Thrown out of an FBO...

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.

Recently, Jose posted:

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!

Then, it's incumbent on you to explain how you could tell "what they
were". One certainly can't tell by looking, but one *can* make assumptions
based on how people look.

I won't even go into the lack of validity of the concept of different
"races" within the human species. In short, I agree with Jay on the nature
of your comparison.

Neil

Then, it's incumbent on you to explain how you could tell "what they
were". One certainly can't tell by looking, but one *can* make assumptions
based on how people look.

I'm not even sure what this means. Mixed race couples would not be
accepted even if they dyed their skin. Same race couples would be
accepted, even if one of them had a deep sun tan.

I won't even go into the lack of validity of the concept of different
"races" within the human species.

It doesn't have to be valid - it merely has to be a way to discriminate,
which it is. And, btw, I am not supporting such bigotry as "They were a
different =race= goddamit!" by posting it, I'm merely pointing out that
at one time, not too long ago, that bigotry did exist.

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.

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?

I wasn't referring specifically to the actions of gay couples -- I was
referring to the fact that we can (as a society) "discriminate" against
people's *actions* as opposed to their appearance. This
"discrimination" is called the "law."

Let's try a rather elaborately silly example to illustrate my point:

If you decide you're going to stick your finger in your nose in a fine
restaurant, and eat whatever you retrieve, you WILL be escorted from
that restaurant, guaranteed.

However, if you have blue eyes, you won't. One is an action, one is an
appearance. They are both harmless to all concerned, but are treated
quite differently.

Why? Because the vast majority of society is offended by people
eating their own snot, but are not offended by blue-colored eyes.

Mind you, I'm not delving into the reasons WHY society finds
nose-picking obnoxious. It doesn't really make much sense, when you
analyze it, and, quite frankly, I don't care. That's just the way it
is.

Now, if you do your nose picking (and eating) in the privacy of your
own home, or amongst like-minded nose-pickers who find that action to
be particularly exciting, all is well. Keep things private, and
consenting adults can do anything they want.

But when you announce to the non-nose-picking world that snot-eaters
should be given equal rights with blue-eyed restaurant patrons in the
eyes of the state, or that loving nose-picking couples should be
granted the same social rights and legal status as blue-eyed married
couples, I suspect you're going to run into a brick wall.

This is the wall of societal norms that homosexual couples face. It's
an uphill battle to surmount, to say the least. Why in the world the
gay community is wasting their hard-won political capital on such a
losing battle is a mystery. It's an unwinnable fight that -- after last
week's elections -- appears to be severely harming their long-term
cause.

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?

Nothing. Where's the argument? Back to flying!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

I wasn't referring specifically to the actions of gay couples -- I was
referring to the fact that we can (as a society) "discriminate" against
people's *actions* as opposed to their appearance. This
"discrimination" is called the "law."

.... and there once were laws against the =action= of blacks sitting in
the front of the bus. Laws are made by people. They are mutable. Many
laws are Bad Laws, and should be changed.

Anyway, just what "actions of gay couples" are you referring to?

Now, if you do your nose picking (and eating) in the privacy of your
own home...

So far I'm with you, but you are about to use faith based reasoning
again. Having blue eyes and picking your nose in public are not
mutually exclusive.

Suppose.... blue eyed people pick their nose too but with their left
hand. Should they be denied entrance to the restaurant? Only if they
do it in public. Suppose brown eyed people pick their nose in private,
but with their right hand, should they be allowed into the restaurant?
Of course they should.

What is happening however is that people realized that blue eyed people
pick their nose with the left hand (that's ok) and brown eyed people
pick their nose with their right hand. So it is against the law for
brown eyed people to go to the restaurant.

But when you announce to the non-nose-picking world that snot-eaters
should be given equal rights with blue-eyed restaurant patrons...

This is the wall of societal norms that homosexual couples face.

Actually, the wall that they face is the presumption in people's minds
that gays are trying to legalize public gay fornication. Your "silly
example" shows that this is your perception, but that just isn't the way
it is. They just want the same legal rights (and no more) as straight
people.

What are the Bad Things you are afraid of?
Nothing. Where's the argument? Back to flying!

Then why do you so =strenuously= object to letting gay people get
married? If there is no harm, why not let them 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 2006-11-14, Jay Honeck wrote:
If you decide you're going to stick your finger in your nose in a fine
restaurant, and eat whatever you retrieve, you WILL be escorted from
that restaurant, guaranteed.

However, if you have blue eyes, you won't. One is an action, one is an
appearance. They are both harmless to all concerned, but are treated
quite differently.

How is the action of a straight couple loving each other any different
from a gay couple loving each other? Gayness or straightness is just an
attribute of who you are, just like, say, having blue eyes or being left
handed. Denying gay marriage makes as much sense as denying left handed
marriage.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

How is the action of a straight couple loving each other any different
from a gay couple loving each other?

They aren't. That's the point I'm trying to make to Jay, who seems to
think that if we allow gays to marry, there will be gay couples having
sex in public on some airliner. (Fortunately, we have the Patriot Act
we can use on them).

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 news:1163539109.157714.99560
@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

Let's try a rather elaborately silly example to illustrate my point:
snip

Your example doesn't work. I don't think gay couples are asking to have the
right to have sex in public.

A better example might be if people who don't wash their hands after they pee
were to ask for the same right to eat in the Fancy Restaurant as those who do
wash their hands after they pee. I have been to plenty of fancy restaurants
and observed people who didn't wash their hands after they peed, and yet they
were not asked to leave the restaurant for their actions, even when there was
a valet in the bathroom as a witness. Personally, I prefer not to eat food
with pee-covered hands, but I certainly don't believe it's my responsibility
to try to prevent other people from eating their own pee if they so choose.
My wife, on the other hand, is more conservative, and finds such action
EXTREMELY disgusting. She would probably look to have someone who didn't wash
his or her hands after peeing ejected from the restaurant.

Nonetheless, the non-hand-washing-after-peeing members of society have not
been refused service for their actions, because those actions are performed
in private.

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 14:53:29 +0000, Judah wrote:
Personally, I prefer not to eat food with pee-covered hands, but I
certainly don't believe it's my responsibility to try to prevent other
people from eating their own pee if they so choose. My wife, on the
other hand, is more conservative, and finds such action EXTREMELY
disgusting. She would probably look to have someone who didn't wash his
or her hands after peeing ejected from the restaurant.

Sounds like your wife needs to understand that it is actually possible to
go to the bathroom without peeing all over your own hands... Oh well, it's
probably just a guy thing... Women wouldn't understand that it is possible
since they can't write their name in the snow...

--
"Is it possible for the voices in my head to use email from now on?"