Leaving the community

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.

Well put, Jim.

Black Americans are not comfortable with this comparison, as you state. In
fact, NPR recently did a piece on the "black vote" and discovered a larger
than ever percentage of blacks voting Republican, precisely because of this
issue.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"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.

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.

tb

"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

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 -

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).

kontiki writes:

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".

If people's concerns about the 2nd amendment _did_ have anything to do
with hunting then Bush would have lost -- Bush is doing a great job at
letting logging and oil companies into wildnerness where they were
previously not allowed, and this tends to reduce the number of
beautiful places where folks can enjoy hunting.

Chris
--
Chris Colohan Email: PGP: finger
Web: www.colohan.com Phone: (412)268-4751

Then sell your car(s) and your airplane... and your snowmobile... boat too.
Lawnmower and chainsaw while you are at it. Of course you won't need
medicine or anything made of plastic either.

Sell it all and move to the wilderness in a tent and live totally off the
land then I might take your rant seriously. Most American voters felt that
Kerry's campaign speeches (Vs. his actions and lifestyle) demostrated the
same level hypocracy.

Christopher Brian Colohan wrote:
If people's concerns about the 2nd amendment _did_ have anything to do
with hunting then Bush would have lost -- Bush is doing a great job at
letting logging and oil companies into wildnerness where they were
previously not allowed, and this tends to reduce the number of
beautiful places where folks can enjoy hunting.

Chris