Thrown out of an FBO...

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
[...]
Contrary to your argument, a moment's reflection shows that the
desirability or normalcy of a particular status has *nothing to do* with
the desirability of *everyone* having that status. You're making a
spectacularly naive and silly attempt to invoke the categorical-imperative
principle. [...]

Yet another gap in his "reasoning" is the failure to recognize that
evolution has given us a number of seemingly counter-productive attributes
that, when viewed in a broader context, turn out to indeed have a net
positive gain as far as survival of the species goes.

A well-known example is the gene that causes sickle-cell anemia. The reason
this gene has done so well under the process of evolution is that the
majority of people with the same gene wind up having a certain level of
defense against malaria. The net effect to the species is one that enhances
survival, even if in some individuals it hinders reproduction.

I think it's entirely likely something similar may be found with respect to
homosexuality. Not that failure to find such a thing would change my views
on it, but to argue that homosexuality is somehow contrary to evolution is
overly simplistic thinking at its worst. The mere fact that it exists, and
in such relative prevalence (as genetic "defects" go, it's pretty
common...and I do use that word "defect" very loosely), strongly suggests
that in the greater scheme of things, homosexuality is important for the
greater good in some way.

Nevertheless, it's my opinion that you are wasting your time trying to point
any of this out, especially here. Jay in particular has NEVER admitted to
an error, never mind has he ever changed his mind on anything important.
This is the wrong forum for this kind of debate anyway, but it's especially
pointless in the context of people who have minds so closed, they can't even
get a word in edge-wise when no one's talking.

That said, every time someone like Jay or Ron go around spouting strong
words against homosexuality, I just remember the recent study that looked at
sexual arousal (measured by penis engorgement) in human males when shown
homosexual images. The men who voiced the strongest opinions against
homosexuality showed the greatest degree of arousal. Clearly, "methinks he
doth protest too much" applies here.

Pete

I think it's entirely likely something similar may be found with respect to
homosexuality. Not that failure to find such a thing would change my views
on it, but to argue that homosexuality is somehow contrary to evolution is
overly simplistic thinking at its worst. The mere fact that it exists, and
in such relative prevalence (as genetic "defects" go, it's pretty
common...and I do use that word "defect" very loosely), strongly suggests
that in the greater scheme of things, homosexuality is important for the
greater good in some way.

That's an interesting theory, and it's one that I've considered.
Homosexuality seems to exist throughout nature, in varying numbers, in
almost every species, so it appears to have some sort of evolutionary
advantage. Logically, there must be a reason, or it would cease to
exist, right?

Maybe not. There are evolutionary processes going on around us all the
time. There are also evolutionary processes that we, as humans, have
done our best to counter. Poor eye sight, for example, has been pretty
well eliminated as a reason to die -- therefore, more and more humans
are being born that need glasses.

(I, for one, have benefitted greatly from this turn of events. 5000
years ago, I would have died before my 20th birthday, long before I had
the opportunity to reproduce, simply because I've needed eye glasses
since 5th grade.)

IMHO, homosexuality is probably more akin to poor eyesight than it is
to any evolutionary *advantage*. We have simply learned to exist with
it, for no apparent evolutionary reason.

Which, again, is not to say I've got anything AGAINST homosexuality.
You continue to make this into a gay-bashing thing, Pete, and it's not.
I don't think any God is going to send homosexuals to any "hell", and
I don't think that homosexuals should be discriminated against because
of their orientation. I simply don't CARE. Homosexuality is an
evolutionary dead end, an accident of nature, no different than any
problem or trait any of us may inherit or face, and gay folks should be
left to do whatever they want, unhindered, in the privacy of their own
homes.

In discussions with friends about this issue, this "live and let live"
attitude towards gays seems to prevail, at least amongst my fellow
baby-boomers. No one hates gays, no one wants to harm them in any way.


Why, then, has this become such a problem for homosexuals? There seems
to be a deep-seated (seemingly self-destructive) urge for gays to
vocalize the "marriage" issue on the political stage, and I truly
believe that they would be advancing their agenda more effectively if
they concentrated on equal rights, not equal labels.

But enough of this! How in the heck we went from FBO courtesy to THIS
is beyond me.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Maybe not. There are evolutionary processes going on around us all the
time. There are also evolutionary processes that we, as humans, have
done our best to counter. Poor eye sight, for example, has been pretty
well eliminated as a reason to die -- therefore, more and more humans
are being born that need glasses.

Evolution is a fairly long time frame process. Eyeglasses have been
available for only a handful of generations. This is not enough to make
a significant impact on the gene pool.

IMHO, homosexuality is probably more akin to poor eyesight than it is
to any evolutionary *advantage*.

What do you base this HO on?

Why, then, has this become such a problem for homosexuals?

For one thing, gay partners are not allowed certain visitation rights in
hospitals, as they are not family. This kind of irks them.

concentrated on equal rights, not equal labels.

But labels confer rights, or remove them. Thus, labels are important.

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.

Why, then, has this become such a problem for homosexuals?

For one thing, gay partners are not allowed certain visitation rights in
hospitals, as they are not family. This kind of irks them.

Then that's a problem that needs to be addressed. Come up with a new
family term to describe their relationship (I kinda like "shariage"),
give them the rights of family members, and move on.

But labels confer rights, or remove them. Thus, labels are important.

Unfortunately, the label they're trying to usurp has already been
taken. Come up with a new one, and move on.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Then that's a problem that needs to be addressed. Come up with a new
family term to describe their relationship (I kinda like "shariage"),
give them the rights of family members, and move on.

