About those anti-aviatoin newsgroups

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 16:42:34 GMT, "Gary L. Drescher"
wrote:

Yes, it says they'll give a
child a chance to reconsider if he comes out as being gay (they'd encourage
the boy to "seek counsel" to verify that he'd made a "mature decision"),

Just as a point of order, I'd like to point out that "seek counsel" is
far and away not the same as "seek counseling" in the clinical sense.

Rob

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 21:22:48 GMT, "Gary L. Drescher"
wrote:

Would you object if gay groups that have a no straights policy were
allowed
to use the schools for free?

CJ, you cannot cite a single documented instance of that ever occurring.

Can't you? Takes the form of academic clubs, most places, IIRC.

Rob

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:48:09 GMT, "Maule Driver"
wrote:

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:bUp0b.200383$Ho3.26912@sccrnsc03...
This has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that (snip) sexual attraction is
potentially and demonstrably harmful -- especially in groups of pre-teen
boys (and girls).

Sexual attraction is as natural as rain.

Don't recall being taught that "natural" is the antonym to "harmful".

Rob

"Robert Perkins" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 21:22:48 GMT, "Gary L. Drescher"
wrote:

Would you object if gay groups that have a no straights policy were
allowed
to use the schools for free?

CJ, you cannot cite a single documented instance of that ever occurring.

Can't you? Takes the form of academic clubs, most places, IIRC.

Academic clubs that exclude heterosexuals and meet in public schools?

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:30:04 -0400, Margy Natalie
wrote:

Because pedophilia isn't necessarily related to gender. Male pedophiles who
prey on little boys might be straight when it comes to normal sex.

Um, male pedophiles who prey on little boys, and are "straight"
otherwise, are "bisexuals", aren't they?

I think y'all are splitting hairs, there.

Rob

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:44:32 GMT, "Gary L. Drescher"
wrote:

but rather because they claim that *all
atheists and gays are bad role models*.

When one of the roles the BSA claims to teach is that of a pious
heterosexual, then by definition, and without impugning *anyone's*
character, they are.

Rob

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 23:58:05 GMT, "Gary L. Drescher"
wrote:

In the same way, if the central activity of the Boy Scouts were to get
together and worship deities, then their exclusion of atheists would be
morally unobjectionable.

Then, Gary, it is morally unobjectionable: "On my honor I promise to
do my duty to God..." is the *oath* of a Scout. Likewise, "to keep
myself...morally straight" is also just as much a part of that oath.

By that reasoning, standing alone, no one should object to the Boy
Scouts. People don't seem to understand that the knot-tying, service
projects, and merit badges are an expression of that oath, the
*means*, not the end.

Rob

"Robert Perkins" wrote in message
...
Um, male pedophiles who prey on little boys, and are "straight"
otherwise, are "bisexuals", aren't they?

No, they are not. They are pedophiles. If you ask a male who is attracted
to boys as well as adult women what his sexual orientation is, do you really
think his answer is going to be "bisexual"?

Pete

"Robert Perkins" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 14:28:46 GMT, "Gary L. Drescher"
wrote:
Yes, yes, the poll was "scientific", indicating the opinion of a
larger population of people within a margin of error. But, the
question itself was not carefully phrased, makes tacit some
assumptions, such as the notion that marriage is a right,

No, I don't see that the question makes any such assumption.

Here it is again: "Would you favor or oppose a law that would
allow homosexual couples to marry, giving them the same
legal rights as other married couples?"

There's no mention of marriage as a "right" for *anyone*. The question asks
about *allowing* people to marry, and refers to the "legal rights" that are
*conferred by* marriage, not the right *to* marriage. (The reference to
"the same legal rights" just clarifies that the poll is asking about full
marriage status for same-gender couples, rather than some watered-down
version.)

--Gary

The conversation is about not about children and consent,

Unless I'm completely daft, the term "boy" (as in "Boy Scouts") refers to
children, of the male persuasion.

More at issue is the apparent fear that accepting homosexuality as
completely normal, sanctioning gay relationships by recognizing them as
morally and socially indistinguishable from heterosexual relationships,
and
accepting those openly gay as legitimate models for children in roles such
as teachers, clergy, coaches, scout leaders, etc will somehow expose
children to assult and/or will persuade them to abandon their straight
sexual orientation and become gay themselves.

You continually (and conveniently) avoid the fact that homosexuality is not
"completely normal", any more than a host of other sexual fetishes are
"normal". However, as with most of these peculiar aberrations,
homosexuality is mostly a harmless (if somewhat bizarre) quirk of nature,
and I certainly don't advocate persecution of homosexuals. In fact, quite
frankly I suspect most people don't care who you want to have sex with, and
you're more than welcome to practice your lifestyle.

But this benign tolerance does not translate into allowing you chaperone my
son on a camping trip, nor should you expect to be viewed as a "role model"
for our youth.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"