If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"John Gaquin" wrote in message
... "Gary L. Drescher" wrote in message news:tAN% ...if blacks or Jews were excluded by law from marrying or from serving openly in the military, Two entirely separate issues. If we awoke tomorrow morning and the entire world population were Black, or the entire world population were Jewish, lots of people would be "____________" (fill in your own response). But ultimately, the world would carry on. If, on the other hand, we awoke tomorrow morning and the entire world population were homosexual, in the routine course of events the human race would cease to exist within one to two centuries. First of all, that's not at all true. Gay people frequently reproduce (either the old-fashioned way, or by less intimate techniques), and would presumably do so a lot more if everyone woke up gay tomorrow. People would not stop reproducing, although *unintended* reproduction would certainly plummit. Reproduction as an accidental side-effect of sexual desire is a survival-necessity only for a species that can't figure out where babies come from. If all *chipmunks* were gay, their species would indeed be in trouble; but humans could do fine. Secondly, even if (contrary to fact) it were true that universal homosexuality would lead to human extinction, how would that bear even remotely on the question of equal rights before the law back here in reality? By analogy, if everyone were sterile, then humanity would soon be extinct; but people who are sterile (whether voluntarily or involuntarily) are not (and should not be) denied equal access to marriage or to the military. Therein lies the crux of the issue that makes it such a thorny one to debate. You'll have to state the problem more explicitly; it's eluding me completely. It almost sounds like you're afraid that there's such a strong natural preference for being gay that unless it's held in check by legal barriers to equality, everyone will become gay and stop reproducing. Look, when some men have vascetomies, you don't worry about what would happen to the human race if *every* male had a vasectomy. Why, similarly, is there any reason to be concerned about what would happen if everyone became gay? There's not the remotest chance of everyone doing either thing, so what on earth does either imaginary scenario have to do with legal rights in the real world? And the more difficult and crucial the issue of debate, the more important it is that language be used accurately and impartially, insofar as possible. I concur. But we differ as to what usage is in fact acurrate. I'm using the terms "rights" and "anti-" with regard to gays exactly as those terms are used in reference to all other groups. I submit that you are the one who is redefining the terms in unusual ways. I disagree. Rights are one thing, benefits another. Over the last thirty years or so many groups have succeeded in turning certain government benefits into perceived "rights", but the fact is that most people realize what a base canard that really is. You have not yet explained why excluding blacks and Jews from marriage or the military would be anti-black and anti-Jewish, and a denial of their rights, yet excluding gays from those institutions is supposedly not anti-gay, nor a violation of their rights. You cited a purported difference having to do with a bizarre imaginary scenario, but so far you've offered no explanation as to how that difference bears in any way on rights, or on the "anti-" prefix, or on any other aspect of the real world. --Gary JG |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ... "Homophobe" may well be overused, but I'm not clear on how else one would describe anyone who is so afraid of someone else's sexual preference that they see a need to explicitly deny that person the same rights they themselves enjoy. What right is denied to homosexuals? |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"John Gaquin" wrote in message
... [...] If, on the other hand, we awoke tomorrow morning and the entire world population were homosexual, in the routine course of events the human race would cease to exist within one to two centuries. Therein lies the crux of the issue that makes it such a thorny one to debate. So I suppose you believe that no one that is unable to reproduce should be allowed to marry? Marriage is a benefit that should be granted only to those people who are creating new humans themselves? You may well hold that belief, but IMHO sexual reproduction is a red herring and irrelevant to the question of marriage rights. Pete |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Gary & Peter.... You both make my point for me, and quite well, thank you very much. I took no position as to whether homosexuals ought or ought not be granted the benefits of legally sanctioned marriage, or military membership, or any other position. I offered an opinion and explanation as to why I see this issue as one so difficult and convolute as to warrant a most careful and accurate use of language. You both impute to me opinions and positions I did not state, thus demonstrating and supporting my premise in far better fashion than could any continued debate. Q.E.D. JG |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"John Gaquin" wrote in message
... Gary & Peter.... You both make my point for me, and quite well, thank you very much. I took no position as to whether homosexuals ought or ought not be granted the benefits of legally sanctioned marriage, or military membership, or any other position. I offered an opinion and explanation as to why I see this issue as one so difficult and convolute as to warrant a most careful and accurate use of language. You both impute to me opinions and positions I did not state, thus demonstrating and supporting my premise in far better fashion than could any continued debate. Q.E.D. John, I did not impute to you any position as to the merits of exculding gays from marriage or the military. All I attributed to you was the position that the existing exclusions are not anti-gay, and are not a violation of the rights of gay people. And I explained why I think that position is mistaken. If the position I attributed to you is not actually what you meant to express, then I am honestly baffled as to what you intended. --Gary JG |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"John Gaquin" wrote in message