That would have to be done hospital by hospital, and would require board
meetings, bylaws changes, and this very kind of acrimonious discussion
would occur in a hundred little fiefdoms. It would be stalled in
committee, half the hospitals won't do it, and meanwhile, many people's
loved ones would die alone. And that is just for this one issue. There
are many like that, including real estate purchase and rental, travel
arrangements, represntation, everything for which family members are
already treated differently.

But labels confer rights, or remove them. Thus, labels are important.
Unfortunately, the label they're trying to usurp has already been
taken. Come up with a new one, and move on.

It is the =fact= that is has "already been taken" that confers the
rights. The label is =already= used in contracts and law all over the
country. By allowing the use of this label, ssunions will be
=automatically= recognized as a family unit. This is not possible when
inventing a new label.

That's the whole point.

Now, I ask you... what are you so afraid of? What calamity would befall
you, or civilization, if we expanded the label "marriage" to include
ssunions? Would you and Mary get divorced? Would your children all of
a sudden "turn gay"? Would people start hugging each other instead of
rightously killing each other?

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.

Then that's a problem that needs to be addressed. Come up with a new
family term to describe their relationship (I kinda like "shariage"),
give them the rights of family members, and move on.

That would have to be done hospital by hospital, and would require board
meetings, bylaws changes, and this very kind of acrimonious discussion
would occur in a hundred little fiefdoms.

So do it at the federal level -- problem solved. All you have to do is
convince the government of the US that "shariage" is the same-sex
equivalent of "marriage", with all the same legal rights and
privileges.

While this would be an arduous task, no doubt, in the long run it has
more chance of success than convincing the people, courts and
legislatures that same-sex couples are "married". As the results of
our recent election proved -- an election in which the Left was
overwhelmingly supported, yet same sex marriage proposals were defeated
across the country -- that dog don't hunt.

Now, I ask you... what are you so afraid of? What calamity would befall
you, or civilization, if we expanded the label "marriage" to include
ssunions? Would you and Mary get divorced? Would your children all of
a sudden "turn gay"? Would people start hugging each other instead of
rightously killing each other?

It would have no impact on me at all, any more than changing the word
for "breakfast" to "hotel" would.

One thing you apparently haven't realized: I'm not saying that I
personally care about this issue -- I'm saying it doesn't make any
sense.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

So do it at the federal level -- problem solved. All you have to do is
convince the government of the US that "shariage" is the same-sex
equivalent of "marriage", with all the same legal rights and
privileges.

If I run a hotel that grants pilots a 20% room discount, r.a.p
participants an additional 10% discount, and married couples a 30%
discount plus a free airplane flight, I am fully within my rights to
charge a non-pilot, non-poster, sharaged couple the full price and deny
them an airplane flight, no matter what the US government says.

And I don't even know if "convincing the the government of the US that
'shariage' is the same-sex equivalent of 'marriage'" means anything.
The government can grant priviliages for itself, but not for me. It
can't force me to give a discount to boaters if I also give a discount
to pilots.

The same could be said for mixed race marriages... maybe they should
have been called "joinages", to distinguish them from normal, healthy,
same race unions which will produce normal, healthy, same race children.
I don't think those that engaged in "joinages" would have found that
they actually had the "same rights and priviliages".

It would have no impact on me at all, any more than changing the word
for "breakfast" to "hotel" would.

Then why are you so worked up over it? Let them use the label, and move on.

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.

On 14 Nov 2006 07:20:26 -0800, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

Why, then, has this become such a problem for homosexuals?

For one thing, gay partners are not allowed certain visitation rights in
hospitals, as they are not family. This kind of irks them.

Then that's a problem that needs to be addressed. Come up with a new
family term to describe their relationship (I kinda like "shariage"),
give them the rights of family members, and move on.

But labels confer rights, or remove them. Thus, labels are important.

Unfortunately, the label they're trying to usurp has already been
taken. Come up with a new one, and move on.
--

There is a Libertarian solution to the problem.

That is to allow civil unions for any consenting adult couple which
provide those legal privileges and responsibilities currently attached
to marriage. Other than that, government has no function relating to
marriage.

Get your civil union registered at the courthouse, get married in
front of your church, family, friends, or bowling league, whatever
community will provide the emotional and social support for your
marriage.

Separation of marriage and state and all that.

Don

There is a Libertarian solution to the problem.

That is to allow civil unions for any consenting adult couple which
provide those legal privileges and responsibilities currently attached
to marriage.

That only works if all the other parties (that is, everyone who deals
differently with married couples) agree, every time.

So long as different words are used, it's still easy to discriminate.

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.

"Don Tabor" wrote in message
...
That is to allow civil unions for any consenting adult couple which
provide those legal privileges and responsibilities currently attached
to marriage. Other than that, government has no function relating to
marriage.

Get your civil union registered at the courthouse, get married in
front of your church, family, friends, or bowling league, whatever
community will provide the emotional and social support for your
marriage.

Separation of marriage and state and all that.

Yes, that would be a reasonable solution. Let the government provide civil
unions, and let churches or whatever sanctify marriages according to
whatever criteria they want to use. (To this day, there are still some
churches that refuse to sanctify interracial marriages. Although their
policy is morally reprehensible, it is unassailably protected as part of
their free-speech rights, and properly so, since a religious sanctification
constitutes nothing but an expression of belief.)

But as long as the government does presume to certify "marriages", they
should do so without regard to the race or gender of the participants.

--Gary