. When their
loved one dies they have NO right to insurance like a 'regular' spouse
would -despite spending decades together as a couple. The list goes on....
This is discrimination Jim and even though they may not be black still makes
it just as wrong and ugly. They don't even have the right to be buried with
their loved one. Sounds like a second class citizen to me, Jim!


Not one should is denying gay folks their constitutional rights to
practice their behavior in private . . . or even in public. They can
vote. They can get elected to office. They can hold powerful positions
in the media and corporate America.

Look above Jim,,,, you REALLY just haven't got a clue.... There are MANY
other rights that they don't have and it all comes from persons like you who
are so afraid that the existence of a gay couple might be a threat to your
sexual orientation or someone else's. Bigotry, Jim,,, not over color, in
your case, but the sexual preference of consenting adults. Why do you give
a flying fish (substitution here) ????? WHAT are you SO afraid of? Your
wife knows you are a straight man - are you afraid that if you agree that
others deserve civil right too, that somehow your sexual orientation will be
questioned? Balderdash!


Hell, they can even fly a high wing airplanes.

But they can't get married and they can't fly low wing planes.

You're right (so far) about the married part, but I know a lesbian couple
who own a Piper Cherokee 140 (definitely a low-wing airplane). Wouldn't you
agree?

That's just
they way it is.

To say that "Denying sexually aberrant citizens 'marital' status is akin
to human rights abuses endured by black Americans" is an affront to my,
and your, intelligence.

Bigotry is such an ugly thing,,,, it really doesn't suit, you, Jim. I
never in my wildest dreams pegged you as a bigot


--
Jim Fisher

*"Sexually aberrant" is defined as a behavior that is outside the norm.
Homosexuality might become a "normal" behavior in the distant future but
for now it is an aberration, pure and simple.

Oral activity (as well as other practices of straight couples) between
consenting heterosexual or homosexual adults still falls under the sodomy
laws of many states to this day, using aberration and 'non-procreative
activity' as the measure.

Here's hoping you have a clue.....

--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL-IA
Student - CP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 04:20:45 GMT, Cecil Chapman wrote:

Oral activity (as well as other practices of straight couples) between
consenting heterosexual or homosexual adults still falls under the sodomy
laws of many states to this day, using aberration and 'non-procreative
activity' as the measure.

Connersville, WI: No man shall shoot of a gun while his female partner is
having a sexual orgasm.
-- http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Part.../shaunlaws.htm

#m
--
Buck Fush!

Oh yeah, I remember photo shoots of Bill Clinton's "hunting trip"
also... in a futile attempt to convince people that he was a "hunter'.


The fact is that the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It
does not enumerate a "right to hunt".

Cecil Chapman wrote:
Guns
He's a hunter, I'm pretty sure they use guns for that (he's not a
bowhunter).