Thrown out of an FBO...

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.

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".

A specious comparison. Mixed race couples were being judged on their
*appearance*, while same sex couples are being judged by their
*actions*.

It is obvious to anyone (nowadays, anyway) that discriminating against
someone on the basis of their appearance is morally wrong.

It is not obvious to anyone (nowadays, or ever, AFAIK) that
discriminating against someone on the basis of their actions is morally
wrong. That is a very slippery moral slope, indeed, and the two
instances are not on the same philosophical level.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

A specious comparison. Mixed race couples were being judged on their
*appearance*, while same sex couples are being judged by their
*actions*.

Not such a specious comparison. Mixed race couples were not being
judged on their appearance, but rather, on =what= they were. It was
like a man marrying a dog. They were a different =race= goddamit!
Their appearance merely made it hard to hide that fact. And homosexual
couples are not being discrminiated on the basis of their actions, but
rather, on the basis of who they are. Sexual orientation is not a
choice. You didn't choose to like girls, you just did. It's built in
to you just like your race is.

It is obvious to anyone (nowadays, anyway) that discriminating against
someone on the basis of their appearance is morally wrong.

Exactly. "Nowadays, anyway". But back then it was an abomination, a
vile smear on the elegant institution of marriage.

It is not obvious to anyone (nowadays, or ever, AFAIK) that...

That's a pretty sweeping statement. =Anyone=? (it's obvious to me).
=Ever=? (I'd like to see your time machine - I think in the future we
will have accepted gay couples as loving family units just like we
accept mixed race couples the same way). Care to rephrase, or do you
really mean it to be as sweeping as all this?

...discriminating against someone on the basis of their actions...

.... which is not what it's about (see above).

Yes, in general, actions are something we may discriminate based on.
And the =important= actions here are that a loving gay couple is
=loving= That's a Good Thing. It's what we need more of in this world.
They are committed to each other. That is also a Good Thing (and
lacking in many heterosexual married couples). They have proclaimed
this committment for life in front of all. That's a Good Thing (that's
what marriage is about).

I see Good Things. What are the Bad Things you are afraid of?

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.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...
A specious comparison. Mixed race couples were being judged on their
*appearance*, while same sex couples are being judged by their
*actions*.

No, in both cases the couple is judged by the same *combination* of their
actions (namely, the action of being a couple and having sex together) and
their physical characteristics (namely, whether their races or genders match
or not).

--Gary

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.