... [...] You both impute to me opinions and positions I did not state, thus demonstrating and supporting my premise in far better fashion than could any continued debate. Q.E.D. You claim that the lack of reproduction success of homosexuals (iffy at best anyway, as Gary points out) is "the crux of the issue". I pointed out how it has nothing to do with the issue. As far as imputing an opinion to you goes, the closest I came was to say "you may well hold that belief". It is up to you to verify or refute that, but I in no way implied that I actually knew what your position is. Pete |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 16:11:01 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote: What, pray tell, would a non-phobic reason be for supporting such a bill? Spite? General orneryness? Heartfelt religious conviction. Seperately, a desire not to change a multicultural, multimillenial institution based on only a few years of call for change. Also seperately, but in part, a desire not to have the Federal government involved or complicit in State affairs. A few other reasons. Spite doesn't enter into any of it for huge segments of the population. But your own apparant (apparant!) failure to come up with any motivation other than malice for it really does suggest you haven't listened at all to the reasons offered with any kind of open mind. However, they obviously must feel threatened in some way, to feel that they need to regulate another person's behavior even when that behavior has no effect on them. ....which is just the kind of demagoguery in evidence wherever the epithet "homophobe" is tossed out. Can you prove that all the people who oppose redefining "marriage" have fear of other real people at the core of why they oppose it? Or do you merely buy a 35-year-old party line that traditional moralities must a priori be discarded? Rob, who supports a limited domestic partnership law |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Robert Perkins" wrote in message
... Heartfelt religious conviction. Last I checked, separation of church and state was still the theoretical policy in the US. I don't find religious conviction to be a valid motivation for lawmaking and in any case, the religiously convicted fall smack in the "homophobe" camp. It's exactly this kind of imposition of one person's morality on someone else, this intolerance of someone who's different, that is so objectionable. Where religious conviction parallels a genuine need to protect the rights of someone, I have no problem with a law that mirrors religious conviction. But laws against gay marriages protect no one, and only serve to oppress a minority. Seperately, a desire not to change a multicultural, multimillenial institution based on only a few years of call for change. Ahh...the old "change is bad" philosophy. I've yet to hear of anyone supporting these "no gay marriage" bills for whom that's their reason. Please, show me someone whose reasoning is based on that. More interestingly, show me a single person involved in pushing for these bills (i.e. not just someone saying "yeah, it's a good idea...I'd vote for it") whose reasoning is based on that. Also seperately, but in part, a desire not to have the Federal government involved or complicit in State affairs. How does a state bill accomplish that? The federal government can override the state rules before or after such a state bill is passed. A few other reasons. Such as? None of the reasons you've given so far in any way undermine your coworkers initial assessment of "homophobe" for the folks supporting the bill. It is a demonstrably fair generalization, even if a handful of exceptions exist. [...] But your own apparant (apparant!) failure to come up with any motivation other than malice for it really does suggest you haven't listened at all to the reasons offered with any kind of open mind. I have listened to every reason offered to me, and they all boil down to basic intolerance of people who are different. I haven't attributed any motivation to malice...I was just trying to figure out what reasons other than intolerance you might have been referring to when I suggested malicious intent. ...which is just the kind of demagoguery in evidence wherever the epithet "homophobe" is tossed out. Can you prove that all the people who oppose redefining "marriage" have fear of other real people at the core of why they oppose it? As I said before, the "-phobe" suffix isn't being used literally. But as far as the actual usage of "homophobe" goes, yes...you need look no further than the groups involved in writing and supporting these bills. They are all actively anti-gay. Or do you merely buy a 35-year-old party line that traditional moralities must a priori be discarded? I have no idea what that means. I don't find intolerance to be a traditional morality. It's simply a natural human flaw, and one we ought to be trying to rise above. I certainly do not feel that traditional moralities must a priori be discarded, and I have no idea why you would suggest such an inane idea. Pete |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
I've never heard any so-called "activist" use homophobe as a synonym for
"not homosexual." I have heard it used to refer to heterosexual people who have a negative reaction to those around them who ARE homosexual or who oppose to the total acceptance of homosexuality as being just as normal, just as valid, just as moral, just as legitmate, as is being straight and I think there is a strong case to be made for that as being the explanation for their emotional reaction to homosexuals. There is a vast sifference between someone saying "I am heterosexual" and saying "Homosexuals and homosexual acts disgust me and I don't want them around me or to have my children exposed to the idea they are normal." All too often, I suspect, opposition to gays in the workplace, gays expressing affection in public, gays in the miltary, gays in schools and scouting, gay marriage, etc stems from a deep set and totally illogical expression of the latter feeling. Why anyone would care what someone else's sex, love, and relationship styles may be is beyond me. We don't morally condemn people for having differing tastes is food, music, art, or hobbies - why should some people should be viewed with even the slightest bit of negativity for having a minority sexual reaction patterns that differ from our own tastes? From any sensible moral and social perspective, the difference between the homosexual and heterosexual lifestyles is on a par with the difference in liking chocolate versus vanilla ice cream and it shouldn't be considered any more of a measure of the person's qualities and character than is that. IMHO, it is a fact that homosexuality or bisexuality is just as moral and valid a life pattern as is heterosexuality in every respect and any opposition to its complete and total acceptance as such by society is prima facie evidence of homophobia on the part of those who reject it. You don't need to be homosexual in order to completely accept the presence and social participation of homosexuals in all aspects of society without reservation. "C J Campbell" wrote in message ... "Peter Duniho" wrote in message ... | "C J Campbell" wrote in message | ... | rec.scouting.usa, for example, has been completely hijacked by | heterophobes | | Heterophobes? Somehow, I doubt that. Sounds like a term made up by | homophobes. | | Heterophobe is intended to be a response to the defamatory and over-used term homophobe. I doubt that there are any homophobes, but too many activists use the term to describe anyone who is not a homosexual. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stupid Question About Newsgroups | RST Engineering | General Aviation | 1 | January 17th 05 05:59 PM |
Re; What do you think? | Kelsibutt | Naval Aviation | 0 | September 29th 03 06:55 AM |
Newsgroups and Email | Jim Weir | Home Built | 8 | July 8th 03 11:30 PM |
Newsgroups and Email | Jim Weir | Owning | 8 | July 8th 03 11:30 PM |