Thrown out of an FBO...

I've come to the sad conclusion that it is impossible to impart what
most of us see as common sense into people who claim to understand the
logic behind the theory of evolution, yet profess to seeing nothing
wrong -- or even unusual -- about sexual practices that by themselves
would guarantee the end of the human race.

That sentence makes no sense. By "by themselves" do you mean "if the
only kind of sex were gay sex, there's be no reproduction"?, or do you
mean "in and of themselves", as in the simple act of engaging in gay sex
will guarantee the end of the human race? If the latter, there is much
evidence to the contrary (gay sex has been around since the beginning of
history, and probably since the beginning of evolution). If the
former, then the same could be said for eating chocolate. (If the only
thing people ate was chocolate, the human race wouldn't last long
either). And eating is just as important as sex.

Therefore, I don't find your statement above to be convincing. It has a
serious error in logic. And to argue that "there's no comparison
between gay sex and eating chocolate" is to say that you really are
reaching your conclusion through reasoning other than what you just
presented.

If they had any sense at all,
they would spend their political capital on
obtaining equal rights for same-sex unions
-- call them whatever youwant, except "marriage"

You seem to be trying to give the impression that you are ok with same
sex unions (let's call them "ssunions") having the same rights as
married heterosexual couples. However, this is an illusion. So long as
private contracts (of which there are millions) have the opportunity to
use the word "marriage" to mean one thing, and ssunion to mean the other
thing (which is the whole point), then those private contracts can
easily deny benefits to ssunions that they grant to marriages, thus
defeating the impression you seem to want to give. Further, the
millions of contracts already written (such as health care contracts and
hospital visitation rights) will retain all the discrimination that
"equal ssunions" is designed to make us believe it eliminates.

Therefore, I believe you are giving lip service to one idea while
actually supporting another. Whether deliberate or not I cannot say.
But this is the reason why "Separate but equal" flies as well with gay
couples as it does for blacks.

No mainstream national politician
can support such a stance...

Perhaps not in the present atmosphere. In that case, just like in the
sixties, the aim is to change the atmosphere.

... the specious claims that these couples
are somehow "married" or "normal".

Whether they are "married" or not is a simple matter of definition.
That can be changed at the stroke of a pen.

Whether or not it is "normal" begs the question of what "normal" means.
If two percent of the population has green toes, is it normal to have
green toes? No. However, it =is= normal for two percent of the
population to have green toes.

It is also quite possible that, while green toes puts an individual at
an evolutionary disadvantage (easier to be seen by predators), having a
population where some people have green toes is an advantage to the
population (by attracting predators they also attract food), and having
a strong population is itself an advantage to all individuals
(protection from predators).

So, your reasoning above is flawed, making use of the emotional baggage
carried by the word "normal" while being very loose in its actual meaning.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

WOW.

I had a girlfriend once who believed pro wrestling was real. Even after they
"came out" as entertainment only. I thought she was the stupidest person
alive for that.

I was wrong.

mike

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
Unfortunately, with liberals around that won't happen.

Jay, if you are still reading these how do you like the turn of
events?

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...........mmmm...wha...HUH ? Oh, right. THIS
thread....

:-)

Actually, Ron, although we are far afield from my original post, I DO
find it fascinating and refreshing to note that there are people out
there (like you, and Jessica, etc.) who are still willing to logically,
point-by-point refute the nonsense and hatred spewed by the "liberal"
(GOD, what a horrible *******ization of a once-wonderful word!)
Hotze/Borchardt/Drescher/Regish clan. I, for one, ran out of energy to
argue with their block-headed stubborness long ago.

I've come to the sad conclusion that it is impossible to impart what
most of us see as common sense into people who claim to understand the
logic behind the theory of evolution, yet profess to seeing nothing
wrong -- or even unusual -- about sexual practices that by themselves
would guarantee the end of the human race.

I hold out little hope for changing anyone that can bend their minds
around such illogic.

Which, by the way, isn't to say I have anything against homosexuality.
I personally don't care if you want to screw pumpkins all night, if you
do it in the privacy of your own home and far, far away from my kids.
But don't even THINK about telling anyone that it's "normal", or that
my children need to be exposed to it.

Quite frankly, I don't understand why the homosexual lobby is wasting
all of their political credibility on the same-sex marriage issue. If
they had any sense at all, they would spend their political capital on
obtaining equal rights for same-sex unions -- call them whatever you
want, except "marriage" -- and drop the politically suicidal tactic of
trying to claim that their relationships are "normal" and should be
called "marriage". No mainstream national politician can support such
a stance, and -- one state a time -- homosexuals are going to find that
their current rights have been stripped away, either through referendum
or by amendment. It's already happening.

Quite frankly, I don't think that most people care if two guys want to
claim ever-lasting love, nor would they care if they were granted all
of the rights that married couples have by law. What they DO care about
is the specious claims that these couples are somehow "married" or
"normal". It's an insult to our intelligence, and the homosexual
lobby is doing far more self-harm than good by pressing this issue to
the breaking point.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

Unfortunately, with liberals around that won't happen.

Jay, if you are still reading these how do you like the turn of
events?

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...........mmmm...wha...HU H? Oh, right. THIS
thread....

:-)

Actually, Ron, although we are far afield from my original post, I DO
find it fascinating and refreshing to note that there are people out
there (like you, and Jessica, etc.) who are still willing to logically,
point-by-point refute the nonsense and hatred spewed by the "liberal"
(GOD, what a horrible *******ization of a once-wonderful word!)
Hotze/Borchardt/Drescher/Regish clan. I, for one, ran out of energy to
argue with their block-headed stubborness long ago.

Jessica is the one who can logically run rings around them. I am just
a bubba who understands that when you reward bad behavior, you get
more of it and that kids need two parents (a man and woman) who teach
them right from wrong and kick their butts when they do wrong things.

Ron Lee

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 04:38:15 +0000, Ron Lee wrote:
I am just a bubba who understands that when you reward bad behavior, you
get more of it and that kids need two parents (a man and woman) who
teach them right from wrong and kick their butts when they do wrong
things.

So, if you have a SSU consisting of two guys and they are raising a kid,
does one of them say to the kid, "Wait until your *other* father gets
home" ???